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
I don't actually get the opposition for the warlord... or rather the opposition to the concept.
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="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6754705" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>That is selfish, yes. You want to play the character you want, but do not want to extend that same courtesy to others. Not only that, but you want to deny everyone, not just anyone you might game with, the option of playing a character they might want to. </p><p></p><p>As the OP asked, why? What makes you so much more important than everyone else who's ever played the game?</p><p></p><p>One very obvious and practical reason is for campaigns where one or more of the existing, magical support classes are inappropriate. More personally, it's a good concept, one quite common in genre, and fun to play.</p><p></p><p>More pedantically, for the same reason you might play a Champion, Battlemaster, or Assassin who doesn't use magic. Because the character concept doesn't include magic. </p><p></p><p>The same thing that's wrong with psionic or martial abilities: nothing. They're all legitimate.</p><p></p><p>If you want to play a character who uses magic, you have /many/ options, over 30 in the 5e PH, alone. If your concept doesn't call for magic, your options are much more limited, only 5 sub-classes in the PH. If you wanted a psion, the PH left you out in the cold. </p><p></p><p>Equally valid concepts, profoundly unequal options available to model them.</p><p></p><p>It's easy to see not liking the concept - you've failed to given any reason for it not being an option, at all - beyond simple selfishness, which, yes, is a bad reason. </p><p>Oddly, that's not what the OP actually asked about: Now, maybe that wasn't a very fair question...</p><p></p><p>The compromise is to base the Warlord on what people who would actually use it want, and for those who dislike the very concept to simply not use it. That compromise works nicely for everything else in 5e, and could work for other things it hasn't tackled yet. </p><p></p><p>As you posit it, though, 'magic' isn't an explanation at all, if it's the only explanation /for everything/. It's also not how D&D has ever treated magic. D&D draws this mechanical line. Things magical reside on one side of it, subject to anti-magic fields and, perhaps, to being Dispelled (and in 5e, countered). Other things might be supernatural, but not technically magical - psionics has sometimes fallen into that category. The psionic could use TK or teleportation or whatever other clearly supernatural power, but could even do so within the rare anti-magic field. 3.5, for instance, drew particularly clear lines with the (SU) and (EX) designators, for another instance. </p><p></p><p></p><p>It does, yes (though not a whole lot: any wound that might be ignored in the heat of combat or so much as stabilized after an hour's or a night's rest is on the table). In that sense, hps are a lot more like a model for 'plot armor' than for actual injury. The DMG has some modules that let you change natural healing around - doing so, plus maybe house-ruling in some lasting wound penalties or the like - could expand the kinds of wounds that hp loss could plausibly model.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6754705, member: 996"] That is selfish, yes. You want to play the character you want, but do not want to extend that same courtesy to others. Not only that, but you want to deny everyone, not just anyone you might game with, the option of playing a character they might want to. As the OP asked, why? What makes you so much more important than everyone else who's ever played the game? One very obvious and practical reason is for campaigns where one or more of the existing, magical support classes are inappropriate. More personally, it's a good concept, one quite common in genre, and fun to play. More pedantically, for the same reason you might play a Champion, Battlemaster, or Assassin who doesn't use magic. Because the character concept doesn't include magic. The same thing that's wrong with psionic or martial abilities: nothing. They're all legitimate. If you want to play a character who uses magic, you have /many/ options, over 30 in the 5e PH, alone. If your concept doesn't call for magic, your options are much more limited, only 5 sub-classes in the PH. If you wanted a psion, the PH left you out in the cold. Equally valid concepts, profoundly unequal options available to model them. It's easy to see not liking the concept - you've failed to given any reason for it not being an option, at all - beyond simple selfishness, which, yes, is a bad reason. Oddly, that's not what the OP actually asked about: Now, maybe that wasn't a very fair question... The compromise is to base the Warlord on what people who would actually use it want, and for those who dislike the very concept to simply not use it. That compromise works nicely for everything else in 5e, and could work for other things it hasn't tackled yet. As you posit it, though, 'magic' isn't an explanation at all, if it's the only explanation /for everything/. It's also not how D&D has ever treated magic. D&D draws this mechanical line. Things magical reside on one side of it, subject to anti-magic fields and, perhaps, to being Dispelled (and in 5e, countered). Other things might be supernatural, but not technically magical - psionics has sometimes fallen into that category. The psionic could use TK or teleportation or whatever other clearly supernatural power, but could even do so within the rare anti-magic field. 3.5, for instance, drew particularly clear lines with the (SU) and (EX) designators, for another instance. It does, yes (though not a whole lot: any wound that might be ignored in the heat of combat or so much as stabilized after an hour's or a night's rest is on the table). In that sense, hps are a lot more like a model for 'plot armor' than for actual injury. The DMG has some modules that let you change natural healing around - doing so, plus maybe house-ruling in some lasting wound penalties or the like - could expand the kinds of wounds that hp loss could plausibly model. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I don't actually get the opposition for the warlord... or rather the opposition to the concept.
Top