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
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Pros and Cons of going mainstream
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="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 6128207" data-attributes="member: 19675"><p>1) Again, a melee striker should not have fewer HP than a ranged striker. A melee striker without HP gets in trouble quickly and can't get out of it once he takes a couple of solid shots. On a ranged striker, having a massive HP total is kind of like a billionaire winning the state lottery.</p><p></p><p>2) In a party with a Fighter, a WarPriest, a Ranger* and a Rogue, among others, it is illogical that the Warlock- basically a non-melee class by design- should have the second most HP in the party. And not by a little bit, either. In prior editions, all of those would be either much higher or at least equal to the Warlock (or similar caster, like a post-1Ed Bard). If someone got past the foursome mentioned above, the casters couldn't take too many hits.</p><p></p><p>But in 4Ed, there is my Warlock, stepping up to keep the (untouched) Ranger from being bitch-slapped by ogres. <em>THAT</em> simply doesn't happen in prior editions. Its a complete overturning of D&D's historical playstyle.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Its not the asymmentrical HP loss in and of itself that differs, it is the post loss consequences.</p><p></p><p>In prior editions, the Fighter catches some bad luck, then the Cleric and Ranger (just using the classes mentioned, for convenience) step up because they have the better armor, melee weapons & HP than the Rogue & arcane casters.</p><p></p><p>In my example, the Warlock has double-digit more HP than anyone else except the Fighter. The WarPriest is also on the front line, alongside the Fighter, so that isn't changed <em>too</em> much.</p><p></p><p>But instead of the Ranger stepping up next, it is the Warlock who must fill in the breach. The Ranger can't go toe to toe with things like ogres, etc., because he can't take hits. So even though the Ranger has better melee weapons at his disposal, it is the ill-equipped (in terms of weapons) Warlock who has to interpose himself between friend & foe. And his powers & abilities do not lend themselves to that role. Suddenly, he goes from a ranged combatant to recon with, to a guy swinging a hammer with his MBA...just so the squishy Ranger can do his thing.</p><p></p><p>Simply put: an unwounded <strong>warrior</strong> shouldn't be hiding behind spellcasters.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>* there are actually two Rangers, but we almost never have both players show the same session.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dannyalcatraz, post: 6128207, member: 19675"] 1) Again, a melee striker should not have fewer HP than a ranged striker. A melee striker without HP gets in trouble quickly and can't get out of it once he takes a couple of solid shots. On a ranged striker, having a massive HP total is kind of like a billionaire winning the state lottery. 2) In a party with a Fighter, a WarPriest, a Ranger* and a Rogue, among others, it is illogical that the Warlock- basically a non-melee class by design- should have the second most HP in the party. And not by a little bit, either. In prior editions, all of those would be either much higher or at least equal to the Warlock (or similar caster, like a post-1Ed Bard). If someone got past the foursome mentioned above, the casters couldn't take too many hits. But in 4Ed, there is my Warlock, stepping up to keep the (untouched) Ranger from being bitch-slapped by ogres. [I]THAT[/I] simply doesn't happen in prior editions. Its a complete overturning of D&D's historical playstyle. Its not the asymmentrical HP loss in and of itself that differs, it is the post loss consequences. In prior editions, the Fighter catches some bad luck, then the Cleric and Ranger (just using the classes mentioned, for convenience) step up because they have the better armor, melee weapons & HP than the Rogue & arcane casters. In my example, the Warlock has double-digit more HP than anyone else except the Fighter. The WarPriest is also on the front line, alongside the Fighter, so that isn't changed [I]too[/I] much. But instead of the Ranger stepping up next, it is the Warlock who must fill in the breach. The Ranger can't go toe to toe with things like ogres, etc., because he can't take hits. So even though the Ranger has better melee weapons at his disposal, it is the ill-equipped (in terms of weapons) Warlock who has to interpose himself between friend & foe. And his powers & abilities do not lend themselves to that role. Suddenly, he goes from a ranged combatant to recon with, to a guy swinging a hammer with his MBA...just so the squishy Ranger can do his thing. Simply put: an unwounded [B]warrior[/B] shouldn't be hiding behind spellcasters. * there are actually two Rangers, but we almost never have both players show the same session. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Pros and Cons of going mainstream
Top