Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 5829218" data-attributes="member: 59506">Yeah, I think the modules should be in the PHB also.  Or at least the most common ones that get playtested during the open test.  I'd imagine that over time they and we might come up with other add-on module concepts that could be added to the game later - in a supplemental book or on DDI (or both).  But Yeah, the primary ones need to be part of the PHB (or at least the DMG). I guess as far as terminology, they're probably just going to have to go with the most common definitions that gamers use (the lowest common denominator) or the most common definition throughout the editions.  That might still alienate a portion of the gamers, but I don't see any other way around it.  But, hopefully in modules that might change the nature of something in the core, they should present or express the change in terminology and philosophy clearly.  Like if one adds a Wound/Vitality/Condition Track type of mechanic (module), then the module should express how the definition or terminology of Hit Points changes to not include physical damage, etc.  Or that fatigue/stamina/luck/energy aren't a part of Hit Points when there is a different mechanic added-on to express or track them (or ignore them...) <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/glasses.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="B-)" title="Glasses    B-)" data-shortname="B-)" /></blockquote>