D&D Next Podcast (3/20/2013)

In this episode, Mike Robles sits down with R&D's Mike Mearls and Rodney Thompson to discuss the forthcoming D&D Next playtest packet. Players should look for new classes (the paladin, ranger, and druid), as well as revisions to the fighter and rogue. Mike and Rodney go through the changes and additions to expect, discuss the philosophy behind such mechanics as the ranger's favored enemy, and Mike reveals a dangerous secret about his in-game character.

Discuss this podcast here. 
 

All around helpful simian

Finally, they are finally releasing the Ranger. I can hardly wait until they actually release it today. The podcast teases us with "the packet is probably out by the time this podcast airs" lol


C'mon - push the button   
• Sounds like Martial Damage Bonus is going away, Martial Damage Dice are going to be Weapon Damage Dice instead, making weapons a more significant impact on the game.

• Maneuvers are no longer based off of Martial Damge Dice, they're going to function off of Expertise Die.
  
• Favored Enemies are going to have broad applications and later down the road, the possibliy of creating your own unique Favored Enemies: Red Wiards, Warforged, etc. (sounds promising!) 

• Fixing the math and Monster XP. 
 
interesting info. Disapointingly small information on the druid however :P

NOTE TO ALL: The warlord abilities in the next packet are NOT all of them. They said in the podcast that more are to come. 
My two copper.
Everything I heard I liked


Ws are back (like I asked for last year) instead of d6's meaning a fighter with a short sword and a fighter with a great sword have diffrent damage.


New manuvers sound ok, with dice.


THEY SAID OUT OF COMBAT FIGHTER FEATURES...
Laughing


Rangers sound bad ass, but not much on palidens.


I hope palidens are a mix of 3.5 and 4e, give them 3.5 lay on hands and 4e divine challange.           

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

Disappointed with WDD.  All WDD does is reinforce the notion that there is one or two best weapons for you to use and that you shouldn't bother with any of the others.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.


I hope palidens are a mix of 3.5 and 4e, give them 3.5 lay on hands and 4e divine challange.



Divine Challenge would be nice, but if they're going to give Paladins Lay On Hands, I'd rather it take on the form that Pathfinder gave them. The ability to remove certain conditions and the like is much better IMO than just some small pool of HP to restore, espically at highter levels when it becomes almost useless.
So MDD aren't gone after all, they're just [W] dice now. And yet there are also going to be extra attacks? I really think they should do one or the other, not both.
So MDD aren't gone after all, they're just [W] dice now. And yet there are also going to be extra attacks? I really think they should do one or the other, not both.


You might have to use the WDD to make the extra attacks.  So, same damage, just spread out among more than one target.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

You might have to use the WDD to make the extra attacks.  So, same damage, just spread out among more than one target.



That would be better. I just really don't want MDD multiplying with extra attacks.
So MDD aren't gone after all, they're just [W] dice now. And yet there are also going to be extra attacks? I really think they should do one or the other, not both.



Well the premise is that they don't want a Fighter player to feel like he's losing out on his Damge potential by using Manevuers from the same pool. Whether these maneuvers are just redone as class features OR they use Expertise Die is something I'm not really sure about. I believe that the extra attacks can come only from Expertise Die.
Disappointed with WDD.  All WDD does is reinforce the notion that there is one or two best weapons for you to use and that you shouldn't bother with any of the others.



The alternative would be that weapon choice doesn't matter all that much?



In other news, it seems like the new Fighter maneuver system may allow you to do any of these maneuvers on the list, instead of gaining precious few maneuvers that you're allowed to use?

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

Disappointed with WDD.  All WDD does is reinforce the notion that there is one or two best weapons for you to use and that you shouldn't bother with any of the others.



The alternative would be that weapon choice doesn't matter all that much?


The alternative would be that weapon choice matters for reasons other than damage (such as properties).

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Disappointed with WDD.  All WDD does is reinforce the notion that there is one or two best weapons for you to use and that you shouldn't bother with any of the others.



The alternative would be that weapon choice doesn't matter all that much?



Actually, I think maneuvers should put more emphasis on which weapons you use. They can all be used with which ever weapon you have on hand, but with certain weapons, they should provide a bit more oomph. For example, a weapon that knocks back a target might get a bonus if you use a Spear or if you trip someone, maybe if you used a Mace or Hammer it deals damage equal to your Constitution score. Something needs to be done to make weapon choices important, becasue right now they're drab.  


In other news, it seems like the new Fighter maneuver system may allow you to do any of these maneuvers on the list, instead of gaining precious few maneuvers that you're allowed to use?



Right, but at which you have to spend an action to renew it. I think a more at-will approach is better and provides a stronger dynamic feel than just doing more damage. I'll have to see how they implement it.
Disappointed with WDD.  All WDD does is reinforce the notion that there is one or two best weapons for you to use and that you shouldn't bother with any of the others.


The alternative would be that weapon choice doesn't matter all that much?

 
The alternative would be that weapon choice matters for reasons other than damage (such as properties).



I'm much more concerned with how it makes bonuses from Strength and magic weapons insignifcant. When you have one damage die, your Strength and magic weapon bonuses matter. If you have 5[W] + Str + magic, the Str and magic bonuses matter very little.

In other news, it seems like the new Fighter maneuver system may allow you to do any of these maneuvers on the list, instead of gaining precious few maneuvers that you're allowed to use?



At what point did you hear that? Because I didn't catch that.
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.

I'm much more concerned with how it makes bonuses from Strength and magic weapons insignifcant. When you have one damage die, your Strength and magic weapon bonuses matter. If you have 5[W] + Str + magic, the Str and magic bonuses matter very little.



Doesn't multiple attacks change that math?
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.
Things I noticed:

- Paladin and Ranger will get WDD. 
- 10th level fighter will get 3d8 WDD, that's a pretty slow escalation.
- Damage going down, monsters are tougher, but not harder to hit. (Which raises the question of whether any Fighter abilities that boost to-hit will be useful, given that it's not that difficult to start with +5 to hit at level 1 and monster ACs are pretty damn low)
- Warden as Green Knight!
- I really hope they give Orzel a hat-tip for his Favored Enemy idea, if they can't show parallel evolution.
- "Bruteslayer" gets a bonus against groups of humanoids, that's cool.
- I like the idea of Favored Enemy Faction, although if I was going to build a bounty hunter, I'd want a non-spellcasting one.
- the Fighter:
        separate WDD and ED - good, although it'll make coming up with maneuvers trickier
        bigger effects for maneuvers - YES.
        some maneuvers becoming class features - interesting...
        fighter maneuvers and class features are class-exclusive - YES.
        non-combat features through ED - interesting...how will refresh rates work in Exploration or Social Interaction?
        fighter gets some buff powers from the Warlord, more coming - I'm waiting for the tactical stuff, personally
- the Rogue:
        balancing trickiness vs. damage-dealer - good.
        different things on Sneak Attack, limited abilities to grant self Advantage for Sneak Attack - good.
        no hiding every other round required - good.  
        
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.

I'm much more concerned with how it makes bonuses from Strength and magic weapons insignifcant. When you have one damage die, your Strength and magic weapon bonuses matter. If you have 5[W] + Str + magic, the Str and magic bonuses matter very little.



Doesn't multiple attacks change that math?



It depends on how they work. I'll just wait until the packet comes out before I speculate any futher.

I'm much more concerned with how it makes bonuses from Strength and magic weapons insignifcant. When you have one damage die, your Strength and magic weapon bonuses matter. If you have 5[W] + Str + magic, the Str and magic bonuses matter very little.



Doesn't multiple attacks change that math?



It depends on how they work. I'll just wait until the packet comes out before I speculate any futher.




What I have been using since the last packet is that let's say you have 1 WDD, and are wielding a longsword, you could attack once for 2d8 + mod, or twice, for 1d8 + Mod each, but cannot attack/target the same creature more than once in your turn.

Okay, it's 6:30am over here, come on, bring on the packet, baby! 
My summary -

- It's a major drop, much larger than the last few. It took a bit because they wanted to make some changes to the math behind the game, specifically looking at the differences between martial characters, spellcasters. Also reconfigured monster XP. Changes touched a lot of things.
- Math changes: Based on feedback, people felt that MDD made the weapon you used inconsequential.
- Instead of a bunch of d6's that you add on, your base damage with your weapon goes up at a rate depending on your weapon damage. If you're weapon's a d8, you throw a bunch of d8s.
- Monster XP is changing to hopefully make encounter construction better.
- Static bonus to damage going away.
- Accuracy is staying the same.
- Prefer to change monster XP value, rather than monster stats.
- Also looking at spell and cantrip damage. Cantrips are losing damage, for example, so the ratio between cantrips and weapon damage stays the same.

Paladin, Druid, looking traditional. They have a lot of traditional abilities.
Paladins are defined by a code of ethics, but that can mean a lot of things.
Cavalier is the traditional good-guy paladin.
Blackguard is the evil anti-paladin.
Warden - Green Knight archetype, integrating the 4e Warden into the Paladin class. Warden is very much the nature knight. We're very excited about this. Rich with tradition and story, but also new and exciting.

Ranger
Getting a few upgrades.
Spells from level one.
Different take on favored enemy. Get general bonuses that are useful against dragons, like immunity to fear if you hate dragons, rather than +2 vs. Dragons. Orc slayer cleaves through mobs of guys, etc.
This is a much more interesting to balance.
Potential for mix-and-match favored enemy benefits, eventually.

Fighter and the Rogue getting big revisions and restructuring.
People didn't like choosing between being awesome and doing something interesting with MDD.
Fighters now just do more damage with their weapons. Expertise dice are now just extra dice that you can be awesome with. Glancing Blow, Parry now works with this. Nobody else has the fighter's exact bucket of toys. The fighter no longer automatically kills everything in one hit, unless he's pumping up his damage, which he can't do every hit. Special tricks are now better because it's no longer just always the case to just dump all of them into one-shotting everything. Fighter rests for an action to regain a die once it's spent. Maneuvers are being presented differently. You can imagine a warlord ability that uses these dice to reduce damage people are taking, or give someone else an attack with a bonus.

WARLORD TALK - Some of the abilities of the warlord that were based on buffing your allies or being a helper to other people are already in this version of the fighter and there's more to come. This is a first step, and there's more that has to be done. If you want to build a fighter that helps his allies more than he helps himself, that's starting to peek through in this version of the fighter.

Rogue -
Rogue is a tricky class, because you have to balance the rogue as sneaky trickster vs. rogue as giant backstabs guy doing a lot of damage. Continuing to push the rogue in its own unique direction. People don't want to have to hide every other round, so they're experimenting with ways to make the rogue more autonomous. Rogues are very varied in terms of how they're played.  It's a game-style-dependent class, and conceptually it's been stretched in different directions.

Wizard polymorphing fighter into bird, throwing him at people anecdote.

Give rogues options for distraction, dodging, in place of sneak attack for people who'd rather do that.

We're beginning to talk about the DMG. It's going to look different than it has in the past. Focus on tinkering.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
I can understand the desire to make easy monsters not worth a lot of xp and simply add in better monsters 'cause it accomodates a wider range of play. However, I hope they're not so squeamish that they can't bring themselves to go ahead and change the most notible examples of the stupid, like Asmodeus and so on.
Nobody else has the fighter's exact bucket of toys.



I'm hoping only the Fighter gets Expertise Dice/Manoeuvres.

The Barbarian can focus on Rage, the Monk on Ki, Paladin on Oath and spells, Ranger on Favoured Enemy and spells, Rogue Skill Tricks, etc. 
Rogue

I feel Rogue should specialize in mobility.

Mobility includes Stealth.

It also includes Immobility, hindering the mobility of the enemy, and Surveillance to obstruct the Stealth of the enemy.


Mobility
• Athletics (Agility, Speed, Jump, Climb, Dodge)
• Escape Grabs (Escape wrestling, escape restraints)
• Open Locks
• Penetrate Barrier
• Disarm Traps
• Cure Paralyzing Poison
• Stealth (hide, disguise, obscure terrain)

Immobility
• Dirty Fighting (blind, paralyze, hobble)
• Grabs (wrestle, restrain)
• Lock
• Barricade (hindering terrain, caltrops)
• Set Traps
• Paralyzing Poison
• Find Hidden (find hidden, listen, detect invisible, recognize disguise)



Mobility is highly valuable in combat as well as in noncombat.

Specializing in Mobility helps distinguish the Rogue from the Fighter.

The Fighter is generally heavy infantry and artillery.

The Rogue is generally skirmishing light infantry and special ops.
Rogue

I feel Rogue should specialize in mobility.

Mobility includes Stealth.

It also includes Immobility, hindering the mobility of the enemy, and Surveillance to obstruct the Stealth of the enemy.

Mobility is highly valuable in combat as well as in noncombat.

Specializing in Mobility helps distinguish the Rogue from the Fighter.

The Fighter is generally heavy infantry and artillery.

The Rogue is generally skirmishing light infantry and special ops.



when you say rogue in combat and fighter in combat 2 difrent images come to my mind.

fighter in combat : very efective against multiple oponents and longer fights
Rogue in combat : Very effective against a single target but not very effective when facing multiple oponents.

So maybe the rough would have ability to get advantage against a target when he is in a 1v1 situation ( no enemies adjacent to the rogue or his enemy)
This might tie into your point about mobility as that would alouw the rogue to get into those 1v1 situations.
Moving around taking out that solo archer or healer that is keeping his distance.

Fighter in combat : very efective against multiple oponents and longer fights

Rogue in combat : Very effective against a single target but not very effective when facing multiple oponents.


The above is true in 4e, corresponding to the combat roles.

I am less sure if it applies in 5e.



That said, the Fighter has high hit points, high defenses, survivability - whence heavy infantry - and this inherently synergizes with fighting multiple opponents at the same time. Oppositely, sneaking around synergizes with a big attack against a single unsuspecting target before revealing ones presence to everyone else.

Still, this would be moreso “soft roles” that emerge from optimization. It would still be possible to design a Fighter that excels at single-target damage, or a two-weapon Rogue that agily takes on multiple targets, like a Monk does.

In any case. Simply correlating Fighter with Heavy and Artillery, and Rogue with Light and Special, already suggests roles.

Some points that surprised me a bit:

1. Fighters will apparently have access to a maneuver that lets them spend their expertise dice to do extra damage, ON TOP OF their extra weapon dice, when they really need it.
2. Out of combat fighter abilities already, I think!
3. The rogue is changing, but I didn't really get how. It sounded to me like they were describing the skill tricks we already have.
4. Since Dms will some day be able to "mix and match" new Favored Enemies, that must mean each favored enemy consists of more than one benefit. Hurray!
5. I still have no idea to what extent the warden-paladin has nature-focused spells and abilities.
6. The only two ranger traits we've heard a lot about recently are spells and favored enemies. Those sound cool! But what about martial ability and skills? Obviously they get MDD/WD like the fighter and rogue, and probably at least two bonus skills, but is there really no room for a non-caster ranger (like Aragorn or even friggin Drizzt most of the time) in 5e?
I still see rogues as advanced regular guys and not light infantry.

You have your warriors, your casters, and your casting warrior. If you can't fight or use magic, you use skills and/or cheat. Rogues sneak attack because they have too. They'd fight like fighters if they knew how. They hae some martial prowess but it is not enough. Like how my brother used to unplug my controller with his feet or play with the cheapest tactics availiable because he can't beat me.

Hey Mike. You're suppose to polymorph the rogue into a bird and throw him at people! Not the fighter, he looks too much damage. Tongue Out

Now to search my room for recording devices.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

So my biggest/only initial beef with this is: Martial Damage Die was made so large so that the individual weapons weren't completely outclassed by each other. So I could play a rapier as readily as a greatsword and not be dealing a lot less damage. Now people are upset because now weapon choice is meaningless so they're changing it back to weapon damage die. But that just brings back the problem of 6d12 is WAY better than 6d6. I don't think people needed Bigger weapons to deal a TON more damage they just want justification for weapon choice. Make the weapons themselves more unique, give the Fighters (or general martial classes) a unique maneuver based on the weapon they pick so weapon choice seems meaningful because it depicts how you deal combat. I see homerules like Wrecan's all around the place. 

I just think they're looking at the problem from the wrong pov.

Other than that I'm excited and causiously optimistic.  
Small weapons can work if they have a niche.  In earlier editions the majority of people used longswords because they were the ones most likely to turn up as magic items.  If certain weapons get bonuses on certain manoeuvres and if larger weapons are less likely to appear with powerful secondary abilities, it will be posible to balance this.  Cookie cutter magic items help cement the problem.
So my biggest/only initial beef with this is: Martial Damage Die was made so large so that the individual weapons weren't completely outclassed by each other. So I could play a rapier as readily as a greatsword and not be dealing a lot less damage. Now people are upset because now weapon choice is meaningless so they're changing it back to weapon damage die. But that just brings back the problem of 6d12 is WAY better than 6d6. I don't think people needed Bigger weapons to deal a TON more damage they just want justification for weapon choice. Make the weapons themselves more unique, give the Fighters (or general martial classes) a unique maneuver based on the weapon they pick so weapon choice seems meaningful because it depicts how you deal combat. I see homerules like Wrecan's all around the place. 

I just think they're looking at the problem from the wrong pov.

Other than that I'm excited and causiously optimistic.  



i woulden't be suprised if the figher splat book that will come somwhere down the road, will have weapon specific fighting styles.
WD still seems like a good change to me. I agree that throwing a chair at someone for 30 damage was cool at times, but with fixed MDD, the designers have to make the benefits of lower-damage weapons crappier just to keep those weapons from being overpowered. As an obvious example, shields currently only give you +1 AC because if it was any better, every high-level fighter would gladly go down from 1d12+6d6+30 (57.5 average damage) to 1d10+6d6+30 (56.5 average damage) for the boost in AC. Make that difference more meaningful at all levels, and it's okay for shields to give you +3 AC.
It's possible to make the differences too great between weapons, but that's what playtesting is for.
WD still seems like a good change to me. I agree that throwing a chair at someone for 30 damage was cool at times, but with fixed MDD, the designers have to make the benefits of lower-damage weapons crappier just to keep those weapons from being overpowered. As an obvious example, shields currently only give you +1 AC because if it was any better, every high-level fighter would gladly go down from 1d12+6d6+30 (57.5 average damage) to 1d10+6d6+30 (56.5 average damage) for the boost in AC. Make that difference more meaningful at all levels, and it's okay for shields to give you +3 AC.



Not to mention that mdd made str fighters inferior to dex fighters.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

Math

It will be interesting to see how they deal with changing monster experience to make the monsters tougher without actually changing the stats, which probably means monsters like a dragon will continue to have low AC and a lot of hit points. Or the problems with BA will remain.

Ranger

They have the right train of thought with the ranger and favored enemy, but fear is a bad example. Being an expert hunter of dragons is completely different than fighting undead. The fear of being eaten by a dragon in reference to its immense size and power, is different than the fear of losing your soul to undead. In addittion, is takes away faith of the paladin to be able to act fearless. The large creatures is a better example of implementing monster groups, versus specific monsters, unless the player chooses a specific enemy. It would be nice to work terrain or settings into the idea. Like a underground lurker ranger have abilities applied against that setting. In other words, some type of survival instincts to consider both the setting and monsters that inhabit it.

Paladin

I am not against the idea of the warden being the neutral paladin or green knight, because it acknowleges the class as a concept, even if it is a subclass.

Fighter  

I fear they are using warlord tactics of attrition to gain a concensus to merge the warlord with the fighter. And once the majority of warlord abilities are spread accross the fighter or other classes, then it will not longer exist and they will use the player base to make that decision. Even when they realize there are players that support the concept of a warlord being distinct.

I do not mind if the warlord is a subclass of the fighter similar to the warden with the paladin, but I want them state (acknowlege the warlord class concept) when testing how it may fit into the game.
If certain weapons get bonuses on certain manoeuvres and if larger weapons are less likely to appear with powerful secondary abilities, it will be posible to balance this.


You can't use magic items in an effort to balance anything since the system has no expectations of magic items of any type showing up.
I would like to see a "favored terrain"-like feature for rangers, either in addition to or in replacement of favored enemy. Rangers should have options to be less combat-focused and better at exploration (better than rogues, IMO).

There is still a lot of feature duplication between a non-magical ranger and rogue conceptually, IMO, so having the ranger be a martial/magical hybrid is probably a good way to go.

I really want to see skill mastery be non-exclusive to rogues. Anyone should be able to get skill mastery, and not just by MCing into rogue. I'd even say that each class gets a skill (preferably a choice from a small list) having skill mastery.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
I would like to see a "favored terrain"-like feature for rangers, either in addition to or in replacement of favored enemy. Rangers should have options to be less combat-focused and better at exploration (better than rogues, IMO).

There is still a lot of feature duplication between a non-magical ranger and rogue conceptually, IMO, so having the ranger be a martial/magical hybrid is probably a good way to go.

I really want to see skill mastery be non-exclusive to rogues. Anyone should be able to get skill mastery, and not just by MCing into rogue. I'd even say that each class gets a skill (preferably a choice from a small list) having skill mastery.




I like the 'favored terrain' idea - in general.  (I also think it would work well as a specialty).


My concern is that it has the same problem as did favored enemy in earlier incarnations - it has no function outside of that terrain (just as favored enemy was of little use if the campaign didn't feature lots of that foe).

What it needs is a way for the ranger to bring their expertise in one terrain into survival in other terrains.  Ways for the lessons of the desert (for example) to help the ranger while he is traveling in the jungle.


Any ideas?

Carl
I would like to see a "favored terrain"-like feature for rangers, either in addition to or in replacement of favored enemy. Rangers should have options to be less combat-focused and better at exploration (better than rogues, IMO).

There is still a lot of feature duplication between a non-magical ranger and rogue conceptually, IMO, so having the ranger be a martial/magical hybrid is probably a good way to go.

I really want to see skill mastery be non-exclusive to rogues. Anyone should be able to get skill mastery, and not just by MCing into rogue. I'd even say that each class gets a skill (preferably a choice from a small list) having skill mastery.




I like the 'favored terrain' idea - in general.  (I also think it would work well as a specialty).


My concern is that it has the same problem as did favored enemy in earlier incarnations - it has no function outside of that terrain (just as favored enemy was of little use if the campaign didn't feature lots of that foe).

What it needs is a way for the ranger to bring their expertise in one terrain into survival in other terrains.  Ways for the lessons of the desert (for example) to help the ranger while he is traveling in the jungle.


Any ideas?

Carl



that is apples and oranges, the 2 terrains are totaly diffrent and have diffrent issues, one has a super intense dry heat, where travel by day on foot is a mistake so going by moonlight is perfered, the other is a intense humid heat where travel at night will get you eaten by tons of predators. even movement on sand vs thick jungles. i do like the way they are doing things in the packet and i wouldnt change it to terrain. now mayb some kind of skill in movement in certain terrains would be ok with me but not anything past that, there are survival skills for terrains too.
It likely won't appear until AT LEAST when WotC enter the office in the morning there, which means 8am Pacific, which means 9am Mountain, 10am Central, and 11am Eastern.  That said, in the past, these things haven't been put up until mid-afternoon, so…

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

My concern is that it has the same problem as did favored enemy in earlier incarnations - it has no function outside of that terrain (just as favored enemy was of little use if the campaign didn't feature lots of that foe).

What it needs is a way for the ranger to bring their expertise in one terrain into survival in other terrains.  Ways for the lessons of the desert (for example) to help the ranger while he is traveling in the jungle.

I agree. Desert mastery gives bonuses vs fire and radiant (desert is a bit bright during the day), but perhaps also illusions (mirages). Forest mastery reduces penalties for cover/concealment, and/or difficult terrain from underbrush. Mountain mastery gives endurance, climbing, or balance training (just to be a little different).

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.