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
What the warlord needs in 5e and how to make it happen.
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="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7054988"><p>Actually, no. I'm most definitely <em>not</em> saying it's "OK for someone to completely screw over your character and wreck his concept". Ever. Even if it's magical. I stop at "it's ok for your character's actions to have a beneficial effect on my character as long as it doesn't dictate how my character thinks." I'm never, ever ok with any sort of PvP unless both parties agree to it and are having fun. (That includes the use of social skills, from PCs or NPCs: a PC at my table never has his thoughts or actions dictated as the result of a good Intimidate or Persuade roll.)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>RIP morale checks for NPCs! (I just improvise it now. "Ok, when the Captain collapses in a pool of blood the rest of them try to flee...") </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah, we keep circling around on this one and I disagree. Adding options changes the game. It's perfectly valid to be opposed to options that change the game in a way you don't like.</p><p></p><p>I hate Drow, and if WotC had asked my opinion I would have said, "Don't make that a player character option." It lessens the game for me to get stuck in parties with Drow (pretty much every AL table I sit at, really) in a variety of ways that have nothing to do with mechanics. Just like it would lessen the game if one of the other characters had a laser pistol, even if it did exactly the same damage as EB. (Actually, don't get me started on EB...) I just don't want to play in a shared illusion that includes laser pistols. The content creates the setting.</p><p></p><p>So no matter how many times people try to cut off the discussion by saying, "You are just being selfish/arrogant and there is no reason to oppose the inclusion of options", that argument is simply false. Ok, I'm not being <em>generous</em>. I'm not offering to lessen my own experience to heighten somebody else's, but if that's your definition of "selfish" then we're both being selfish because you apparently want to do the same thing to me. You (the plural, abstract "you" meaning the Warlord proponents) seem to think I should be able to just roll with the Warlord, name and all, and not let it bother me, and I equally think you should just be able to use one of the magical, Warlord-esque options already out there. I think you're being overly fussy and demanding by saying "it must include these 7 features and can't be magical" and you think I'm being overly fussy and demanding by not wanting to have to play in a game with this particular class.</p><p></p><p>What astounds me in all of this is that you think you are on the moral high ground.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 7054988"] Actually, no. I'm most definitely [I]not[/I] saying it's "OK for someone to completely screw over your character and wreck his concept". Ever. Even if it's magical. I stop at "it's ok for your character's actions to have a beneficial effect on my character as long as it doesn't dictate how my character thinks." I'm never, ever ok with any sort of PvP unless both parties agree to it and are having fun. (That includes the use of social skills, from PCs or NPCs: a PC at my table never has his thoughts or actions dictated as the result of a good Intimidate or Persuade roll.) RIP morale checks for NPCs! (I just improvise it now. "Ok, when the Captain collapses in a pool of blood the rest of them try to flee...") Yeah, we keep circling around on this one and I disagree. Adding options changes the game. It's perfectly valid to be opposed to options that change the game in a way you don't like. I hate Drow, and if WotC had asked my opinion I would have said, "Don't make that a player character option." It lessens the game for me to get stuck in parties with Drow (pretty much every AL table I sit at, really) in a variety of ways that have nothing to do with mechanics. Just like it would lessen the game if one of the other characters had a laser pistol, even if it did exactly the same damage as EB. (Actually, don't get me started on EB...) I just don't want to play in a shared illusion that includes laser pistols. The content creates the setting. So no matter how many times people try to cut off the discussion by saying, "You are just being selfish/arrogant and there is no reason to oppose the inclusion of options", that argument is simply false. Ok, I'm not being [I]generous[/I]. I'm not offering to lessen my own experience to heighten somebody else's, but if that's your definition of "selfish" then we're both being selfish because you apparently want to do the same thing to me. You (the plural, abstract "you" meaning the Warlord proponents) seem to think I should be able to just roll with the Warlord, name and all, and not let it bother me, and I equally think you should just be able to use one of the magical, Warlord-esque options already out there. I think you're being overly fussy and demanding by saying "it must include these 7 features and can't be magical" and you think I'm being overly fussy and demanding by not wanting to have to play in a game with this particular class. What astounds me in all of this is that you think you are on the moral high ground. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What the warlord needs in 5e and how to make it happen.
Top