Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Justifying high level 'guards', 'pirates', 'soldiers', 'assassins', etc.
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="Irda Ranger" data-source="post: 4488423" data-attributes="member: 1003"><p>Yeah, I get that. I know what you're trying to accomplish.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There isn't an ounce of difference between what you're doing and E6 except number inflation. You're just giving both sides illusory +'s to their d20 role. Why bother with the sleigh of hand?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, "sacrifice of ingame consistency to further story development" is the plain meaning of the word. Whether or no you think that's derogatory isn't my concern.</p><p></p><p>Just for the record, I think narrativist play is "not my cup o' tea", but that's a different thing than "I think people who play that way are my inferiors."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So does everyone else is 4E. Consistent ingame explanations for HP and dmg are flat out against the rules. The distinguishing characteristic is that simulationists recognize rules like "city guards are between 1st and 4th level" and narrativists don't. For a narrativist a city guard is whatever level he needs to be to advance the plot (within reason).</p><p></p><p></p><p>*********</p><p></p><p>However, we have gotten very far afield. My main point of argument is that if you give a player a +1 to attack, it should mean something. In all previous editions of D&D it meant (1) old foes were more easily bested and (2) new more powerful foes can be challenged. However by simply scaling old foes up with player advancement (even if at "a reduced scale") you are taking away reward number one. To quote S'mon, "Where's the cookie?"</p><p></p><p>If you feel the urge (as a DM) to give players a +1 attack, and then immediately give all their foes a +1 to all defenses to compensate, you should probably just not give out the +1 attack in the first place. It's fools' gold. Frankly I would find it a bit insulting.</p><p></p><p>If you want to play a campaign where city guards and pirates are threats at 16th level <em><span style="color: DarkOrange">that's perfectly fine</span></em>, but it's an illusory reward to give +'s with one hand that you're simply going to take them back with the other. Just be up front with the players about what kind of campaign you want to run.</p><p></p><p>Otherwise you might as well play a version of D&D that grants +11 per level because that's better than +1/2 per level.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Irda Ranger, post: 4488423, member: 1003"] Yeah, I get that. I know what you're trying to accomplish. There isn't an ounce of difference between what you're doing and E6 except number inflation. You're just giving both sides illusory +'s to their d20 role. Why bother with the sleigh of hand? No, "sacrifice of ingame consistency to further story development" is the plain meaning of the word. Whether or no you think that's derogatory isn't my concern. Just for the record, I think narrativist play is "not my cup o' tea", but that's a different thing than "I think people who play that way are my inferiors." So does everyone else is 4E. Consistent ingame explanations for HP and dmg are flat out against the rules. The distinguishing characteristic is that simulationists recognize rules like "city guards are between 1st and 4th level" and narrativists don't. For a narrativist a city guard is whatever level he needs to be to advance the plot (within reason). ********* However, we have gotten very far afield. My main point of argument is that if you give a player a +1 to attack, it should mean something. In all previous editions of D&D it meant (1) old foes were more easily bested and (2) new more powerful foes can be challenged. However by simply scaling old foes up with player advancement (even if at "a reduced scale") you are taking away reward number one. To quote S'mon, "Where's the cookie?" If you feel the urge (as a DM) to give players a +1 attack, and then immediately give all their foes a +1 to all defenses to compensate, you should probably just not give out the +1 attack in the first place. It's fools' gold. Frankly I would find it a bit insulting. If you want to play a campaign where city guards and pirates are threats at 16th level [I][COLOR="DarkOrange"]that's perfectly fine[/COLOR][/I], but it's an illusory reward to give +'s with one hand that you're simply going to take them back with the other. Just be up front with the players about what kind of campaign you want to run. Otherwise you might as well play a version of D&D that grants +11 per level because that's better than +1/2 per level. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Justifying high level 'guards', 'pirates', 'soldiers', 'assassins', etc.
Top