Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 5843145" data-attributes="member: 6688937">I agree with the design team. Its easier to start with a simple base and add complexity. Especially given the history of the game and the groups that they intend to corral with it, 5e seems to be heading that way. There is something else that comes up occasionally, especially in the context of higher level play, that is called "Super Heroics" or as [MENTION=35909]StreamOfTheSky[/MENTION] puts it:Of course, there are also those who prefer high-level play to focus in other directions, "Castles and Kings" one might call it. Where the PCs aren't necessarily cleaving off mountaintops, but instead moving armies and borders around. Generally, except for casters, maybe living a more mundane existence.I certainly encourage WOTC to provide modules for both styles of play. In fact, I feel that high level play should be totally modular in basis, because there seems to be such a divergence in expectations from mythological supers to renaissance politics. However, that still leaves low and mid level play to consider, and that varies between editions as well (though not as much, I think.) I don't think its just a fluff issue, because it sounds like  StreamOfTheSky and those like him are asking for a 20th level fighters  to get an ability called Generate Hurricane and there are  genre-appropropriate sources for them doing so (especially if you extend  D&D to include mythology). There are also genre-appropriate sources  for the other direction as well. The question I have is: Is it easier to start with the "hyper" assumption and pare it down for the "mundane" campaigns, or is it easier to start with "mundane" and add on modules for the "super"? What should the Basic/Core game presume about Fighters and Thieves at low-mid level?</blockquote>

Verification