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 coming! 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
[Warlords] Should D&D be tied to D&D Worlds?
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="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6147959" data-attributes="member: 87792"><p>And to this degree of approximation I agree with you. I would point out two things.</p><p></p><p>1: I consider 4e to be vastly improved by making extended rests take a few days somewhere relatively safe and comfortable. I consider the default tying of extended rests to 8 hours to be a consequence of the wizard having done this historically and so that being why it was implemented this way. And in 4e as long as a character is down healing surges <em>they are still wounded</em>.</p><p></p><p>2: In 3.X Wands of Cure Light Wounds and Lesser Vigor meant that in practice most parties of level 5 or above simply didn't need to stop for hp.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ten seconds, a can of gasoline, and a match. The arrows burn pretty well.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's the single most obvious issue. The biggest issue is actually the "This is a spell" blinking lights that appear within the system of most versions of D&D. A spell is a <em>thing </em>and I do not want my warlord to cast spells. If there is some way to remove all the markers of a spell (the holy symbol, the meditation, the VSM components, the vulnerability to <em>Dispel Magic</em>, and the rest) from the Cleric in Next then refluffing might work. If the fact that something is magic has a <em>direct</em> impact in the game then this doesn't.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>For a resourceful Warlord, possibly.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Being countered by <em>Dispel Magic</em> is just the tip of the iceberg.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Cure Wounds is explicitely magical and thought by some to be majorly magical. This is part of the problem.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'll drink to that. It's not what I expect to see in Next, however. And it's not anythingI <em>have</em> seen in Next.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, I'll drink to that. I do, however, believe that a lot of fans would hate this approach. And again I don't expect to see it in Next except as a very optional rule.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm afraid you've just created a dual currency between hit points and hero points - and we run into Gresham's Law here. That you focus on either whittling Hit Points <em>or</em> Hero Points.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The problem with your statement here is that once again you aren't dealing so far as I can tell with D&D Next. Although martial daily powers were certainly in 3.X (see Barbarian Rage for details).</p><p></p><p>Because of the unified power structure which more or less says "Heroes can bring more and more impressive things when they absolutely have to" martial encounter and daily powers were not something you needed to deal with <em>within the fiction.</em> You could make up whatever justification you wanted. In a more simulationist system methods as opposed to outcomes are indicated. In 4e it's not who you are underneath, but what you do that defines you.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Agreed.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Part of the problem here is that the 4e PHB Ranger is <em>incredibly</em> bland. The only real ability they get that speaks to nature is training in either Nature or Dungeoneering. What they do is weild bows like a master or two weapons like a blender and know a bit about the outdoors. If I were to watch two people playing a tempest fighter who'd been trained in nature and a PHB two weapon ranger in 4e then until they drew their swords I couldn't tell which was which without looking at their character sheets. The sum total of the outdoorsy skills of the PHB Ranger is a single trained skill that anyone can take for a feat. So if you look at characters through a lens of "What you do on the outside is what defines you" then the problem isn't "Where's the bow or two weapon fighter?" but "Where's the woodsman and tracker? The class calling itself a Ranger is just a skirmishy fighter."</p><p></p><p>And this, I think, is where a lot of the incomprehension was coming from. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Who says it's adventure design? I run fairly sandboxy, fairly improvised, and how my players choose to handle any problems is up to them (and often not the way I expected). Also I don't think many adventures speak purely to one class (although we had a fun time when the party was two rangers, a thief, and a vampire - all trained in stealth and with dex as their highest stat).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>1: Flexibility. If you have a clue what is coming you can always be pretty good. Unlike the fighter.</p><p>2: Because you want to warp the laws of reality. Or just fly or teleport long distances. Things the rogue and the fighter can never match.</p><p></p><p>More to the point if a cleric can match a fighter at what a fighter does best <em>and do other things</em> why play the fighter?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That too <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 6147959, member: 87792"] And to this degree of approximation I agree with you. I would point out two things. 1: I consider 4e to be vastly improved by making extended rests take a few days somewhere relatively safe and comfortable. I consider the default tying of extended rests to 8 hours to be a consequence of the wizard having done this historically and so that being why it was implemented this way. And in 4e as long as a character is down healing surges [I]they are still wounded[/I]. 2: In 3.X Wands of Cure Light Wounds and Lesser Vigor meant that in practice most parties of level 5 or above simply didn't need to stop for hp. Ten seconds, a can of gasoline, and a match. The arrows burn pretty well. It's the single most obvious issue. The biggest issue is actually the "This is a spell" blinking lights that appear within the system of most versions of D&D. A spell is a [I]thing [/I]and I do not want my warlord to cast spells. If there is some way to remove all the markers of a spell (the holy symbol, the meditation, the VSM components, the vulnerability to [I]Dispel Magic[/I], and the rest) from the Cleric in Next then refluffing might work. If the fact that something is magic has a [I]direct[/I] impact in the game then this doesn't. For a resourceful Warlord, possibly. Being countered by [I]Dispel Magic[/I] is just the tip of the iceberg. Cure Wounds is explicitely magical and thought by some to be majorly magical. This is part of the problem. I'll drink to that. It's not what I expect to see in Next, however. And it's not anythingI [I]have[/I] seen in Next. Again, I'll drink to that. I do, however, believe that a lot of fans would hate this approach. And again I don't expect to see it in Next except as a very optional rule. I'm afraid you've just created a dual currency between hit points and hero points - and we run into Gresham's Law here. That you focus on either whittling Hit Points [I]or[/I] Hero Points. The problem with your statement here is that once again you aren't dealing so far as I can tell with D&D Next. Although martial daily powers were certainly in 3.X (see Barbarian Rage for details). Because of the unified power structure which more or less says "Heroes can bring more and more impressive things when they absolutely have to" martial encounter and daily powers were not something you needed to deal with [I]within the fiction.[/I] You could make up whatever justification you wanted. In a more simulationist system methods as opposed to outcomes are indicated. In 4e it's not who you are underneath, but what you do that defines you. Agreed. Part of the problem here is that the 4e PHB Ranger is [I]incredibly[/I] bland. The only real ability they get that speaks to nature is training in either Nature or Dungeoneering. What they do is weild bows like a master or two weapons like a blender and know a bit about the outdoors. If I were to watch two people playing a tempest fighter who'd been trained in nature and a PHB two weapon ranger in 4e then until they drew their swords I couldn't tell which was which without looking at their character sheets. The sum total of the outdoorsy skills of the PHB Ranger is a single trained skill that anyone can take for a feat. So if you look at characters through a lens of "What you do on the outside is what defines you" then the problem isn't "Where's the bow or two weapon fighter?" but "Where's the woodsman and tracker? The class calling itself a Ranger is just a skirmishy fighter." And this, I think, is where a lot of the incomprehension was coming from. Who says it's adventure design? I run fairly sandboxy, fairly improvised, and how my players choose to handle any problems is up to them (and often not the way I expected). Also I don't think many adventures speak purely to one class (although we had a fun time when the party was two rangers, a thief, and a vampire - all trained in stealth and with dex as their highest stat). 1: Flexibility. If you have a clue what is coming you can always be pretty good. Unlike the fighter. 2: Because you want to warp the laws of reality. Or just fly or teleport long distances. Things the rogue and the fighter can never match. More to the point if a cleric can match a fighter at what a fighter does best [I]and do other things[/I] why play the fighter? That too :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[Warlords] Should D&D be tied to D&D Worlds?
Top