|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 1:41PM
#51
|
|
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
I'd love to see all of those but I also don't want to force these things on DMs.
Things that GMs have direct control over the rules for are the easiest for a GM to strip out. If a GM doesn't want his party to starve if they don't eat, all he needs to do is simply not say anything about starvation. If a character jumps from a great height, it's easy for a GM to say "right, as long as you don't fumble, you can get back up immediately and avoid all injury." He can ignore heat, cold, diseases, anything he wants to, and most players won't bat an eyelid.
Yes but there are a lot of DMs that will feel pressured to use the rules if they are officially in the core rules and not labled as optional. You may not feel like that, but I guarantee you there's a large portion of DMs that would.
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 2:23PM
#52
|
|
|
But exploration is part of D&D - the world is supposed to be interactive. I fail to see how falling danger (for example) can be considered any less optional than sword damage.
What I can see as optional however is the lethality of the environment. Something like 3 settings to toggle.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 3:06AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
Just a little thing about the ranger weapon skills. As a "woodlander", I see the ranger with longsword and shield, with long/short bow and cutlass, or even with spear and shortsword as a hunter. But definitely not with 2 scimitars a la Drizzt, keep in mind that Drizzt dual wielding comes from his time in Menzoberrazan as a warrior/fighter trainee, it has nothing to do with his ranger training.
I would put forth the reason why Rangers are seen as the dual-weilding class is because of Drizzt. He became popular, was a ranger, and dual-weilded, so therefor every ranger had to dual weild (i don't think there was even a mechanic for it beforehand)
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 3:39AM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
But exploration is part of D&D - the world is supposed to be interactive. I fail to see how falling danger (for example) can be considered any less optional than sword damage.
What I can see as optional however is the lethality of the environment. Something like 3 settings to toggle.
Some DM, unfortnately, go from town to dungeon with only a single check (for a random encounter) inbetween. And if the aventure is located all in on area, you might never step into the wild.
---
This springs up an idea. What if Rangers were the anti-randomencounter class. The Ranger would provide benefits to skip roaming beast, travelling raiders, and patrolling guards while still getting some of the XP.
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!
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 5:02AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Sep 29, 2012
|
But exploration is part of D&D - the world is supposed to be interactive. I fail to see how falling danger (for example) can be considered any less optional than sword damage.
What I can see as optional however is the lethality of the environment. Something like 3 settings to toggle.
Some DM, unfortnately, go from town to dungeon with only a single check (for a random encounter) inbetween. And if the aventure is located all in on area, you might never step into the wild.
---
This springs up an idea. What if Rangers were the anti-randomencounter class. The Ranger would provide benefits to skip roaming beast, travelling raiders, and patrolling guards while still getting some of the XP.
skipping the wilderness part of an adventure would definitely remove the need for the ranger class (apart for the fluff).
OK, you could use the four basic classes and specialize them (that's another thread), the warrior could become monk, ranger or barbarian ; the cleric, paladin, druid or shaman : the thief, bard. Again, I'd rather like to see them as classes in DnD Next.
Btw, when did the designer decide that two weapon fighting was to be one of the ranger's traits ? I do remember having a player who actually used it but, hell, has this something to do with the class ? In my opinion, two weapon fighting should be reserved to the fighter or monk(they have time for learning that peculiar style). Let's find some neat tricks with bows and spear (like one of the ranger in 4E)
I do like Drizz't but he somehow hurts the Ranger image. He is described as a ranger but is the real example of a multiclassing character Fighter/Ranger (reading the novels you know he has never been a ranger from the start). In a way Aragorn (Strider) went the other way round. The best example of a ranger are the rangers from Ithilien (sorry for the LotR digression).
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 06, 2012 - 12:45AM
#56
|
|
|
OK, you could use the four basic classes and specialize them (that's another thread), the warrior could become monk, ranger or barbarian ; the cleric, paladin, druid or shaman : the thief, bard. Again, I'd rather like to see them as classes in DnD Next.
I wouldn't want the monk to be a fighter option. I prefer it as a rogue option. I also would prefer the paladin as a fighter option (though I like the idea of having the shaman as an "innate caster" variant of the cleric). I'd do something like:
Warrior classes: (combat specialists)
Fighter (weapons expert)
Ranger (hunter/woodsman)
Paladin (divine champion, dedicated to a deity)
Berserker (raging barbarian)
Rogue classes: (stealth specialists)
Thief (locks/traps specialist)
Bard (lore/speechcraft specialist, musician and dabbler)
Monk (unarmed combateer)
Assassin (killing things specialist)
Priest classes: (divine specialists)
Cleric (armoured divine caster, dedicated to a deity, can turn undead)
Druid (shapeshifting divine caster, dedicated to "Mother Nature", can turn into animals)
Shaman (non-vancian divine caster)
Wizard classes: (arcane specialists)
Mage (vancian arcane caster - bookworm type, very powerful)
Sorcerer (non-vancian arcane caster - less powerful but more versatile)
Warlock (non-vancian arcane caster - very powerful but dangerous)
Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!
|
|
|
