|
I think one of the more aggravating discussions I've had about D&D was the alleged problem of Rangers becoming a dedicated archer/ranged attacker type in 4th Edition*, and how that was a problem because it meant they could no longer make a ranged Fighter * which isn't even entirely true considering you can also be a dual-wielding melee attacker given the right power selection
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I think one of the more aggravating discussions I've had about D&D was the alleged problem of Rangers becoming a dedicated archer/ranged attacker type in 4th Edition*, and how that was a problem because it meant they could no longer make a ranged Fighter The general consensus is that melee rangers are better, just because melee damage is oversupported by magic items in 4e, IIRC. The truly hilarious thing about 5e is that it made it so Fighters could be archers again, and it's pretty much the best option, largely because whoever bumped Archery Style from +1 to +2 in the transition from Alpha PHB to the final product is a horse' rear end.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:The general consensus is that melee rangers are better, just because melee damage is oversupported by magic items in 4e, IIRC. Magic items, feats, native power selection...lots of things contribute to melee being the preferred striker zone in terms of damage output. 4e archer rangers are amazing for a host of other reasons though. gradenko_2000 posted:I think one of the more aggravating discussions I've had about D&D was the alleged problem of Rangers becoming a dedicated archer/ranged attacker type in 4th Edition*, and how that was a problem because it meant they could no longer make a ranged Fighter Yea, it's not even remotely true because Melee Ranger wasn't just something that could be done, it was an entire aspect of the class with mountains of support. Building a Fighter as an archer was a problem because of how Combat Challenge required adjacency.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 07:47
|
|
|
The ranger was good in AD&D because it was literally superior to the Fighter in absolutely every way. It was your reward for rolling high on your stats - you can be a ranger instead of a fighter! The ranger was good in AD&D 2e if you weren't using weapon grandmastery because, well, the exact same reason. It was the fighter but it also got extra stuff. If you were using grandmastery then the ranger was not as good in murdering everything as the fighter, but was a bit better at being defensive, and still had their niche as the ultimate Outdoors Guy. The ranger was absolute dogshit in 3e unless you made a very specific build that involved taking another class and then using a feat to mash them together into one and even then was still not as good as the druid at anything. The ranger was goddamn beast mode in 4e, but that's the stuff of heresy according to 5e, and we must never speak it's name. ...So it's not really a surprise the ranger is dogshit in 5e. Outside of 4e, the ranger has either been literally the fighter but better, or a terrible mishmash of taking a few druid abilities, making them shittier, and then giving it full BAB as if that mattered. There's only one way to make the ranger good, and that's to give it some of the druid's stuff. Or rather, give it back some of the druid's stuff - it's funny how many core 3e druid abilities are found not on the druid in AD&D 1e/2e, but on the ranger.  3.x.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 08:48
|
|
|
I think the 3.5e books had critical hits and misses written into it. If not special events then "always hits" and "always misses" I have players reroll 1s and use the following roll to gauge a narrative effect. a 20 might have the pc push the enemy back a square/move themselves back as they clash shields but don't connect. A 16 would be "you awkwardly misstep and your attack goes nowhere near the enemy". a 5 would be "you slip on some scree and fall down, the enemy gets their next attack at Advantage while you regain your footing." another 1 would have the enemy score a fiat hit on the character at average damage as something comical or worrying puts the pc in a helpless position open to attack.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
I feel like moving it from a fighter/druid hybrid to a rogue/druid hybrid. Give them some expertise picks in a narrow range of skills, better spell selection, hide in plain sight and vanish at a lower level and not rear end, awareness not taking a spell slot, change favored terrain to a table of bonuses based on what terrain you're in. Make their combat role be about getting bonuses from being mobile, which I guess is a swashbuckler thing already.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Kommando posted:I think the 3.5e books had critical hits and misses written into it. If not special events then "always hits" and "always misses" so what happens to the wizard when an enemy rolls a nat 20 on their save
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
Kommando posted:I think the 3.5e books had critical hits and misses written into it. If not special events then "always hits" and "always misses" Why do you hate fighters
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
It really is quite telling how many of these "fun" rules allow Wizards to function normally, while the Fighters can suffer at any moment like they're in some sort of Happy Tree Friends world.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
3rd Edition had critical hits as a default part of gameplay. If you rolled a natural 20, that would be an automatic hit, or an automatic passed saving throw. You'd also make the same attack roll again, and if that was also high enough to be a hit, then you'd deal extra damage based on your critical multiplier. A natural 1 would just be an automatic miss, or an automatic failed saving throw. What people tend to, uh, miss, is that natural 20s and natural 1s were not automatic successes or failures when it came to skill checks. The PHB even specifically states that "Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure." The DMG had some variant rules: 1. To make critical hits softer, reduce the critical hit multiplier of all weapons by one grade. A weapon with a 2x multiplier never actually gets to deal any extra damage at all - a natural 20 just means an automatic hit. 2. Treat a natural 1 as a value of -10, and a natural 20 as a value of 30. This means that there are still going to be results and situations where a character is absolutely unhittable, as opposed to the default behavior where any two given characters always have a 5% chance to hit / miss each other no matter what the comparative stats are. 3. For fumbles / critical misses, a natural 1 means the character has to make a DC 10 Dexterity check. If they fail, they "fumble", whose effect is left to the DM's discretion, but the game recommends that they miss and lose out on the rest of their actions for the turn (while they pick up their weapon, regain their balance, whatever), and nothing more. 4. For skill checks, a natural 20 means the character gets to roll again. If the second roll is still a success against the DC of the skill check, the character gains an extra boon. Conversely, a natural 1 means the character gets to roll again. If the second roll is still a failure, the character gains an extra negative effect. Sage Genesis posted:It really is quite telling how many of these "fun" rules allow Wizards to function normally, while the Fighters can suffer at any moment like they're in some sort of Happy Tree Friends world. The obvious solution is to just all play Fighters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:and druids can do the nature stuff better.  ProfessorCirno posted:There's only one way to make the ranger good, and that's to give it some of the druid's stuff. Or rather, give it back some of the druid's stuff - it's funny how many core 3e druid abilities are found not on the druid in AD&D 1e/2e, but on the ranger. I'm not very familiar with 1e and 2e outside of CRPGs, can you give some examples? I'm not saying you're wrong--I'm genuinely curious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:I'm not very familiar with 1e and 2e outside of CRPGs, can you give some examples? I'm not saying you're wrong--I'm genuinely curious. I remember that animal companions were originally the Ranger's domain. Then they got gimped and gave Druids the full-strength version for...some reason I'm not sure about. Even if Druids with animal companions make sense, why nerf the Ranger's version?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
IIRC, in AD&D, the animal companion was a Ranger class feature exclusively; Druids didn't get one. In 3.X, both Druids and Rangers got animal companions, but the Ranger version was completely gimped compared the the Druid one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Rangers were weird in 2e - they got hide in shadows/move silent up to 99% outdoors (half indoors), they got some priest spells, could two weapon fight without penalty, and then all the tracking stuff, animal empathy, on and on. They really don't make much sense as their own class - they're basically just fighter/rogues with a bunch of nonweapon proficiencies, but Aragorn needed his own class I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Even if Druids with animal companions make sense, why nerf the Ranger's version?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Wasn't the genesis of the ranger class something weird, where some dev wanted to be the bestest, most awesomest dude or something? I swear it was covered in this or another D&D thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
The ranger is a thing so you can be aragorn. He moves fast across open country, tracks creatures very well, and can do limited priest magic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:Wasn't the genesis of the ranger class something weird, where some dev wanted to be the bestest, most awesomest dude or something? I swear it was covered in this or another D&D thread. Straight up Aragorn who yeah is basically the bestest fighter and human ever because he hung out with elves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:Straight up Aragorn who yeah is basically the bestest fighter and human ever because he hung out with elves. Well that and he was a king, which means a lot in LOTR.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
I ended up going bard after a couple levels of Warlock since the 2 spell slots felt way too limiting since my party wasn't taking short rests that often. This combo is everything I've heard it was and more. I knew eldritch blast would be a great compliment, but I didn't anticipate the Great Old One telepathy helping me talk my way out of fighting some weird ghost naga things thanks to expertise in persuasion. My DM hates me after last night though. Between cutting words, heat metal, and dissonant whispers I almost singlehandedly neutered the big bad. He hit us with some AoE poison spray thing, but didn't land a single target attack the whole fight. I never even used Eldritch Blast.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
My Warlock 3/Sorc 1, a level 1 Monk and a Level 1 Paladin beat the 4th returning party member who was level 4 but also a Vampire Spawn, with basically only one combat roll. Sent my invisible familiar upstairs to investigate, she heard him open the door and pounced, killing him but not before she recognized him as my familiar. We roll initiative, I go first and use Thaumaturgy to blow open a window in the hallway, exposing her to a ton of sunlight. She rushes back into the bedroom and puts on her cloak while the Monk starts trying to beat the door down. My next turn, I blow open the window in the bedroom and she starts taking partial sunlight damage. The Monk gets in and misses his attack; I Misty Step behind her and yank her cloak off with a Strength check. Blam, full sunlight damage, she bursts into flames, I Prestidigitation them out (the DM didn't really argue this point) and Thaumaturgy the window closed again. She dies and gets resurrected as her normal self after some roleplaying around and we have a Druid again. I get the feeling that my Warlock slots are going to make Metamagic pretty bonkers once I get there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Well that and he was a king, which means a lot in LOTR. King-as-a-class would be amazing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
xiw posted:King-as-a-class would be amazing. 2nd ed >9th level Fighter mashed up with 4th ed Warlord plus some fluff/background stuff about how people can tell you're the One True King For Realsies No Takebacks and how that hurts/helps you. E: Like, your touch literally cures scrofula and also stab wounds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The ranger was absolute dogshit in 3e unless you made a very specific build that involved taking another class and then using a feat to mash them together into one and even then was still not as good as the druid at anything. also notable in that neither of those options fix the caster supremacy problem either 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
Plebeians. In D&D, any king would be a Wizard or a Cleric. Why would the divinely mandated sovereign possibly learn how to handle a sword of all things? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
And he can shout the blood back into your body!
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
AD&D ranger was straight up Aragorn with some D&D dust sprinkled on top. The second level was even called "Strider." For starters, you have all the benefits of a fighter, except you get some a level later (followers, extra attacks), you can't keep wealth on hand, and no keep. Next, you actually start out with double the HP. You do way more damage to "giant" type enemies which just so coincidentally happens to include orcs (as well as a lot of other nasties - "giant" enemies appear at just about all levels, so their favored enemy is always useful." They get tracking and the special ability to start combat off by surprising enemies (AD&D was weird and "who surprises who" was literally a roll at the start of every fight). They get a smattering of druid and mage spells, and can very specifically use magical items based around scrying - again, this is almost literally "they can use palantir." The 2e ranger was a bit different and had things a bit more codified. They still have almost all the same advantages a fighter gets, except they can't use high grandmastery if those rules are in effect, and they level up a bit slower; that said, they get bonuses to using non-heavy armor. While fighters get a keep and a cadre of MEN AT ARMS, rangers get no kinda of fortification, and their list of could-be followers include animals or some woodland creatures (fun fact: the game not only doesn't tell you why this happens, it also doesn't give you a means to talk to these animals - you're expected to just kinda make up a reason why the animals are with you and are your friend. OH NO, ROLEPLAYING AND NARRATIVE DESIGN?!). They get special tracking abilities nobody else gets, and can soothe animals, whether they're trained or untrained or whatever. Yes, that means the ranger can just give a stern glare at attack dogs, and they back off. They choose a singular species to be their hated enemy and get bonuses to murder them (though not as awesome as the 1e ranger bonuses), but must attack them first in a fight and cannot keep their cool around them. Lastly, they get a smattering of druid spells, which tends to give them a mix of utility and defensive capabilities. Now, if they choose to wear studded leather or less, they ALSO get a few more benefits; they can use two weapons without any penalty, and get both move silently and hide in shadows (with their skills halved when not out in nature). Much like the AD&D ranger, they can't really keep excess gold in a treasury or w/e and are expected to either convert it into something portable or donate it to a worthy cause (which cannot be other PCs). The 2e druid, in comparison, still has his shapeshift abilities, and can talk to woodland creatures - which is to say, pixies and the like, not animals. He can identify plants/animals/clean water immediately, and can pass through overgrown areas without leaving a trail. At very high levels they get some weirder poo poo - a bunch of underlings, immunity to natural poison, no more aging penalties, they can change their appearance, they can choose to hibernate, and they can enter and wander around the elemental planes. Oh, and they stop gaining more spells.. Oh, and they have troubles leveling up, because at a certain point druids only level if they ENTER THE THUNDERDOME. But 2e didn't really stop there. There was The Complete ________ line of books; by this time, TSR realized that the "optional" Non-Weapon Proficiencies (ie skills) were really popular, and started treating them as if they were a core feature, and classes got some new goodies. Rangers gained nature lore, which wasn't just "WHAT KINDA BEAR IS THAT," but actually covered "ok, why are the trees dying in this forest?" They got the Survival NWP for free in their chosen terrain - which was something druids couldn't even take normally, unless they paid extra. Lastly, they became real good at training animals. Druids, in response, gained...nothing. Well, new spells (which the ranger also technically got). But no new character abilities. So to compare at 2e: Rangers can track, sneak, understand nature and any sort of natural problem, have survival skills in their chosen terrain, get a relatively weighty bonus against one species, can use heavy armor and any weapon, get animal companions, and can soothe and train animals. Druids can talk to magical woodland creatures, identify plants and animals, and can move through overgrown areas with ease and without leaving a trail. Enter 3e. Druids get animal companions, and they even make the ranger version shittier to add insult to injury. Druids now have animal empathy. Druids gain a feat that allows them to cast spells while in animal form (THIS ONE IS HUGE!), can shapeshift more times per day as they level, and the list of what they can shapeshift into skyrockets and becomes massive. Druids lose their ability to automatically identify nature poo poo and instead get a small bonus to knowledge (nature) and survival. Speaking of which, druids can now learn survival as a class skill. They gain immunity to poison seven levels earlier, and now it's ALL poison. They no longer have to THUNDERDOME. Rangers in comparison lose their armor proficiencies, their favored enemy bonus becomes substantially weaker but they gain more favored enemies, their animal companion (as was mentioned) is weaker, they lose their implicit understanding of nature, they lose their free survival in their chosen terrain, and they no longer get any bonuses to train animals. In return they can eventually hide/move silent without cover while in nature and later can do it while being observed. Also their spellcasting blows now. And no more palantir usage. So, yeah. Again, pre-3e, Ranger was the nature guy. Period. Druid didn't even come close, because the druid wasn't a ranger, he was some weirdo cleric off-branch. The ranger was the woodsman who knew every animal and every tree like the back of his hand; the druid was some weird smelly hermit. This isn't even touching the changes 3e made to combat that even more effectively neutered the ranger. It's worth repeating yet again: the druid not only got no bonuses at all to actually surviving in the wilds (that's what his spells are for!), he outright couldn't take the survival skill unless he paid extra. The druid was not a hunter or even a forager. That's what his spells were for. If your plants were rotting, if your trees are growing a strange unnatural fungus, if there were more and more and hungrier and hungrier wild animals that were starting to attack a village, you didn't go to the druid, because he was probably too busy growing magic mushrooms in his own poo poo - you went to the goddamn ranger. He knows about this kinda thing. I cannot emphasize enough that one ranger ability was literally "you just loving know what's going on whenever nature is involved." EDIT: This also isn't even touching 2e's HLAs. Warrior class HLAs were some intense poo poo. One of them was literally "you are now the raddest, sexiest, best iconic individual of your entire species, and everybody knows it."
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Red Metal posted:so what happens to the wizard when an enemy rolls a nat 20 on their save the enemy saves? Piell posted:Why do you hate fighters I dont... I see what you're getting at.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Any good new releases? First or third party?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Kommando posted:I dont... I see what you're getting at. Critical misses occur on attack rolls, which are the core mechanic of martial classes. There are some spells that use attack rolls, but a lot are based on saving throws (fireball) or don't require a roll at all. Moreover, casters get stronger with higher level spells, while martials get stronger by making more attacks per round. More attacks = more chances to really gently caress yourself over, if you use critical misses. Edit: Oops, I misread what you meant. Leaving this here anyway because the last thing the game needs is even more ways to make casters better than martials 404notfound fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Aug 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Kommando posted:the enemy saves? Under your rules, when fighters utterly fail (roll a natural 1), they get penalized beyond what the rules normally state. When wizards utterly fail (enemy rolls a natural 20), they are not penalized any further than the rules normally state. Do you see what we're getting at here? e;fb
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Fighters also get multiple attacks per round, so they risk critical failures far more often than a wizard even could. Attack rolls are probably the most common roll in the game. Why should the fighter risk stabbing himself in the dick multiple times in a single loving round, when the wizard can shrug and alter reality and never risk so much as his spell fizzling due to a bad roll?ProfessorCirno posted:So, yeah. Again, pre-3e, Ranger was the nature guy. Period. Druid didn't even come close, because the druid wasn't a ranger, he was some weirdo cleric off-branch. The ranger was the woodsman who knew every animal and every tree like the back of his hand; the druid was some weird smelly hermit. This actually makes a lot of sense. Real-life druids weren't necessarily ultra nature hippies, they were weird cultists with a natural bent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
It seems like they're torn in a kind of war between Rangers and Druids, where they can't increase one without taking away from the other.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Covok posted:Any good new releases? First or third party? I just picked up Ultramodern5, I haven't had enough time to read over it too thoroughly but it looks quite interesting. It's basically D20 Modern for 5e and uses a revised character class system that breaks your character into a combination of a class, a ladder and an archetype.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Red Metal posted:Under your rules, when fighters utterly fail (roll a natural 1), they get penalized beyond what the rules normally state. When wizards utterly fail (enemy rolls a natural 20), they are not penalized any further than the rules normally state. Do you see what we're getting at here? Yes that's what I said. let me rephrase, "I don't hate fighters... oh, I get your point"
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
Remember a miss just means you failed to inflict damage, not that your blade didn't connect. Narratively, a fighter has a lot of reasons why that'd happen. So here's my nat 1 table (PCs only) Roll 1d6 1) you miss 2) you lock blades with your opponent and size him up. You know exactly how to turn this to your favor. Next attack against him automatically hits if you haven't moved yet. 3) your feint was a success! You get an extra 10 ft of movement this round and don't provoke oas from this guy 4) Your attack forced the enemy to reveal one of his tricks to avoid harm. Ask the gm a question about their abilities or battle plans, and you get a truthful answer. 5) you put a chink in the enemy's armor. Name a defense the enemy has (DR, armor, protective spell, whatever). For the next round your attacks ignore it. 6) From their reaction you figured out your enemy's combat style. Next time they try to attack you, you get a free attack against them, which resolves before they get to roll
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
you could counter with all magic is wild magic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Kommando posted:you could counter with all magic is wild magic. I would be okay with that. Thematically I actually really like the idea of magic potentially having dire consequences and it could be a decent step in the way of making caster less of a bunch of gently caress-asses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Kommando posted:you could counter with all magic is wild magic. My Out of the Abyss campaign is basically this right now due to the Faerzress. I think overall we've gotten a few more positive/neutral effects than bad ones, but every now and then it really fucks you up. We all stand far away from each other in case the fireball effect comes up, and if modrons get summoned, especially the higher forms, it drags the fight out a lot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
Tunicate posted:Remember a miss just means you failed to inflict damage, not that your blade didn't connect. Narratively, a fighter has a lot of reasons why that'd happen. So here's my nat 1 table (PCs only) That's really good. Really good. Give this to everyone on natural 1, and give Fighters a class feature where it happens the first time one of their attacks misses in a round. Because they're masters of combat, there's a vanishingly small chance that they'll do nothing at all in a round where they're trying to Fighter someone. Maybe expand it to 8 or 10 things too. Maybe make a fighter flavoured one and a rogue flavoured one and a less-good basic one for people who don't really do martial combat. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Aug 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:12
|
|