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
Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord
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: 7368434" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>In 1e all healing spells were Necromantic - and reversible, that may have had something to do with it. Healing was positive energy, reversed healing negative. Good clerics tended to heal, evil to reverse it, and, IIRC, there was an obscure rule that you couldn't memorize both at the same time (or it could have been an obscure mis-reading some DM used when I was young & impressionable). <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p> Meh. 4e's use of squares (cubes, really) was nice enough for tactics, but mostly I liked it because it was much simpler to track everything, map or not. It was simpler to count whole squares than diagonals, easier to visualize how cubic areas aligned with eachother than circular/conical/fans/spreads/etc doing so (either because you're not using a map, or because you're using a 2d map for a 3D combat, which I tended to do a lot).</p><p></p><p>Plotting a circle (like a fireball) to a grid is such a PitA that for 3.x we'd use wire templates to do it. In 4e, they're just all cubes. Simple.</p><p>Back in the day, I remember plotting areas and deciding if characters near the edge took fool effect or 1/2;save:none or a save bonus or something else...</p><p></p><p> Not so sure it does, honestly. Simply nominating an ally or enemy (/or/ terrain feature or item of importance) could have worked fine, not caused odd effects, and worked more seamlessly with TotM.</p><p></p><p>By odd effects, I mean you decide you want the party to protect a certain NPC, you stick that NPC in your tactical focus, the DM has him wander out of it, directly thereafter... </p><p></p><p> MDD's were a dice-based damage boost in the playtest, sounds like the idea may not be entirely dead. </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>5e has become unnecessarily complicated in how it handles a number of somewhat similar things - bless/guidance, inspiration, bardic inspiration, CS dice, Aid, advantage, help, HD, re-rolls, etc...</p><p></p><p>I feel like they could have consolidated a number of 'expendable-dice' mechanics into one unified sub-system that could have been readily adapted to different applications, keeping the game simpler. Too late now, obviously. 5.5,maybe? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p> That one's been tossed out many times over the years, and it's potentially pretty impactful. Surprised he went with it.</p><p></p><p> Bad idea, but this, by definition, is just a gimped 1/3rd-caster-equivalent, just getting a few abilities tacked onto the fighter's primary/overriding tank functions.</p><p></p><p></p><p> On top of STR/DEX or instead of it? Neither's good, mind you... 'On top of' just doubles-down on the fighter's already serious DPR, 'instead of' is essentially, of use if your INT is higher than your STR/DEX, but, this is still a fighter, with Extra Attack, and gambits seem to key off attacking a lot, so you'd be really hurting yourself as far as landing anything goes in order to benefit from it. </p><p></p><p>If it was hit, but not damage rolls, that might be workable, but just, in general, a warlord design should not be worrying overmuch about its own sustained DPR.</p><p></p><p> Mildly bizarre given 5e's fetishization of TotM. It's not like it'd be at all hard or TotM-incompatible, to move allies around /relative/ to eachother & enemies. Also, I think the word 'contiguous' could have helped, there, it sounds like a 4e 'Wall 4'</p><p></p><p>Of course, 5e's love affair with TotM has not exactly delivered a lot of actual support for TotM, anyway. :shrug: </p><p></p><p> Strangely complicated, almost as if being complicated were the point... ("Oh, you want a complex fighter?" No, we want a fighter with meaningful options & significant agency, we'll put up with the complexity if we have to. "So, you want complexity, then, OK!")... Ambush doesn't sound like an 'at will,' exactly, but that could just be how it sounds... 'converge on the tactical area,' I guess, is what it's getting at.</p><p></p><p> Pleasant surprise, that. Per encounter (ie, between rolling initiative and dropping out of initiative order) makes a lot more sense for gambits than recharging on a rest. Pull one trick in one fight, probably won't be able to pull it again right away. "fool me once..."</p><p></p><p> Reasonable enough as a brainstorming list, I guess.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7368434, member: 996"] In 1e all healing spells were Necromantic - and reversible, that may have had something to do with it. Healing was positive energy, reversed healing negative. Good clerics tended to heal, evil to reverse it, and, IIRC, there was an obscure rule that you couldn't memorize both at the same time (or it could have been an obscure mis-reading some DM used when I was young & impressionable). ;) Meh. 4e's use of squares (cubes, really) was nice enough for tactics, but mostly I liked it because it was much simpler to track everything, map or not. It was simpler to count whole squares than diagonals, easier to visualize how cubic areas aligned with eachother than circular/conical/fans/spreads/etc doing so (either because you're not using a map, or because you're using a 2d map for a 3D combat, which I tended to do a lot). Plotting a circle (like a fireball) to a grid is such a PitA that for 3.x we'd use wire templates to do it. In 4e, they're just all cubes. Simple. Back in the day, I remember plotting areas and deciding if characters near the edge took fool effect or 1/2;save:none or a save bonus or something else... Not so sure it does, honestly. Simply nominating an ally or enemy (/or/ terrain feature or item of importance) could have worked fine, not caused odd effects, and worked more seamlessly with TotM. By odd effects, I mean you decide you want the party to protect a certain NPC, you stick that NPC in your tactical focus, the DM has him wander out of it, directly thereafter... MDD's were a dice-based damage boost in the playtest, sounds like the idea may not be entirely dead. 5e has become unnecessarily complicated in how it handles a number of somewhat similar things - bless/guidance, inspiration, bardic inspiration, CS dice, Aid, advantage, help, HD, re-rolls, etc... I feel like they could have consolidated a number of 'expendable-dice' mechanics into one unified sub-system that could have been readily adapted to different applications, keeping the game simpler. Too late now, obviously. 5.5,maybe? ;) That one's been tossed out many times over the years, and it's potentially pretty impactful. Surprised he went with it. Bad idea, but this, by definition, is just a gimped 1/3rd-caster-equivalent, just getting a few abilities tacked onto the fighter's primary/overriding tank functions. On top of STR/DEX or instead of it? Neither's good, mind you... 'On top of' just doubles-down on the fighter's already serious DPR, 'instead of' is essentially, of use if your INT is higher than your STR/DEX, but, this is still a fighter, with Extra Attack, and gambits seem to key off attacking a lot, so you'd be really hurting yourself as far as landing anything goes in order to benefit from it. If it was hit, but not damage rolls, that might be workable, but just, in general, a warlord design should not be worrying overmuch about its own sustained DPR. Mildly bizarre given 5e's fetishization of TotM. It's not like it'd be at all hard or TotM-incompatible, to move allies around /relative/ to eachother & enemies. Also, I think the word 'contiguous' could have helped, there, it sounds like a 4e 'Wall 4' Of course, 5e's love affair with TotM has not exactly delivered a lot of actual support for TotM, anyway. :shrug: Strangely complicated, almost as if being complicated were the point... ("Oh, you want a complex fighter?" No, we want a fighter with meaningful options & significant agency, we'll put up with the complexity if we have to. "So, you want complexity, then, OK!")... Ambush doesn't sound like an 'at will,' exactly, but that could just be how it sounds... 'converge on the tactical area,' I guess, is what it's getting at. Pleasant surprise, that. Per encounter (ie, between rolling initiative and dropping out of initiative order) makes a lot more sense for gambits than recharging on a rest. Pull one trick in one fight, probably won't be able to pull it again right away. "fool me once..." Reasonable enough as a brainstorming list, I guess. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour: The Warlord
Top