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.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Defining its own Mythology
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="PeterWeller" data-source="post: 3918504" data-attributes="member: 55795"><p>I was going to write this up in its own thread, but I think it fits nicely enough here to not bother.</p><p></p><p>I think the changes to D&D's core are actually opening up new avenues of gameplay that weren't as easily implemented in earlier editions of the game. There are two factors that are creating this: races and classes.</p><p></p><p>The eight races we are getting in PHB1 present a much greater range than earlier editions. Most D&D races could be summed up as "they're like us (humans) but..." In 4E, though, we are also getting lizard people, demon tainted people, and fey people on top of the traditional Tolkien set of Dwarfs, Elves, Halflings and Humans. We now have core races that can fit into a greater variety of settings. Old school D&D is supported by its Tolkien adoptions. Tieflings are a solid fit for Lieber or Howard style Sword & Sorcery. Dragonborn work with a wide variety of antecedents, especially JRPG influences. Eladrin fit any setting where fey interact with humans. That's not to say 3E or previous editions couldn't support these types of settings, but 4E has a lot more of their guts incorporated into its own.</p><p></p><p>Classes also help define a much greater range of styles and themes in 4E. From what we're guessing, the list is fighters, rogues, rangers, warlords, clerics, paladins, wizards and warlocks. Four of those are martial classes, and that's drawn some comments from these boards. Why are there 4 martial classes and only 2 each of arcane and divine? A possible answer comes from looking at people's desire to use D&D to play low magic S&S style games. Look at 3E's options for such a campaign: barbarian, fighter and rogue. These classes don't support a balanced party without making a lot of changes to the rules. In 4E, on the other hand, we have four classes that fill three of the four roles. A much more balances S&S style party can be built with the PHB tools. In addition to this, warlocks look like they're going to much better emulate S&S style wizards. Wizards themselves are being toned down, and thus fit better into a greater range of magic power. Those implements are opening the door for the Harry Potter, Willow, and Gandalf fans out there. Paladins losing their alignment restriction makes unholy knights and amoral warrior priests more viable. Warlords mean that clerics are no longer a practical necessity. No longer do you have to depend on the four pillars to have a balanced party, so no longer do you have to bend your campaign around these four pillars.</p><p></p><p>Basically, the choices WotC have made in establishing a stronger core identity to D&D have included a greater range of influences and styles than any previous edition. D&D is becoming more identifiably D&D, but in doing so, its also cherry picking a new batch of assumptions that fit a greater range of play.</p><p></p><p>Now, I need to add a caveat to all this. Everything I've said is based on my conjecture, so don't go bashing me for speaking as if its true. I know it's mostly conjecture, but I didn't want to pepper "in my opinion"s and "as far as I can tell"s all over the preceding two paragraphs. Also, I don't believe the martial classes are going to have flashy, mystical wuxia powers. I think the whole point of the martial power source is to explain why cut purses and sell swords don't need mystical abilities to stand alongside arcane masters and the servants of the gods.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PeterWeller, post: 3918504, member: 55795"] I was going to write this up in its own thread, but I think it fits nicely enough here to not bother. I think the changes to D&D's core are actually opening up new avenues of gameplay that weren't as easily implemented in earlier editions of the game. There are two factors that are creating this: races and classes. The eight races we are getting in PHB1 present a much greater range than earlier editions. Most D&D races could be summed up as "they're like us (humans) but..." In 4E, though, we are also getting lizard people, demon tainted people, and fey people on top of the traditional Tolkien set of Dwarfs, Elves, Halflings and Humans. We now have core races that can fit into a greater variety of settings. Old school D&D is supported by its Tolkien adoptions. Tieflings are a solid fit for Lieber or Howard style Sword & Sorcery. Dragonborn work with a wide variety of antecedents, especially JRPG influences. Eladrin fit any setting where fey interact with humans. That's not to say 3E or previous editions couldn't support these types of settings, but 4E has a lot more of their guts incorporated into its own. Classes also help define a much greater range of styles and themes in 4E. From what we're guessing, the list is fighters, rogues, rangers, warlords, clerics, paladins, wizards and warlocks. Four of those are martial classes, and that's drawn some comments from these boards. Why are there 4 martial classes and only 2 each of arcane and divine? A possible answer comes from looking at people's desire to use D&D to play low magic S&S style games. Look at 3E's options for such a campaign: barbarian, fighter and rogue. These classes don't support a balanced party without making a lot of changes to the rules. In 4E, on the other hand, we have four classes that fill three of the four roles. A much more balances S&S style party can be built with the PHB tools. In addition to this, warlocks look like they're going to much better emulate S&S style wizards. Wizards themselves are being toned down, and thus fit better into a greater range of magic power. Those implements are opening the door for the Harry Potter, Willow, and Gandalf fans out there. Paladins losing their alignment restriction makes unholy knights and amoral warrior priests more viable. Warlords mean that clerics are no longer a practical necessity. No longer do you have to depend on the four pillars to have a balanced party, so no longer do you have to bend your campaign around these four pillars. Basically, the choices WotC have made in establishing a stronger core identity to D&D have included a greater range of influences and styles than any previous edition. D&D is becoming more identifiably D&D, but in doing so, its also cherry picking a new batch of assumptions that fit a greater range of play. Now, I need to add a caveat to all this. Everything I've said is based on my conjecture, so don't go bashing me for speaking as if its true. I know it's mostly conjecture, but I didn't want to pepper "in my opinion"s and "as far as I can tell"s all over the preceding two paragraphs. Also, I don't believe the martial classes are going to have flashy, mystical wuxia powers. I think the whole point of the martial power source is to explain why cut purses and sell swords don't need mystical abilities to stand alongside arcane masters and the servants of the gods. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Defining its own Mythology
Top