D&D 5E (2014) I hope 5th edition makes room for "Adventurers" and "Heroes".

[triqui]

I think the book Paizo just announced, Mythic Heroes, is a great example of a nice module. I'd like to see that in D&D

 

[Emerikol]

You are all confusing high fantasy with high magic. High fantasy has the characters deeply rooted to be HEROES. Some of them might die but they do it epically and gloriously. They aren't nameless smucks traveling around doing random quests.

I don't doubt you but I haven't heard all these terms used in the way you have used them. I have heard "epic" fantasy used for what you call high fantasy. I agree though in order to converse you have to define the terms. These boards can get very frustrating fast otherwise.

I prefer low fantasy high magic. Except I don't want magic item creation. So thats my exception to high magic.

 

[F700]

I think part of the problem with the super-hero model for characters is that it escalates power too quickly, which makes the system harder to balance.

 

[Haffrung]

This is an example of terminology meaning different things to different people. I also consider LOTR Low fantasy. Specifically, I see it as low-middle Fantasy. Things like Harry Potter are High Fantasy. To me has to do with how much it it is weighted down by reality and how much supernatural elements like magic is in it.

By those terms, when did high fantasy begin as a genre? The 80s?

 

[the Jester]

I'm late to the party here, but I'd say that there are a number of differences between an adventurer and a hero.

A hero stands for something, probably succeeds in his or her endeavors, seeks a greater goal than mere personal enrichment or power and usually dies, if at all, in a particularly dramatic fashion.

An adventurer is out for him- or herself, whether seeking riches, power, knowledge or whatever. An adventurer might succeed or might fail; while a hero will not die in a meaningless fashion, an adventurer very well may.

Most fantasy centers around heroes. In the Wheel of Time, the heroes are caught in a series of epic quests. They seek to protect the world, or pieces of it, or their friends and family. They are hereos.Here and there, especially in old sword & sorcery novels, you'll see more mercenary protagonists. Conan seeks to rob the Tower of the Elephant not because it will save the world, but because it is there. He is an adventurer.
[MENTION=91812]ForeverSlayer[/MENTION], do I have your meaning about right? It's a distinction that I absolutely agree with, and I definitely think different versions of D&D encourage one style of pc over the other.

5e seems to make room for both. I think. *crosses fingers*

 

[Mercurius]

5e seems to make room for both. I think. *crosses fingers*

Using your definitions I don't see why it doesn't, or really, how it couldn't. In truth, any edition can facilitate both "adventurous" and "heroic" campaigns - this mainly has to do with the DM and the campaign he or she is running, what the basic assumptions are, the type of quests, etc.

But without having read more than the first few posts of this thread and yours, what also came to mind is "adventurers" not only as low fantasy, but also lower powered, and "heroes" as not only high fantasy, but higher powered (more "gonzo"). In low fantasy, the characters are assumed to regular mortals who may be talented in this or that, but work their way up. In high fantasy, the characters often have some kind of Hidden Power, perhaps due to a Secret Destiny or being a member of a Lost Race of some kind.

In that regard, the RAW in the PHB seem to be more towards adventurers who can become heroes. But I think this is also where an "epic/heroic" module would come in handy; what if the DM wants to run a campaign in which the PCs are akin to ta'veren in the Wheel of Time? I could see higher ability score spreads, and some kind of "Epic Destiny" feat that gives PCs special powers.

In other words, this approach would simply be about higher level characters, but characters starting at level one with something extra special about them - akin to the protagonists in epic fantasy stories. I mean, Rand Al-Thor isn't just a high level channeler - which is one of the weak points in D&D's history in that it has never really had a mechanic for "special destiny characters" - and I think the rules should reflect that "extra special something" that epic heroes have - if the DM and players want to play that sort of campaign.

 

[Halivar]

Holy thread necro, Batman! I think the evidence is clear that levels 1 and 2 are definitely "apprentice" levels, and things can get pretty dicey for PC's (very analogous to 3E in numbers). Starting at level 3 yields 4E style power-level and hit-points, so hopefully all parties should be satisfied with the result.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Holy thread necro, Batman! I think the evidence is clear that levels 1 and 2 are definitely "apprentice" levels, and things can get pretty dicey for PC's (very analogous to 3E in numbers). Starting at level 3 yields 4E style power-level and hit-points, so hopefully all parties should be satisfied with the result.

Yes, and I think this assessment is reflected in the XP needed to gain levels. My campaigns are high fantasy/high magic, and the PCs tend to be heroic in that I try to avoid killing them, but I do want them to feel that they can be killed. On the other hand, I'm not sure I've ever had a player resurrect a character in one of my campaigns if they did die.

Their actions have an impact on the world around them, sometimes in fairly large ways but localized. I tend to avoid storylines of the 'save the world' type, or at least those where it's known that they stopped something that could have had greater ramifications. Of course, I set my campaigns in the Forgotten Realms, and there are always more powerful (and more famous) NPCs, and while some of them may make appearances, they are always secondary characters in the story.

Of course, I also the world fairly gritty. I expect that there will be circumstances where they'll figure out that the prudent approach is to run away. In civilized lands I expect that there's a lot more unarmed and nonlethal combat instead of drawing a sword in the middle of a tavern. We have our own critical system that remains true to the abstract nature of the game, yet allows consequences such as injuries that last for weeks and impact your ability to function, and even allows for potentially permanent effects. We've eliminated most of the instant death rules, but they still put you very close to dying and you'd better do something quick or you will die.

But since I let the players have a long leash in designing the character that they want to play, I take killing off that character very seriously. On the other hand, if they decide they want to move on to a new character, finding a creative exit (which may or may not include death) is part of the fun. And while we don't script something specific, I do take those wishes into consideration when designing scenarios and such.

Randy

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't think any edition expressly prevented you from being a hero or "just an adventurer", though I think that's a false dichotomy. Being a hero or being an adventurer is more about how the DM styles the game, and how the players approach their characters. Heros can be adventurers. I don't think that being a "hero" implies anything beyond being a champion for a cause, diety, nation or idea. And I don't think being an adventurer implies anything beyond adventuring. There are lots of reasons to become an adventurer, and there are lots of causes, nations, dieties and ideas to champion. I'd say that being a hero does bring up connotations of do-gooderness, but that can be a matter of perspective in the right setting.

I don't think 5E prevents you from being a hero, or being a wandering adventurer. I do think most games and most players are somewhere in the middle.

 

[Lanefan]

From what I can tell so far 5e will support heroic parties, boot-in-the-door-and-loot parties, curious explorer parties, murderous rampage parties, pacifist diplomat parties, and lots of other sorts of parties relatively equally well; probably more so than any previous edition since 1e.

That said, I'm disappointed to yet again see the PH giving warnings against playing evil PCs. Sigh.

Lan-"you take the Paladin in your party. I'll take the Assassin in mine, and be the better for it"-efan