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
[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="pemerton" data-source="post: 6147967" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>But <em>mechanically</em> there is no difference between a 4e fighter and a 4e archer ranger except that the latter wears lighter armour (but has DEX to keep up his/her AC). If anything (as Neonchameleon points out) 4e does not particularly easily reproduce the classic woodsy ranger.</p><p></p><p>I am not talking about differences of superficial colour between warlord and cleric. I am talking about mechanical differences. A warlord does not use spells. And in D&Dnext, spells stand out as pretty discrete and identifiable mechanical units. As Neonchameleon puts it:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No. It's also memorisation from a list. And components. Including (in the current draft) material components. And its Detect Magic and Dispel Magic and Pearls of Power and saving throws rather than attack rolls.</p><p></p><p>They can say it (though I'm not at all sure that they will). It doesn't mean I have to believe them.</p><p></p><p>I mean, someone could point to Rolemaster and say "Let's refluff it's fireball attack table as a hail of arrows!" But that would completely defeat the point of RM, where each attack form has its own table that is meant to model the varying effectivenss of that attack vs a range of armour types, and also reflect the balance between mere bruising and exhaustion (concussion hit loss) and serious injury (critical inflicted, with a vast range of crit tables for different attack types).</p><p></p><p>In other words, and as I posted upthread, I don't think it makes sense at one-and-the-same time to present your new game design as a reaction to hostility to the non-simulationist tendencies of your previous edition, <em>and at the same time</em> assert that the new game can be treated in just the same non-simulationist fashion. Both these things can't be true at one-and-the-same time. If the cleric <em>really</em> is refluffable as a warlord, then the design team has failed in its goal of producing a game in which the mechanics bring their own process-within-the-fiction along with them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6147967, member: 42582"] But [I]mechanically[/I] there is no difference between a 4e fighter and a 4e archer ranger except that the latter wears lighter armour (but has DEX to keep up his/her AC). If anything (as Neonchameleon points out) 4e does not particularly easily reproduce the classic woodsy ranger. I am not talking about differences of superficial colour between warlord and cleric. I am talking about mechanical differences. A warlord does not use spells. And in D&Dnext, spells stand out as pretty discrete and identifiable mechanical units. As Neonchameleon puts it: No. It's also memorisation from a list. And components. Including (in the current draft) material components. And its Detect Magic and Dispel Magic and Pearls of Power and saving throws rather than attack rolls. They can say it (though I'm not at all sure that they will). It doesn't mean I have to believe them. I mean, someone could point to Rolemaster and say "Let's refluff it's fireball attack table as a hail of arrows!" But that would completely defeat the point of RM, where each attack form has its own table that is meant to model the varying effectivenss of that attack vs a range of armour types, and also reflect the balance between mere bruising and exhaustion (concussion hit loss) and serious injury (critical inflicted, with a vast range of crit tables for different attack types). In other words, and as I posted upthread, I don't think it makes sense at one-and-the-same time to present your new game design as a reaction to hostility to the non-simulationist tendencies of your previous edition, [I]and at the same time[/I] assert that the new game can be treated in just the same non-simulationist fashion. Both these things can't be true at one-and-the-same time. If the cleric [I]really[/I] is refluffable as a warlord, then the design team has failed in its goal of producing a game in which the mechanics bring their own process-within-the-fiction along with them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[Warlords] Should D&D be tied to D&D Worlds?
Top