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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Expertise Dice
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="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6051413" data-attributes="member: 2067"><p>For me, I don't think it was quite that openly hostile. Like I pointed out <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/330890-marshmalevels.html" target="_blank">here</a>, I think there were other considerations at work. I think that characterizing it as hostile leads to some reactionary defenses -- there's a lot of people out there who played straight simple fighters in games with complex, powerful spellcasters who <em>didn't</em> feel jilted, too. It's a lot more complicated than "D&D UNTIL FOUR YEARS AGO HATED ANYONE WHO DIDN'T USE MAGIC!"</p><p></p><p>For me personally, I like the idea of a unique fighter mechanic, but I also acknowledge what the designers are saying about this being much like spells -- spells themselves are not unique mechanical elements. There's no reason additional damage (that you trade for other things) <em>has</em> to be a unique fighter thing. </p><p></p><p>It can be. And the profusion of other systems helps make that something of a reality. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Part of the issue there is that it's still "trade this combat ability in order to constantly spam this generic non-combat ability." But it's an issue of refinement, not of concept. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't dispute the broad ideas here, but I will quibble -- I don't think that 5e is going to lock anyone into a given magic or martial system. "Whatever at-will and recharge-based magic they may have" likely is going to depend on the DM </p><p>(with a default that likely has some).</p><p></p><p>I think the "baseline Core 4" are going to be remarkably basic. </p><p></p><p>I just don't want them to ensconce a strict martial/magical division in the maths, and I do want them to consider non-combat successes as relevant. There's signs they're thinking that way, but the fan-base tends to be a little frothing-at-the-mouth about some of these things (in whatever direction), and there can be an echo chamber effect.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6051413, member: 2067"] For me, I don't think it was quite that openly hostile. Like I pointed out [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/330890-marshmalevels.html"]here[/URL], I think there were other considerations at work. I think that characterizing it as hostile leads to some reactionary defenses -- there's a lot of people out there who played straight simple fighters in games with complex, powerful spellcasters who [I]didn't[/I] feel jilted, too. It's a lot more complicated than "D&D UNTIL FOUR YEARS AGO HATED ANYONE WHO DIDN'T USE MAGIC!" For me personally, I like the idea of a unique fighter mechanic, but I also acknowledge what the designers are saying about this being much like spells -- spells themselves are not unique mechanical elements. There's no reason additional damage (that you trade for other things) [i]has[/I] to be a unique fighter thing. It can be. And the profusion of other systems helps make that something of a reality. Part of the issue there is that it's still "trade this combat ability in order to constantly spam this generic non-combat ability." But it's an issue of refinement, not of concept. :) I don't dispute the broad ideas here, but I will quibble -- I don't think that 5e is going to lock anyone into a given magic or martial system. "Whatever at-will and recharge-based magic they may have" likely is going to depend on the DM (with a default that likely has some). I think the "baseline Core 4" are going to be remarkably basic. I just don't want them to ensconce a strict martial/magical division in the maths, and I do want them to consider non-combat successes as relevant. There's signs they're thinking that way, but the fan-base tends to be a little frothing-at-the-mouth about some of these things (in whatever direction), and there can be an echo chamber effect. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Expertise Dice
Top