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 LIVE! 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="Lord Twig" data-source="post: 6755981" data-attributes="member: 31754"><p>So I think I have established that I don't want to prevent anyone from playing the game the way they want to play it. But for some reason I am a bad person for wanting to play the game the way <em>I</em> want to play it.</p><p></p><p>Let's forget the Warlord for a moment and talk about Fireball. Is it round or square?</p><p></p><p>In 3.5e it was round. There was a template showing how it effected characters on a grid that approximated a circle.</p><p></p><p>In 4e it was square. Okay, it was called a ball, and was supposed to be round, but it was just square on the grid with a "Don't-worry-about-it-this-is-faster" explanation.</p><p></p><p>Now if I'm playing the game and looking at the map. I don't care how many times you tell me it's supposed to be round. It's square on the map, therefore it's a square.</p><p></p><p> <strong>I don't want square Fireballs!</strong></p><p></p><p>But apparently if I don't allow square Fireballs I am being controlling and selfish and don't want to allow people to play the way they want to play. If other people want square Fireballs I should just let them have it. So it's okay to force people to deal with square Fireballs, but it is not okay to force round Fireballs. This is the argument that is being made for Warlords.</p><p></p><p>It's interesting that in 5e they say a Fireball has a 20' radius, but they don't bother telling you how to map it on a grid. They just left it out entirely. Sure the default movement is "I run faster when I run diagonally" with the option rule for more accurate 5'/10' diagonal movement (which I use btw), but that doesn't necessarily translate to area of effect spells. That is left up to the DM and his group to decide.</p><p></p><p>The design philosophy for 4e was (I believe) more cinematic and they didn't worry about logic or "realism" if it got in the way of moving the game along. "Get to the Action!" was the primary goal. The Warlord embraces that idea and doesn't worry about how his abilities work. They just do. And you can just make up flavorful, cinematic explanations or not. Mostly you just don't worry about it and "Get to the Action!"</p><p></p><p>D&D 3.5 was more simulationist (my preferred style). The 5'/10' diagonal movement was introduced because moving faster diagonally "didn't make sense". Sure some illogical things are ignored, like dragons being able to fly or giants not collapsing under their own weight, but nothing is ever just black or white. 4e was not just pure white cinema any more than 3.5e was hardcore black simulation. But 4e was still pretty white while 3.5e was pretty black.</p><p></p><p>So you can keep adding cinematic abilities back into 5e and make it whiter and whiter, but for those of us that like the darker simulation style of gaming you are going to be driving us away.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lord Twig, post: 6755981, member: 31754"] So I think I have established that I don't want to prevent anyone from playing the game the way they want to play it. But for some reason I am a bad person for wanting to play the game the way [I]I[/I] want to play it. Let's forget the Warlord for a moment and talk about Fireball. Is it round or square? In 3.5e it was round. There was a template showing how it effected characters on a grid that approximated a circle. In 4e it was square. Okay, it was called a ball, and was supposed to be round, but it was just square on the grid with a "Don't-worry-about-it-this-is-faster" explanation. Now if I'm playing the game and looking at the map. I don't care how many times you tell me it's supposed to be round. It's square on the map, therefore it's a square. [B]I don't want square Fireballs![/B] But apparently if I don't allow square Fireballs I am being controlling and selfish and don't want to allow people to play the way they want to play. If other people want square Fireballs I should just let them have it. So it's okay to force people to deal with square Fireballs, but it is not okay to force round Fireballs. This is the argument that is being made for Warlords. It's interesting that in 5e they say a Fireball has a 20' radius, but they don't bother telling you how to map it on a grid. They just left it out entirely. Sure the default movement is "I run faster when I run diagonally" with the option rule for more accurate 5'/10' diagonal movement (which I use btw), but that doesn't necessarily translate to area of effect spells. That is left up to the DM and his group to decide. The design philosophy for 4e was (I believe) more cinematic and they didn't worry about logic or "realism" if it got in the way of moving the game along. "Get to the Action!" was the primary goal. The Warlord embraces that idea and doesn't worry about how his abilities work. They just do. And you can just make up flavorful, cinematic explanations or not. Mostly you just don't worry about it and "Get to the Action!" D&D 3.5 was more simulationist (my preferred style). The 5'/10' diagonal movement was introduced because moving faster diagonally "didn't make sense". Sure some illogical things are ignored, like dragons being able to fly or giants not collapsing under their own weight, but nothing is ever just black or white. 4e was not just pure white cinema any more than 3.5e was hardcore black simulation. But 4e was still pretty white while 3.5e was pretty black. So you can keep adding cinematic abilities back into 5e and make it whiter and whiter, but for those of us that like the darker simulation style of gaming you are going to be driving us away. [/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