Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D is a Team Sport. What are the positions?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 9178036" data-attributes="member: 29398"><p>Where I expect "It's what the character would do" to be the primary motivator behind everyone's play. You're playing the character, so have it do what it would do rather than what you would do.</p><p></p><p>I also don't demand or even expect them to function as a team all the time, and sometimes they don't even some of the time. I don't expect the characters to get along with each other -whether they do or not is entirely up to the players.</p><p></p><p>That "collectively" is made up of individuals, and it's individuals that I'd like to design for. Do that well, and the collective will either take care of itself or it won't, and it won't matter either way.</p><p></p><p>On some of it, yes. I don't see the avoidance of (what you see as) tedium to be as big a motivator as you seem to.</p><p></p><p>Curious: how can one do that and yet preserve the individuality of both players and characters? Put another way, how can that powergaming team player (as per the bolded) do his thing without in effect dragging the rest of the players/characters along for the ride, and thus preventing them from doing their own things?</p><p></p><p>1e tried rewarding "good roleplaying" with its as-written training rules. Really bad idea, in that it was completely dependent on DM judgment and thus made it nearly impossible for the DM to maintain any appearance of not playing favourites. I don't know of any tables that used that rule as written.</p><p></p><p>Thing is, some players' ambitions involve their character being better than the rest - sure they're on a team but they want to be the star of that team - and when several such players are in the same game cooperation and teamwork can quickly go flying out the window. Provided people keep it all firmly in character, the results can be highly entertaining and amusing for all.</p><p></p><p>A Scout would combine the stealth, movement, and observation capabilities from the Rogue and Ranger but eschew the thievery, lockpicking, and woodland pieces those other classes get. It would be the best class at noticing things, and at remembering what it had seen. For combat, it would be a ranged sniper.</p><p></p><p>A Swashbuckler would be a "light Fighter", getting all the Fighter-y combat benefits that the Rogue doesn't get without having to tank up in heavy armour. All offense, not much defense, but still a sub-Fighter rather than a sub-Rogue.</p><p></p><p>A War Cleric dials that up to ten (a Paladin takes it to eleven). Its battle-oriented spells are enhanced and it uses a better combat matrix but its cures are relatively poor and its divniations are cut back unless they relate to combat (e.g. in place of Detect Good/Evil they get Detect Enemies). But it's still a Cleric, without all the baggage of a Paladin.</p><p></p><p>We;'ve had War Clerics in our games for over 40 years. So far so good. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>The existence of ranged healing pains me. It takes in-combat healing - which should be next to impossible even with the caster taking extreme risk - and makes it trivially easy.</p><p></p><p>The existence of healing that is neither natural (i.e. what you get from resting) nor magical (i.e. from a divine spell) pains me. 4e (and 5e) already have IMO ridiculously-too-fast natural healing, and that non-divine types can heal not only destroys the Cleric's niche but serves to makes healing way too easily available. (I don't like Bards being able to heal either)</p><p></p><p>That the Warlord does both at once: ouch. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 9178036, member: 29398"] Where I expect "It's what the character would do" to be the primary motivator behind everyone's play. You're playing the character, so have it do what it would do rather than what you would do. I also don't demand or even expect them to function as a team all the time, and sometimes they don't even some of the time. I don't expect the characters to get along with each other -whether they do or not is entirely up to the players. That "collectively" is made up of individuals, and it's individuals that I'd like to design for. Do that well, and the collective will either take care of itself or it won't, and it won't matter either way. On some of it, yes. I don't see the avoidance of (what you see as) tedium to be as big a motivator as you seem to. Curious: how can one do that and yet preserve the individuality of both players and characters? Put another way, how can that powergaming team player (as per the bolded) do his thing without in effect dragging the rest of the players/characters along for the ride, and thus preventing them from doing their own things? 1e tried rewarding "good roleplaying" with its as-written training rules. Really bad idea, in that it was completely dependent on DM judgment and thus made it nearly impossible for the DM to maintain any appearance of not playing favourites. I don't know of any tables that used that rule as written. Thing is, some players' ambitions involve their character being better than the rest - sure they're on a team but they want to be the star of that team - and when several such players are in the same game cooperation and teamwork can quickly go flying out the window. Provided people keep it all firmly in character, the results can be highly entertaining and amusing for all. A Scout would combine the stealth, movement, and observation capabilities from the Rogue and Ranger but eschew the thievery, lockpicking, and woodland pieces those other classes get. It would be the best class at noticing things, and at remembering what it had seen. For combat, it would be a ranged sniper. A Swashbuckler would be a "light Fighter", getting all the Fighter-y combat benefits that the Rogue doesn't get without having to tank up in heavy armour. All offense, not much defense, but still a sub-Fighter rather than a sub-Rogue. A War Cleric dials that up to ten (a Paladin takes it to eleven). Its battle-oriented spells are enhanced and it uses a better combat matrix but its cures are relatively poor and its divniations are cut back unless they relate to combat (e.g. in place of Detect Good/Evil they get Detect Enemies). But it's still a Cleric, without all the baggage of a Paladin. We;'ve had War Clerics in our games for over 40 years. So far so good. :) The existence of ranged healing pains me. It takes in-combat healing - which should be next to impossible even with the caster taking extreme risk - and makes it trivially easy. The existence of healing that is neither natural (i.e. what you get from resting) nor magical (i.e. from a divine spell) pains me. 4e (and 5e) already have IMO ridiculously-too-fast natural healing, and that non-divine types can heal not only destroys the Cleric's niche but serves to makes healing way too easily available. (I don't like Bards being able to heal either) That the Warlord does both at once: ouch. :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D is a Team Sport. What are the positions?
Top