Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 6728150" data-attributes="member: 1879">Good. Since that's the side I'm mostly on, I'm glad I didn't show favoritism. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> When I said "impossibly" I meant in terms of real world toughness. Lava swimming, long falls onto rock, etc. Personally my favorite definition of HP comes, ironically, a non-level based game where they are defined as the souls (learned and practiced) skill at holding on to the body, past the point where nature says game over. In that world nobody expects an experienced warrior to die just because you shot him in the eye and stabbed him through the heart. To me that frankly makes more sense then trying to define a "hit" as a near miss that depleted your luck reserves. If so how do I know I could use a cure light wounds? Why does a healers kit also work? Too many awkward questions for my taste. But I was trying to fairly represent both arguments and how they play into the 4e and warlord debates.As far as the warlord goes.... I never got much of a chance to play 4e so I have little practical experience with them, and I fail to grok the insistence on the "Martial Power Source", given that 5e junks the concept of power sources. However we've seen what happens when D&D makes an edition level call on badwrongfun, and it sucked. If WotC makes a warlord class, I will not complain, unless of course it's a mechanical pile of crap. I'd rather have a player at my table who is happy with a class I dislike, then unhappy with a class I love. Besides, if I'm the GM, I can always refluff.</blockquote>

Verification