Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Oh, no, for sure the ENWorld community is vastly different than the broader D&D community. Even so, I didn’t get the impression that there were more non-casting ranger fans here than casting ranger fans.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D (2024) What type of ranger would your prefer for 2024?
- Thread starter Horwath
- Start date
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Yeah, you keep banging this drum, but it’s not going to change the fact that I fundamentally disagree.
Did I say the same wilderness.
When I DM, there are forests in Hells, mountains in the Feywild, plain in the Heavens, and jungles in the Shadowdark.
D&D Core isn't written this way, described this way, not guides DMs to think this way. So DMs unlike me will not give their players this experiences.
Plus 5e gutted Streetwise and Dungeoneering skill for some dumb reason.
Sooo...write it that way
(Points to DMG)
Mid and high level wilderness content is not in this book.
(Points to MM)
Mid and high level wilderness content is not in this book.
(Points to XGTE)
Mid and high level wilderness content is not in this book.
(Points to TCOE)
Wait..wait.. their is a wee bit here...
Spells as Natural Hazards.
oh.Magic spells as nature.
It is clear that the 5e designers had no interest in wilderness encounters past low levels. They did not build formulas nor provide guidance to make your own higher level wilderness experiences. So the reasonable expectation from the books are low level nonmagical encounters then straight up magic.
Sure we can write our own. But 99% of DMs who learn to run D&D wilderness encounter from WOTC or a WOTC-mnded 3PP and aren't nature aficionados isn't going to have the meat to run mid and high level wilderness content that isn't spell based. Who a spell-less ranger written for 5e would need a full wilderness chapter or they would just be the disappointing equivalent of a fighter/rogue with a feat. Hence why the spell-less ranger rules never became official.
That's all I'm saying. I mean folks
where's the lie?
Bacon Bits
Hero
The problem with doing that is the first thing that will happen is every player will descend on those tables and take them as gospel for exactly the actions that are possible within the game to take with precise DCs they can optimize for.
It won't provide guidance to the DM. It will give players a program to execute. Pages of rules to browbeat DMs with.
Then in 2 years time, players will be clamoring for WotC to release new tables with "fixed" DCs and more corner cases and for abilities they can imagine that aren't in the script.
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
You’re going to be shocked to read this, I know, but guess what? I still don’t agree with you about this.
I am not shocked.
However that doesn't dispute the fact that 5e doesn't provide the spot and escape DCs of a whirlpool.
Or the stats of an electromagnetic whirlpool nor how to design one.
Shardstone
Hero
Actually, the skill system being fleshed out would solve a lot. Ideally, every martial character should be able to use skills to class-focused fantastical things as they level up. There could be generic ones that are gatekept by level/tier, and then specific ones you can choose to unlock as you level up. This would make exploration challenges a bit more enticing as you'd have an idea for what to do in different tiers based off the skill abilities the martials offer.
Incenjucar
Legend
D&D has the planes. Plenty of "natural" hazards for rangers to deal with even at level 20.
You try finding a sprig of mistletoe on the gears of Mechanus.
You try finding a sprig of mistletoe on the gears of Mechanus.
Similar Threads
- Poll
