Community

Nov 14, 2012 -- 10:44AM, Arithezoo wrote:

Nov 14, 2012 -- 10:30AM, Gustaveren wrote:

Nov 14, 2012 -- 10:24AM, Arithezoo wrote:

Nov 14, 2012 -- 10:13AM, Gustaveren wrote:

it seems unwise to design game mechanics were it is not possible to use dead magic zones

How could you possibly "design game mechanics where it is not possible to use dead magic zones"?  Seriously, how?

Even if the books make no mention of dead magic zones, what stops you from using them?

Even if the books say that dead magic zones don't exist, never existed in the past, and will never exist in the future, what stops you from using them?

well, it depends upon how many abilities from different classes there are defined as having a magical nature. It might make it unpractical / difficult to use if it prevents to many abilities from to many different classes

So what you are saying is that you like to use Dead Magic, but not if it shuts down "too many different classes".

How many is "too many"?

Which classes should get shut down, and which should be able to function normally?

What is stopping you from using Dead Magic the way you want to use it?  Do your players like the way you use it?

well, i never had a situation were i had players entering a dead magic field. The only time I have used it was
1) Lore description of Tantras
2) Using sand from a deadmagic area as an alchemical component

but i kind of need to know, how many classes / abilities there will be affected
Simultaneously do i want for psionics to still be able to be used (at least for a certain time) in dead magic areas since it would validate some of the old FR lore (a drow house using psionics in Menzoberranzan at a time when other magic failed, certain stories about psionic imprisoned monsters trying to escape magical containment etc)

Nov 14, 2012 -- 10:03AM, bawylie wrote:

Trophy to Ed for actually discussing Warlord in the Warlord forum! Also astute point on being granted bonus actions. I second that and add that people also like collaborative actions (Iron Dragon Charge was very popular at my table).

Yes.  The warlord should be coordinating his allies.  Sure, any 'party leader' (or pushy player) can do that in the game or meta-game sense, but the warlord should have actual mechanics to back it up and actually give his allies a benefit for going along with the 'plan.'

On the WARLORD topic though: the hangout mentioned a guy falling off the turnip truck and declaring "I'm a warlord."

Humorous point, but also applies to cleric and wizard. The guy falling off the turnip cart doesn't have any class levels yet. He might have a background, but he's not adventurer material.

It applies to everyone except the Thief, and even he doesn't say "I'm a thief!"

He says "I didn't steal this turnip, it fell off a cart!"


Frankly, the whole thing is completely bogus.  The point that class names do not necessarily get used "in the fiction" has been made innumerable times throughout the game's history.  The only charitable thing that could be assumed about the comment is that it was meant as some kind of joke.  

 

Nov 14, 2012 -- 10:59AM, sleypy wrote:

When a party is in anti-magic zone people who use magic suffer. When it is a place that doesn't allow people to be armed weapon users suffer. These situations have a intended purpose to create imbalance. I can easily see this being in a section on creating hazards for your players in the DMG. Balance needs to be considered in the PHB and the rules compendium. The DMG should continue to include guidelines on how to upset that balance in the pursuit of crafting memorable situations. I just needs to be clear that when you do these things that you are disrupting the balance of the game and what the impact of doing it too often or not ever could have on your game. IMO, I think are relevant to 5e, but not so relevant to each other. 

Good insight.

Back on topic. I think there needs to be more discussion on how the warlord leadership presents itself off the battle field. I think its been beaten to death that they should grant actions in combat.

Leadership manifests in all walks of life.  In a project team or at a business meeting, there'll be a leader, whether it's a formal position, or just the fellow everyone looks to instinctively.  There are people who command respect or attention simply by entering a room.  There are social conventions, matters of place and precedence, that give one participant the 'initiative' in an interaction.  There are strategists and coaches who can help you make a good impression or hammer home a point in a debate.  Clearly there's plenty of room for the warlord's brand of contribution outside of combat.  How to actually model it mechanically is a more difficult question, especially having no idea what the playtest warlord (if we ever get him) might look like.

The easiest and most obvious (and dissapointing & inadequate) assumption would be that the warlord just gets put in the "martial ghetto" and has nothing going for him but a dice pool that keeps him worthwhile in damage-dealing somehow (as with the rogue, probably some way that's a lot less consistent than the Fighter's) and some 'maneuvers' that eat it up.  It'd be pretty easy to have 'Maneuvers' that add to skill checks - the mechanic would probably be one of those that adds the single highest result of the dice you roll to an ally's check.