http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/state-game
Mile Marls talks about the ranger that many things that made the ranger unique in older editions are now also open to other classes making the ranger feal less unique.
He suggested they might do a re imagininag of the ranger down the line and see what they could do for the ranger to make it feal more distinct.
So what is the core of the ranger class, and what kind of unique mecanics could we give these alternative rangers
they should do a Ranger based on the Wall guards from Game of thrones. cold climate resistance and survival type stuff. It would be an interesting variant to have a Dire Wolf too. Come to think of it, i dont think you need to change much to make those guys, except adapting their armor and gear to a cold climate.
some notable mechanics from the past:
low level magic user spells in addition to druid spells
two weapon fighting at no penalty as a stock feature
more hit points than a barbarian at level 1
move silently & hide in shadows like a thief
animal handling or pets up to and including bears
tracking as a fully functional ability
survival in the wild
a good example of a ranger lancelot from First Knight; dude hangs out in the forest, plays with animals, uses survival skills, fights two weapon style, and wears light armor.
the funny thing about the Sciency sounding stuff, is that stuff has all been rejected as MAGIC by the scientific community.
Back in the day, everyone spoke greek and latin. Psychokinesis is just two greek terms stuck together. It's mostly greek, actually.
We still need Pyrokinesis, sciency name or not
As to the frequent use of fireball, and firewall, it was really insulting to many of the psionic fans that the most common non-telepathic attacks in psionic history are being left out because the writer doesn't like the terminology. That's actually quite horrible. Pyrokinesis - Animate Fire, is one of the biggest tropes in psionic history.
You have Precognition, Telepathy, Levitation, Mind Control, Telekinesis, Clairvoyance, and then Psychic Damage and Pyrokinesis compete for next most frequent Psionic Trope. Stephen King invented the term in 1980, but setting people on fire with your thoughts is an idea that predates most countries, and the power appears all over the place. Not just in King stuff like Carrie and Firestarter. Genma Taisen began in 1967 and featured it in a film in 1983. Black Cat, X Men, even X Files.
Pyrokinesis was the first cool kinesis that wasn't telekinesis. All other kinesis powers are basically an adaptation of pyrokinesis.
Psionics without Pyrokinesis is like Camping without matches. How are you gonna make smores??!!
shintashi wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Interesting design insights!
I've never been deeply inspired by the ranger, but I really like the mind exercise of pondering what unique thing it might bring to the table.
they could make the ranger even better at TWF, animal handling, and such..
"when you TWF, you can make 2 off-hand attacks"
"you have advantage on animal handling checks"
ect...
granted, 2 off-hand attacks is not really any different then a fighter's 3rd attack, but at least it sounds different.
I don't think trying to make the ranger a better fighter than the fighter is the way to go. My own feeling is that the really unique part of the ranger archetype is the favored enemy/terrain idea, I would emphasize those.
I agree that an adaptable favored enemy/terrain is a good way to go. This solves the problem that of character who is really great in specific situations (against your favored enemies or in your favored terrain) but not great otherwise. Maybe you could have something like you pick one favored enemy and terrain to start, but also have an ability where if you spend some time (X days) in a terrain type, you can treat it as favored. After X days in a different terrain, you could replace that temporary selection with the new terrain. X could go down as you level or something. Maybe the benefits in your temp terrain are not so good as in your 'true' favored terrain, or not, I don't know. But that gives you a way to keep the 'I'm in tune with the land and use that for fighting' schick without making the ranger too specialized.
You can do the same with favored enemy, let the ranger treat a monster as favored after a couple fights with that monster.
For favored enemies straight combat bonuses seem OK, but for favored terrain I think it would be cool if you could do something like a legendary monster's lair action, where you specifically use the terrain to do something. But I'm not totally sure how you'd develop that.
Heh. I remember playing long ago with my ranger Storm Thunderson (hey, I was quite young when I wrote up the character!) He was a ranger and could fight with two weapons all while casting clerical and wizard spells. He was a warrior at home in the wilderness, but he was not nature's warrior. He was Aragorn from The Lord of the Rings.
Then new editions came out and he lost the funky vibe and became a druid that used metal. When I tried to recreate his distant descendent years later ... it just didn't feel the same. I got a new puppy and some limited druid spells. 
It wasn't special any more.
I'd like to see it go back to that old feel. A combination of fighter/rogue/cleric/wizard. Someone who can fade into the background when needed while still being a front line fighter.
But it's tough. Everything that made good ol' Storm unique can be replicated with other classes or multiclassing now.
So I would go back and do unique things with him. Let him cast shocking grasp that can be delivered through his weapon. Give him expertise on survival/tracking. Let him be a cleric/mage again but have his spells be more unique to a fighting style where the magic supplements his fighting ability instead of replacing his weapon attacks.
i think the 4e seeker did a reasonable job at being unique, and could fit in as a ranger.
it was basicly an arcane archer, but with druid spells. i.e. ensaring strike, bouncing arrows, and the like. a mix of damage and control.
mellored wrote:
I think the problem with the ranger, and to a lesser extent the rogue and monk, are that they're mechanically pidgeonholed. If you take a look at the fighter, cleric, paladin and barbarian, Wizards did a pretty amazing job making a wide-open creative space that can be used to build characters of all stripes. They make the standard barbarian tropes work (like the Conan trope—barechested warrior with a greatsword/axe), but they've also opened up a dual-wielder and a tank builds, and have added a sort of shamanistic/spiritual RP side. Similarly, the cleric can be anything from a bookish nerd to a crusader king, along with some bizarre unique stuff (plate-wearing druid and holy rogue). Even the paladin has a ton of different ways to be portrayed.
But the ranger is basically just "bow dude". Maybe "bow dude with anemic pet" and there's also a melee ranger, but the mechanics for both are pretty punishing (poor defenses + concentration requirement + MAD).
But the ranger should be much more than just Legolas and Aragorn. To make the ranger great, Wizards needs to crack open the class and create mechanics that make it really worth taking in your group, even if he's a slightly worse fighter than a true fighter.
I see those things as:
- Hunting/Tracking
- Ambushes/Trapping
- Natural knowledge/Survival training
...and they need to apply more generally than just in a specific environment/against a specific enemy.
i think instead of dumping all their "powerZ" into crappy multiple favored enemies with no bonuses (if you read it carefully, you can't actually track squat... trust me, i tried. My DM laughed at me. "you don't know which direction something is.. you just know it's within several miles". Fat lot of good that did.)
they should make rangers hunting tracking killing machines of ONE and only ONE favored enemy. They should be better than the fighter at killing their favored enemy. They should be able to smell them, know which direction they went, and start walking. Naturally, that's too much power for multiple favored enemy types, thats why it should be limited to one. They would be slayers.
Actually, you could dump that on top of the TWF OR Super Archery, where they get "flurry of arrows" OR (not both) flurry of scimitars, then you have a 3 attack/round Slayer with one favored enemy, and attack/damage/tracking bonuses vs. that one thing. In a White Room, they might average 2 damage/round more than the fighter vs. that foe, but vs. non favored enemies, it might white room as 10-20 points less.
Rangers with the favored enemy might also get the "hunting for the six fingered man" effect - which acts like the Oath Bow. They can pick one singular enemy, and then get crazy bonuses for that target until they die, similar to the oath bow, with the exception that the Oath enemy must be encountered during play or as part of the background, and cannot provide benefits during the first encounter. Thus the Oath effect could take place at the start of play with a background villain, or on the second encounter with a villain that "got away".
I dunno. I'm just trying to stay away from the Beastmaster aspect. But tracking has to be fixed. In our old games, the ranger was the only reliable class outside of Divination that could find the dragon's lair. In 5e, they have practically no better chance of doing that, than I have of finding a singular person on Manhattan Island with no electronics. Sure, I might know there's a particular human in the area... but what good does it do me?
strider13x wrote:
the problem with favored enemy/terrain is that it's very hit/miss. you either have a big bonus, or none.
mellored wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
My issue with favored terrain and enemy features is that they are, as of right now, far too limited. Hidden within the ranger there is a mechanic which is actually fairly unique. Namely, the ranger gets various bonuses against target after he spends a little time dealing with them, and he is best when focusing on specific (types of) foes. For example: the colossus slayer feature which grants +1d8 damage against a damaged foe; hunters mark, which requires a ranger to cast a debuff (or spend a bonus action after a chosen target goes down) in order to gain lasting advantages against a specific target; favored enemies/terrain bonuses against specific types of enemies/in specific types of terrains. Conceptually, I like that! I just don't think the mechanics work all that well as is. Favored terrain/foes is far too fiddly. Hunters mark requires your daily spell slot usage, and it is such an important spell that it really limits the rangers ability to use spell slots on other spells. Colossus slayer is actually pretty great, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. Other class features suffer from similar problems. I mean, how often will groups really have enough time to use "hide in plain sight?" I would love to see some sort of set of features where rangers acclimatize themselves to specific type of terrain/foe, and once they do they gain a host of advantages. As they gain levels, they gain more advantages/have an easier time quickly acclimatizing against new foes.
Coredump00 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
How about a Scout sub-class that gave:
- Some big bonus to Stealth and Perception when in natural habitat (is Advantage too much?)
- Advantage on opening attacks versus surprised enemies, or when Ranger has initiative
- Ummm....
Codifying scout/tracker role for wilderness adventures might need rogue revision to codify their role as scout in urban/dungeon adventures.
Idk.
First thing I find myself asking "If I played a ranger, what would I want that to feel like?"
RCanine wrote:
Focus on ambushing would be cool... except it's difficult to do. I mean, besides the +10 to stealth checks while hiding in a spot.
I'm thinking the easiest would be to relase some more ranger spells. You can give them a new feel without changing anything. Possibly some TWF spells.
Hit and Run: Level 1
Bonus Action
Prerequisit: who weapons.
You can TWF, move 30' and hide. This movement does not provoke an oppertunity attack.
Swift Blade: Level 3
Bonus Action:
Concentraion 1 minute
You can TWF twice.
There was a class like that. Using monster abilities. It was pretty cool, but not very well balanced.
But it's not really a "ranger".
Other things they talked about: their intention of locking Psionic subclasses out of each other's disciplines (bad, imho); the nature of errata and new design; that they have a ton of other interesting things coming through UA in the future; that the Ardent is actually supposed to be a fifth subclass of Mystic (Ardent, Battlemind/Psychic Warrior/Metabolist, Soulknife, Telepath, and Telekineticist). I expect a Shaper-type as well, at some point, and maybe a Teleporter-type character). Or maybe some of those are singular disciplines to be combined, or "generalist" disciplines for anyone, like a teleportation discipline that an Immortal but also an Awakened might like. They did NOT suggest generalist disciplines in the podcast, however. We need to make it happen!
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Ranger Ideas:
How about this: Favoured Terrain allows you to set terrain-specific traps and you gain more kinds of traps as you level. Likewise, it could yield kinds of poisons, potions, etc. I've always thought this was lacking from the Ranger in previous editions. This kid is living off the land all the time, you think they only hunt with a bow and two swords? No, they probably trap as well, which could introduce all kinds of fun mechanics/spells/abilities to the ranger. Likewise, processing what they find in the woods, they should be able to whip of some 'bushcrafted' medicines, unguents, poisons, intoxicants, etc. right?
Other things: Give more Favoured Enemy/Terrain options over the course of character development, or else switch them out more frequently. Either way, increase benefits for these overall. Increase Spell List and make it easier to use spells in combat alongside attacks. Make a more compelling Beast companion option. Take some cues from ASoIaF with the Warging, green-seeing etc. Maybe rangers should be THE companion class, though I feel like that's a little restrictive for other archtypes...
Psionics: I don't know how I feel about the little we know about the new approach to psionics. I mostly like the playtest material from UA, but I don't savour the idea of railroading people into disciplines via subclass NOR do I like the thought of one class chassis having to do all the work for what in previous editions have been 5+ classes (with the Psion alone comprising 8-9 distinct sub-classes). Moreover, I don't understand Mearls' gripe with the nomenclature: Using a real-world analogue from medieval europe, or really, medieval just about everywhere, there were generally languages of learning used by the upper echelons of society to record, adminster, legislate, teach, philosophize, correspond, etc. Easy examples are Greek and Latin, which formed the basis for liberal arts education. Why then, is it out of place in a medieval fantasy setting to label psychic acts using roughly Linnaean nomenclature such a 'psychokinesis?' Like, what are you going to call a 'pyrokineticist?' This point is proven even less substantial then when he goes on to say that something like 'Ego Fortress' is somehow more preferrable, when 'ego' is Latin for 'I.' ,,,so we're supposed to scoff when something is labelled essentially using a form of binomial nomenclature (substituting Greek for Latin) such as in 'Psycho Kinesis' but when something is labelled using disparate languages albeit with one still being ancient and 'sciency-sounding', we should all applaud? I don't get it.
I would like a Psion (not 'Mystic') as the primary caster version, for the others, I honestly don't see much of a point even folding them into the Psion, you could just make a Fighter or Monk sub-class or two for the Battlemind/Psychic Warrior and Soul-Knife respectively, then one Psion sub-class for each of the 7 Psionic Disciplines (Psychokinesis, Psyoportation, Psychometabolism, Metacreativity, Telepathy, Clairsentience, and MetaPsionics), and finally, a Psion sub-class for the Wilder/Generalist. That only leaves a leadery type of subclass out (Ardent), so maybe depending what you want to do with it you could just shoe-horn it in somewhere in another class, or just do one final sub-class of Psion. However many sub-classes there are though, I think the sub-classes should allow you more than one 'Displine/Power' option per 'power level' (which follows the progression for the Warlock's Invocations it seems). This is probably just because what we're seeing is a playtest but I really don't want to be that rail-roaded with my character development. The Wilder very much still apeals. Please don't pass this class over.
As far as inspiration, I want to be able to warp peoples' minds in psychic duels that take place in 'mindscapes' a la 2e Dark Sun, I want to see the different psionic displines tied to the different chakras in a somehow meaningful mechanical way, I want to be able to learn the 7 forms of Lightsaber combat and specialize in one or more of those forms with my Mind/Soul-Blade, I want to be able to meld my weapons and armor into myself, then teleport around the field clobbering and regenerating until I resemble the Thing, I want to shape fire-whips to lash my opponents with and summon dream-beings to attack their minds, I want Psionics tied to the Plane of Dream and I want the Plane of Dream to be the primary agonist contesting the Far Realm. I'd like bonuses when using psi powers on the plane of dreams or in the Far Realm and I'd like robust amount of psionic items such as ecto-skins, psi-cystals, tattoos, dorjes, etc. I'd like psionics to visually/aurally resemble performing kuji-kiri or mudras, mantras, and madalas, I want to make people's heads explode when my character takes too much melange.
lawrencehoy wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
mellored wrote:
One thing about the Ranger is that it's often either too general (a bunch of techniques others can use) or too specific (a bunch of techniques that only it can do, but that don't emulate a lot of different types of characters). So we have the Aragorn/Legolas machine on one hand and the "I'm a lesser Fighter, lesser Rogue, lesser Druid" on the other hand. I'd really like it to emphasise its skillful character role more than the martial fighting style or primal caster roles. Hunter is all about it being a technical fighter, and beastmaster gives it a pet to fight alongside, but both are "variant fighter with druidish spells." I don't think minor usage of sneak attack would fix it though; it needs something of its own, but something that will allow the Ranger to expand out into more archetypical forms. So what is a "Ranger"? Oxford American Dictionary says it's 1 – a keeper of a park, forest, or area of countryside; 2 – a member of armed men, in particular (a) a mounted soldier, or (b) US commando or highly trained infantryman; or 3 – a person or thing that wanders or ranges over a particular area or domain.
So a couple points.
The Paladin has a mount summoning spell in 5e; I would argue find steed should be added to the Ranger spell list.
Next, the military aspects of the Ranger should be retained, as per the armed men elements.
Finally, the wandering is important. Very important. Rangers should be the class to have if you're going out into the wilderness, whether into the desert wastes of Athas or beyond the Wall of Westeros into Wildling Country; whether into the Shadowlands south of Rokugan or over the Misty Mountains and beyond the Edge of the Wild of Middle-Earth; whether through the Underdark of the Realms or the the Hollow World of Mystara; whether into the Demon Wastes or the Jungles of X'endrik in Eberron… you get the picture. Right now, they have tracking abilities, they have land based abilities, but they don't feel like they're essential for wilderness adventuring. Forget dungeoneering – that's the Rogue's specialty. The Ranger can do well at that, but ANYTHING natural should be their domain. It's more than use of nature skill. There were some really cool Primal talents (similar to psionic wild talents) and martial skill rituals from 4e that could be things a Ranger can do that no one else can… the Ranger needs a mechanic all to its own. I like the burn spell-mechanic, but it has far too few spells for that. It should have another resource to burn, and then the versatility to burn spells on top of that if it needs to ditch its spells.
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
mellored wrote:
Durability has it's advantages.
1: You can get a bigger bonus. +7 (including the +1), compaired to disavantage which is 4.5.
2: You can see the roll before deciding. So you never "waste" your reaction when the enemy rolls a 1.
3: You get elemental resistance. So it can help against fireballs.
So the trade off is free weaker defense, or stronger defense that cost points.
Again, the wizard isn't broken because it can cast both blur and mirror image. Even if one is better for eldrich knights and one is better for wizards.
Not that you need 2 if your generalized. You only need 1 defensive option.
Or perhaps have split them up differently. A magic defense option, and a physical defense option.
mellored wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
mellored wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
mellored wrote:
I'm looking at my 2e Rangers handbook and I'm seeing all kinds of great ideas for this class. Of course, 2e has a more granular set of skills like Camouflage,Cartography,Distance Sense,Foraging, Crude Weaponsmithing etc.. Heck I even like the combat abilities of the 2e Giant Slayer Ranger.
After listening to what mearls said about rangers, I'm starting to think that the 5e survival and tracking rules are too simple. They need to be revised to make those skills near impossible without specialized training.
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Unfortunately it seems that the tracking, overland travel and survival rules are too simple to hang any class mechanics of any real depth of for the Ranger. Also the Ranger should of auto gained Survival and Knowledge Nature as part of class not as optional and some expertise on say 2 skills would of helped. I see the Ranher as an Exploration Pillar specialist with decent combat input but it did not real go far or unique enough.
Shasarak wrote:
For the Ranger, my playgroup and I have had many discussions about what it would take in order to bring the feel of the class, if not its mechanical strengths, up to par with the other classes found in the PHB. For the most part, as WoTC has said, the Ranger really isn’t that terrible – in practical application, it can keep up with other classes (even the Beastmaster), but its abilities come across as poor or weak initially, which makes players feel like they’re starting off on the backfoot at best, or that they made a mistake in class selection at worst. I think that WoTC definitely has it correct with the thought that the Ranger lacks an identity, at least as far as mechanics are concerned. I think finding that will be the key to fixing the class.
It isn’t too difficult to define other classes in the PHB, both by their role and key mechanic. Druids are conduits of nature’s magic, with spells and wild shape. Monks are the martial arts class, with the aptly named “martial arts” and ki. Rogues are the class of subterfuge and stealth, with sneak attack and cunning action. Even Fighters have begun to have a mechanical identity with Action Surge; Mike Mearls said himself he hopes that it is the thing that people will identify with Fighters in the future. So, therein lies the question: What does a Ranger do? What feels like a Ranger?
At first, I suspected that the Ranger was supposed to be the best explorer, tracker, and hunter. Since I starting out with 3.5, I knew the Ranger as being defined (loosely) by Favored Enemy. Everything else, even “Track,” could be done by another class, each of which was mechanically defined by their own abilities. But defining a Ranger like that had its own host of problems, pointed out in the podcast and by others here: Tracking is largely useless as a defining mechanic, and with the right subclass and background, almost any class can feel like a Ranger. Favored Enemy is also out as a significant mechanic, as WoTC said themselves in their Unearthed Arcana: Modifying Classes article, “because the ranger’s strength in combat should not rely solely on the discretion of the Dungeon Master or the circumstances of the adventure.”
I would instead argue that what defines a Ranger is that it is the class that interacts best with its environment. Not THE environment (as in nature), but ITS environment. Mechanics that emphasize that would be a huge step towards making the Ranger feel more like its own class with its own role. For example, in a cave, a Wizard would probably best be able to manipulate the battlefield. A Barbarian would best be able to smash the biggest bad guy, even to its own detriment. A Ranger would best be able to use the cave to its advantage; knowing how to cause the stalactites to fall on the enemy, or how to utilize the natural cover the cave provides better than its allies. If this extended to anywhere the Ranger happened to be fighting, the Ranger as a class would still feel like it’s the class most closely connected to the land, even if the fight were to take place in an urban setting. Being the master of your environment could extend to a lot of other kinds of class abilities, like movements speeds (climbing, swimming, etc.), or something like Use Object as a bonus action.
To a smaller degree, a Ranger could also be the class that emphasizes accuracy over raw damage. A “Hawkeye” approach to the Ranger, if you will. Perhaps it would be an inverse to the Paladin’s Divine Smite ability: spending spells slots to ensure your attack is a success. It could be a slowly increasing attack bonus. It could be a number of re-rolls a day. Whatever it could be, it would surely add to something that makes the Ranger unique over other classes. But ultimately, I believe the mechanics that make the Ranger a class people can get excited about are hidden in its unknown identity.
Aerodus wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Aerodus wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
I find it distrubing that Mearls thinks that when people look back on D&D they will consider self healing to be a core feature of the fighter class.
dmgorgon wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
A quick disclaimer: I have not played 4th edition and have not yet played 5th edition (We are starting a campaign next week).
Conceptually for me a ranger is the master of their environment, not simply surviving but thriving in their chosen region. While not inherently magical they learn the secrets of the plants and animals that surround them and can utilize these secrets for their advantage. The conceptual stereotype I have for a ranger is the character Garret from Disney’s quest for Camelot; an individual who survived so long in the forest that the forest became his strength. I would love to see abilities emphasizing their ties and knowledge of a specific area.
The abilities I have in mind would be benefits like.
Has advantage on attacks against all creatures and NPC not native to their territory.
A ranger gains +2 AC while within this territory
Traps: a ranger is an expert at setting traps in their territory
Rangers gain the ability to travel quickly in their territory gaining bonus to movement speeds and can make use of indigenous plants and animals to travel quickly and in extraordinary methods (i.e. can swing on vines traveling quickly, can cut a specific vine that will lift them to the tree tops. Know trees which are connected naturally with the tree step spell)
A ranger becomes attuned to a specific territory that they inhabit gaining special advantages while within that territory. Urban settings and dungeons cannot become a ranger’s territory and a ranger does not gain their special abilities while within a city or dungeon inside their territory (say 10 miles per ranger level) A ranger may become attuned to a new territory by traveling and studying it for at least 8 hours a day for 30 days. A ranger may only be attuned to one territory at a time.
Rangers can call upon assistance from plant and animal creatures in the area during times of need (does not summon a creature merely calls for help from the creatures already in the area.
This is opposed to a druid which attunes itself to the natural magic having more spells and taking the form of animals and elementals rather than simply learning to utilize the environment itself.
Difficult terrain abilities sound like they could fit the ranger well.
4e had a feat that gave you +2 while in difficut terrain, and another that gave +2 to hit anyone in difficult terrain. as well as some that let you move though difficult terrain without slowing.
add that and difficult terrain spells to the rangers repitoir, maybe bonuses relating to cover, and you got yourself a distinct class. it will still fit into the damage/controller catagory.
I'd like rangers to get both archery and TWF combat styles. Make them the switch hitters rather than focusing on just one.
Wild Empathy would also be a neat defining feature. Make rangers the guys that can calm animals and use diplomacy against beasts.
After all:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/qQqeefjndfboisefoqfdiqw922.gif
mellored wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
lawrencehoy wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
There wasn't a hard line between magic and skill in LotR.
In real life you can perform a "magic ritual" to create fire, if you have the right knowlage and sticks.
i think what defines the magic is the aspect of the relationship between why most people cant do it, through mysteries, and the metamagic effects of enhancing, blocking, and defending against it.
Clearly, if anything were magic, it would probably be computer hacking or electronics. Those are the first things to mysteriously shut off in both sci fi and fantasy horror. like certain things ward against electronics, but have no immediate apparent effect on things like steam engines or swords.
psionics can be treated either like swords & steam engines, or it can be treated as its own flavor of electronics or computer programs.
Steam engines pretty much work all the time, anyone can understand them after knowledge of wheel and fire.
electronics can interfere with other electronics, without interfering with the functionlity of swords or wooden water wheels and things.
the idea im getting at here is "switch". if something can happen that turns off magic, or electronics, or computers, but keeps crude machines like windmills and glass blowers working,
then we really need to define which of these two categories psionics goes in. The most effective psionics are in the category of nature - swords, bonfires, and visible clockwork,
that is to say, they aren't any more special than a strong man flexing, or a smart guy assembling an aqueduct.
the weakest psionics are like sensitive magic electronics, subject to interference from static electricity, vacuum, lead walls, distance, fog, abjuration magic spells, dead zones, and moody DMs who just want it banned.
as long as psionics are seen as an evolutionary/cultural advantage of a species, they are easy to integrate; the opposite extreme of claw/claw/bite and scales/tails/wings.
Orethalion wrote:
mellored wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
I'm interested in listening to some of these podcast episodes, but so far as I can tell, they only exist for iTunes. I do not use iTunes for podcasts (it doesn't play nicely with Windows or Android) but I listen to a lot of podcasts. Could this podcast be made available through an RSS feed, as most podcasts are? I would love to subscribe, but I am not going to use iTunes to listen to it.
Chris perkins verifies that there will be official adventures that are not level 1-15 campaigns. (this is great!)
He also addresses that the PC will not be under Drizzt's shadow in OotA. (also Great! but we suspected this)
He also mentions that 2 novels bookend the Rage of Demons storyline. I assume these are Spellstorm and Archmage.
Does anyone know if Spellstorm and Archmage are in fact the 2 novesl he is talking about?
CORRECTION, After relistening to the podcast. I think Archmage is the 1st novel Chris talkes about with the 2nd novel unannounced.
Do any of the novels address the Elemental Evil storyline?
I love hearing from Chris, this was a great podcast!
Sigh,
A lot of what Mearls says was pointed out during the Playtest.
I know you guys are tired of hearing my opinion, but this all stems from the fact that the Ranger is just a variation on the Fighter archetype. If they had opened up Class builiding more widely they would not have the problem their facing now. When people can build exactly the kind of Iconic Character they want, using solid character creation that is Inclusive instead of Exclusive like the current rules, then you wouldn't find 'classes' that are lacking.
For example, you take a Fighter base class. Add perhaps a 'Scout' template that adds woods-lore and terrain familiarty at the cost of maybe Heavy armor or other features. Then a Player might choose a background that allows for a limited Spell Progression if they like that for the Ranger. Or something different if the Ranger is supposed to be more anti-Monster, or perhaps like our own Modern Rangers a more Elite fighting specialization.
They could have done this in a balanced and interesting manner that enable Character Building instead of the, IMO, contrived classes we have now that try to focus on one groups ideas of what a class should encompass.
LupusRegalis wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
gmanjkd wrote: