D&D 5E Legends and Lore October 22nd

[MoonSong]

Give them things like Endurance, self-sufficiency (in the sense of not needing a settlement to get supplies, not not needing party members), the ability to give their allies bonuses/advantage to Str, Dex and Con checks when exploring. The power to make untrained knowledge checks that involve flora, fauna, weather and terrain. Give them the power to be the best trackers, also something akin to animal empathy. Hll you can give them the power to make allies expend Hit dice to recover from poison provided they identified the source!. The ranger's stick lies in exploration, he knows his way in the wild (or the city if he is an urban ranger).

 

[Magil]

Give them things like Endurance, self-sufficiency (in the sense of not needing a settlement to get supplies, not not needing party members), the ability to give their allies bonuses/advantage to Str, Dex and Con checks when exploring. The power to make untrained knowledge checks that involve flora, fauna, weather and terrain. Give them the power to be the best trackers, also something akin to animal empathy. Hll you can give them the power to make allies expend Hit dice to recover from poison provided they identified the source!. The ranger's stick lies in exploration, he knows his way in the wild (or the city if he is an urban ranger).

I can't think of any reason why I'd want to play that over a fighter in the vast majority of campaigns, which are unlikely to focus on wilderness exploration.

You can't make a class that mechanically niche. It just won't end well. Especially not with such a history as the DnD Ranger.

 

[GameDoc]

Outside of a wilderness setting, rangers should still be superior to fighters in ambushes, hit and run tactics, and finding advantages in the terrain by being more aware of their surroundings. The idea that these skills lose all application in the "urban jungle" is preposterous. Stylistically, rangers stalk their opponent whereas fighters charge in directly.

There is also something in my mind that says the fighter should be better with heavy armor and large weapons, and when properly armed will outmatch a ranger in a straight up toe to toe fight; but if you drop a fighter and a ranger in a pit, stripped to the waist, and toss both of them a knife, they should be evenly matched.

The real trick is pulling this off without then encroaching on the rogue, especially not just making the ranger a rogue with more HP, a greater attack bonus, and better weapons.

 

[MoonSong]

Outside of a wilderness setting, rangers should still be superior to fighters in ambushes, hit and run tactics, and finding advantages in the terrain by being more aware of their surroundings. The idea that these skills lose all application in the "urban jungle" is preposterous. Stylistically, rangers stalk their opponent whereas fighters charge in directly.

There is also something in my mind that says the fighter should be better with heavy armor and large weapons, and when properly armed will outmatch a ranger in a straight up toe to toe fight; but if you drop a fighter and a ranger in a pit, stripped to the waist, and toss both of them a knife, they should be evenly matched.

The real trick is pulling this off without then encroaching on the rogue, especially not just making the ranger a rogue with more HP, a greater attack bonus, and better weapons.

Well I like what you say. But I'm not worried, the Rogue is the master of skills, which include both exploration and socialization, the ranger on the other hand is the master of his environment, not necesarily socially usefull and there is the fact Rogues make good thieves, thughs, conmans and almost anything that isn't itself a niche, and of course there's still the whole pickpocket/lockpicking/disarming traps/stealth thing.

 

[dd.stevenson]

I would like the ranger to be hyper aware of his/her environment. He should be able to hear a troop of orcs from leagues away by putting his ear to the ground. He should be able to predict next week's weather by sniffing the wind. He should be able to guess the direction of the bandit camp by listening for a discordant note in a bird song. He should be able to follow tracks while blindfolded, using nothing more than a spare stick as a guide cane.

In short, his presence in the party should be a game changer--at least when they're adventuring in terrain he knows well.

 

[Li Shenron]

Animal companions, demonic minions, and etc seem to me just another kind of henchmen, and should be counted in the same rules and restrictions as those.

No, not necessarily. There are at least 2-3 different possible ways to get a companion (animal-like or human-like): through roleplay, buying/paying for it, and investing some character-building option (such as a feat or a class-specific feature).

My standard as a DM is that since the latter is a bigger investment, then I guarantee that the companion is loyal with no further costs or efforts. This is what happens in my 3e games for cohorts (Leadership feat), familiars, animal companions etc, although if the feature has specific notes then I apply them (e.g. in 3.0 animal companions are obtained by casting Animal Friendship which mentions that the caster has to be sincerely willing to befriend the animal).

But if a companion is obtained through roleplay (essentially an NPC follower or ally, or a pet) or bought/hired (mercenary, servant, or an animal), my standard is that loyalty is the result of the PC inspiring it and deserving it.

But these should not be "rules" per se but rather guidelines. I don't want the book to tell me how should I handle companions. Also, I don't want the book to force how these companions should be roleplayed: in my games, the DM controls the behaviour of the companions so that they never count as an additional PC in the hands of a player, but in other games this can be better. I just don't want the book to decide that for me.

Probably the only "rules" the book need to provide are:

- associated mechanics to obtain a companion (e.g. feats, typical costs of hirelings and mundane animals)
- advancement by level of the special companions (divine mount, familiar, druid's animal companion)
- advancement of mercenaries, followers and allies: what level should they be compared to PC level, how to share XP and treasure with them (guidelines rather than rules since not all groups use XP for instance)
- training of mundane animals

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I always thought it was a bit silly that the Bard would be playing the lute in the middle of a fight, and even singing at the party would be difficult to hear meaningfully.

No, instead the Bard's music should be used before and after fights - during short and long rests. If you have a Bard in the party, then you'll recover your spirits that much better after a tough combat. The words and songs will stay with you as you launch into the next fray. Bards remind you what you're fighting for, and you know that if you fall in combat, your deeds will pass into song or saga and your name not forgotten. Similarly, having a Bard in the party means that your adventuring group will be much more well known. Reputation and rewards will be higher, you'll never have to pay to stay a night at the inn and merchants beg you to wear their fineries so that they can brag about it.

The Bard him or herself has to be able to tag along in these tough situations though, so should not be an incompetent fighter. Some might master various forms of magic - a jack of all trades approach that means they've always got a trick up their sleeves in combat. Obviously they share much with Rogues, but they're not dirty-fighters, and their skill expertise lies more in social situations.

Mechanically, I think they ought to be supreme at buffing the party for combat. I'm not just talking about +1 to hit and damage, I'm thinking damage reduction, saving throw bonuses, fighting to the death type effects. I'd also like them as a multiclass in themselves, able to pick up magic if they choose from both arcane and divine traditions, fighting maneuvers, perhaps a little dirty-fighting. I've also always loved bardic lore and their general competence when it comes to skills. Sadly, I think that the core classes are so poorly integrated that it'll mean Bards get some complex subsystem of their own to deal with.

 

[RangerWickett]

Could you make it so different character modules are balanced?

As in, the base game has a balanced druid vs. fighter vs. wizard.

You could then say, "Each PC gets one character module." The druid chooses Animal Companion, which gives him a critter of substantial power. The fighter chooses Command Presence which grants him an increasing number of weak allied soldiers as he levels and provides bonuses to certain tactics. The wizard chooses Bladesinger, which gives him extra HP and the ability to attack and cast spells in the same turn.

Each of them provides roughly the same power increase. And indeed, the fighter could have chosen animal companion, and the druid bladesinger. (The fighter could be a bladesinger too, but it doesn't help him unless he has some other theme that grants him spells.)

 

[Ratskinner]

Could you make it so different character modules are balanced?

As in, the base game has a balanced druid vs. fighter vs. wizard.

You could then say, "Each PC gets one character module." <snippage>

I believe those are currently called "Specialties" and "Backgrounds". The problem here being that there are other things in the D&D-verse that go well beyond what you can/should do with a Specialty. I doubt that many Druid fans would think think that a balanced "Animal Companion" or "Beastmaster" specialty would be anything other than "nerfing" the historically-presented Druid's ability.

Could you design such things as "Super Specialties" which are optional, but balanced between characters taking one?....maybe, but it would be very hard to do that with all the possible modules. Additionally, I don't see how you can add those in while maintaining power level vs published adventure guidelines based on "standard" characters. "If you use Super Specialties, consider your characters as 2 levels higher for the purpose of running published adventures." - always seems to rub people the wrong way.

 

[Manbearcat]

I believe those are currently called "Specialties" and "Backgrounds". The problem here being that there are other things in the D&D-verse that go well beyond what you can/should do with a Specialty. I doubt that many Druid fans would think think that a balanced "Animal Companion" or "Beastmaster" specialty would be anything other than "nerfing" the historically-presented Druid's ability.

Could you design such things as "Super Specialties" which are optional, but balanced between characters taking one?....maybe, but it would be very hard to do that with all the possible modules. Additionally, I don't see how you can add those in while maintaining power level vs published adventure guidelines based on "standard" characters. "If you use Super Specialties, consider your characters as 2 levels higher for the purpose of running published adventures." - always seems to rub people the wrong way.

Somewhat orthogonal to your rumination on published adventures but the general premise is in-line with something I've been thinking on (regarding PC Build Resource Inflation and the "arms-race" implications therein).

With respect to (i) 3e (including the multi-class rules and Prestige Classes) and 4e crowd, the number, breadth and potency of Class Features built into 5e PCs is rather lean. With respect to (ii) Basic, and AD&D1/2 crowd they are slightly more robust. This dichotomy coupled with the interest of making the core game the default experience for much of (but not all...obviously there will be some overlap) the latter crowd creates tension that resonates onward in the design framework. They want the core game playable for that latter market which means that PC output (sans Backgrounds and Specialties) needs to be reasonably in-line with expected monster output and total encounter output (when considering PC group synergy). As such, any power curve growth outside of Class/Race will perturb the PC output vs single monster expectations and the corresponding math that underwrites the encounter formula.

Unfortunately, the former groups' interests are not catered to without extremely robust Class Features and dynamic PC build choices working together to create vast archetype creation capabilities. So you give them Specialties and Backgrounds to further customize their PCs. But is the default combat and non-combat challenge difficulty built with those PC build resources in mind (or are they just going to ask the latter group to handwave it...as they may welcome the opportunity to do so given their appreciation for Swinginess)? What if the current incarnation of Specialties and/or Backgrounds don't carry the payload required to allow players to customize their PCs toward their favored archetypes? The current depth of PC Build Resources within the class structure is insufficient compared to 4e and the Specialties are considerably weaker than 3e Feats. What if they have to buff Specialties and/or Backgrounds (or create a 5th portion of character creation through module - eg; 4e thematic/role powers) in order to make this happen (while still working from the premise that group ii will be playing the default core against default monster and encounter output/difficulty)? In my estimation, they have to eschew the current Specialties construct and buff it to "Super Specialties" level if they want to bring in some of the more powerful (that are well out of line for the current power level of Specialties) Class and Archetype Features that appear to not have residency within the Class Feature framework. What then for group ii? Or what then for monster creation? Everyone outside of group ii buffs default monsters via some sort of template or are they assumed to be fighting a larger sum of default monsters or are the expected to move immediately up a tier in challenge difficulty?

This is where things get tricky and the designers walk a difficult path. Wanting to maintain a non-complex core (and have it relatively balanced versus a default monster/challenge iteration) and then have layers of complexity (and inevitable potency) added on, balanced against a second iteration of monsters or a different encounter formula is a lofty proposition. Further, it will have odd implications for the implied setting in that, effectively, group i and ii may very likely be playing a bit of a different game on a tier by tier basis. That hasn't really happened in the past as there has been decent symmetry within the implied settings of the editions despite their mechanical differences; eg - goblins/kobolds/skeletons/zombies > orcs/gnolls/hobgoblins/specters/wights > ogres/ghouls/wraiths > giants/vampires > mind-flayers/beholders/death knights > liches/dragons. Does group i forgo fighting goblins, kobolds, skeletons, and wraiths? Do they just fight many of them (as Bounded Accuracy allows for this)? Do they add a template or passive buff to all creatures?

The other idea they're throwing out I find interesting but, again, prone to gross issues of power imbalance without extraordinary QC. Treating a feature or build resource (such as a companion) as the power level of another PC in the group (toward the encounter balance equation) demands power in accords with;

- the intra-combat suite of actions available to a standard player of a standard class.
- in-line breadth and potency of that suite of actions.
- aggregate survivability modification of the group due to the total HP inflation/damage soak capabilities that another PC would afford.
- the positional/tactical augmentation of having another friendly creature occupying a space of the arena of combat.
- the extra-combat resources that another class brings to bear.

Boy, that is an awful lot of power for a single class feature and an awful lot of room for intra-feature power imbalance (especially if they decide against augmenting specialties and using this formula for other powerful features...features that don't count as another space-occupying creature).

Due to the feedback loop of adjusting one aspect of PC build resources and how that affects PC output versus expected monster output versus total encounter output, the quality control effort will need to be extraordinary (for what effectively seems to be a small business - a small franchise of a large corporation that must make a case for its earning potential and legitimize its expense ratios to its shareholders). Bounded accuracy will help them a bit (as they will not have to deal with the 2nd and 3rd order functions of to-hit percentages) but there are so many variables beyond "to-hit" that I'm hesitant to hope for each system (core and the various customized iterations)...especially without group ii having to fiddle with the default assumptions of monsters and/or the encounter formula.