Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D podcast!
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="Nemesis Destiny" data-source="post: 6099354" data-attributes="member: 98255"><p>Likewise, you haven't really explained anything to me about your point of view that resonates any more than "this is the way they're doing it, and I agree with them."</p><p></p><p>First of all, I'm not arguing with you. I already stated that I'm not trying to win you (or anyone else) over. I just don't care that much what individuals who aren't designing the game actually think.</p><p></p><p>Second, that's not the direction that I'm coming from. My position is more like "Warlords shouldn't necessarily be able to do what Fighters do" because I don't think they're in the same class, nor do I think that they share a whole lot of design space overlap. I think that there are some things that both those classes do and should do that neither should be able to replicate without multiclassing, for the same reasons that I don't want Wizards or other spellcasters to be able to poach a Warlord's abilities.</p><p></p><p>Further, a Fighter in Next gets bonuses to Str, Con, or Dex, none of which really help a Warlord-ish build much; if they could take a bonus to Int or Cha, then maybe that would be a step toward embracing the idea, but even if they did, I would still prefer they get their own class. That seems to me like asking the Fighter chassis to do too much; it's just not focused enough at that point.</p><p></p><p>Fine. I disagree.</p><p></p><p>It's not about what you call it. It's more about the fact that, as I pointed out, the Fighter does not actually favor Int or Cha at all, and is thus a subpar option right out the gate.</p><p></p><p>This is an entirely different ball of wax, but is also one which I don't agree with. A Warlord's abilities would be better represented by things that have the potency of spells, and if they're rolled into a Fighter chassis, Mr.-At-will-because-verisimilitude, they by definition can't do what I expect a Warlord to be able to do.</p><p></p><p>I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this, and I don't particularly care about that. What I do care about is whether or not my interests are being carried forward into the next edition of the game. So far, I am not seeing a lot of that happening, which is also fine. It also means I don't care about the next edition of the game.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Nemesis Destiny, post: 6099354, member: 98255"] Likewise, you haven't really explained anything to me about your point of view that resonates any more than "this is the way they're doing it, and I agree with them." First of all, I'm not arguing with you. I already stated that I'm not trying to win you (or anyone else) over. I just don't care that much what individuals who aren't designing the game actually think. Second, that's not the direction that I'm coming from. My position is more like "Warlords shouldn't necessarily be able to do what Fighters do" because I don't think they're in the same class, nor do I think that they share a whole lot of design space overlap. I think that there are some things that both those classes do and should do that neither should be able to replicate without multiclassing, for the same reasons that I don't want Wizards or other spellcasters to be able to poach a Warlord's abilities. Further, a Fighter in Next gets bonuses to Str, Con, or Dex, none of which really help a Warlord-ish build much; if they could take a bonus to Int or Cha, then maybe that would be a step toward embracing the idea, but even if they did, I would still prefer they get their own class. That seems to me like asking the Fighter chassis to do too much; it's just not focused enough at that point. Fine. I disagree. It's not about what you call it. It's more about the fact that, as I pointed out, the Fighter does not actually favor Int or Cha at all, and is thus a subpar option right out the gate. This is an entirely different ball of wax, but is also one which I don't agree with. A Warlord's abilities would be better represented by things that have the potency of spells, and if they're rolled into a Fighter chassis, Mr.-At-will-because-verisimilitude, they by definition can't do what I expect a Warlord to be able to do. I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this, and I don't particularly care about that. What I do care about is whether or not my interests are being carried forward into the next edition of the game. So far, I am not seeing a lot of that happening, which is also fine. It also means I don't care about the next edition of the game. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D podcast!
Top