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
*Dungeons & Dragons
READ AND REPLY TO THIS 5E WARLORD THREAD, SOLDIER
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="GX.Sigma" data-source="post: 6101789" data-attributes="member: 6690511"><p>Yes, I understand that is mechanically what happens. What does it represent, though? When the player uses that power, what is his character doing?</p><p></p><p>But then, if it's you defending him, shouldn't you use your reaction to do it? The mechanics are saying that your presence allows your ally to defend <em>himself. </em>And that doesn't make much sense to me.</p><p></p><p>I think there's a better way to represent this. Right now the mechanics are saying "when you use bandages to heal, this ability lets those bandages heal you more"--which doesn't feel like something you can do with a speech. This complaint isn't so much about whether HP can be morale, but the current wording interacts weirdly with the abstraction. I think it would make more sense (especially considering the name) if it's something you do <em>before </em>a battle. Braveheart and such. Maybe if it's more like this:</p><p></p><p>"You can spend a few minutes to deliver a stirring speech to your allies. Each ally that listens to the speech is immune to fear for 10 minutes. The first time such a creature takes damage during that time, that damage is reduced by 5."</p><p></p><p>This also makes it useful in mass-combat situations. You could also have this call for a Charisma check (or say that any character can do it with a really good Charisma check, but only the Warlord can do it without having to roll - hmm, that actually sounds a lot like a Rogue skill trick).</p><p></p><p>But there are no "[skill] checks" - an effect that grants a bonus to ability checks has to specifically say what situation it applies in. So this effect would have to say "you have advantage on checks you make to discern whether a creature is hostile" or whatever.</p><p></p><p>My feedback is that it crosses that threshold.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I never realized before how irreconcilable these perspectives are. I always assumed that <em>everyone </em>thought disassociated mechanics were counter-productive to roleplaying. I wonder what it's going to take to make a game we both like. :\</p><p>This doesn't really solve the warlord problem, but I love these ideas for bardic traditions. Add a druidic version and I'm sold.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="GX.Sigma, post: 6101789, member: 6690511"] Yes, I understand that is mechanically what happens. What does it represent, though? When the player uses that power, what is his character doing? But then, if it's you defending him, shouldn't you use your reaction to do it? The mechanics are saying that your presence allows your ally to defend [I]himself. [/I]And that doesn't make much sense to me. I think there's a better way to represent this. Right now the mechanics are saying "when you use bandages to heal, this ability lets those bandages heal you more"--which doesn't feel like something you can do with a speech. This complaint isn't so much about whether HP can be morale, but the current wording interacts weirdly with the abstraction. I think it would make more sense (especially considering the name) if it's something you do [I]before [/I]a battle. Braveheart and such. Maybe if it's more like this: "You can spend a few minutes to deliver a stirring speech to your allies. Each ally that listens to the speech is immune to fear for 10 minutes. The first time such a creature takes damage during that time, that damage is reduced by 5." This also makes it useful in mass-combat situations. You could also have this call for a Charisma check (or say that any character can do it with a really good Charisma check, but only the Warlord can do it without having to roll - hmm, that actually sounds a lot like a Rogue skill trick). But there are no "[skill] checks" - an effect that grants a bonus to ability checks has to specifically say what situation it applies in. So this effect would have to say "you have advantage on checks you make to discern whether a creature is hostile" or whatever. My feedback is that it crosses that threshold. I never realized before how irreconcilable these perspectives are. I always assumed that [I]everyone [/I]thought disassociated mechanics were counter-productive to roleplaying. I wonder what it's going to take to make a game we both like. :\ This doesn't really solve the warlord problem, but I love these ideas for bardic traditions. Add a druidic version and I'm sold. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
READ AND REPLY TO THIS 5E WARLORD THREAD, SOLDIER
Top