D&D 5E No Spell-less Ranger in the Near Future

[JPicasso]

That's too bad, because it's a little strange for me that I can't build a spell-less rangers without knowing thieves' cant. (Yes, I know I could build a fighter with the outlander background, but why should all scouts learn thieves' cant as part of their training?)

You could always re-skin the thieves cant with Ranger's call

This would be the ability to mimic various woodland creatures and bird sounds to communicate your quarry's position, and to communicate very basic information about what the scout sees ahead. Of course, you'd need a person on the other end that you have coordinated with, probably a Ranger or another scout.

(This would possibly also have to be given to the Ranger class at 3rd level?)

 

[DEFCON 1]

But you still haven't answered the obvious question, Mistwell:

If it's that easy, why can't WotC give these players what they want?

Because they don't care about you or how you play the game. They give you a base game and then expect you to make the game your own. I thought that's been pretty obvious from the beginning.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This is dangerously close to saying that game balance doesn't matter either at the individual table level or stochastically throughout the hobby, so long as everyone's particular character concept is thematically represented in the game.

I don't know what "danger" has to do with it... but you're right. At some individual tables, "game balance" DOESN'T matter. People play what they want to play and the DM uses or discards any-to-all game rules as they feel like to get the game to where they want it.

WotC has produced a game that allows DMs to do that. No more, no less. Any further work that an individual DM feels like they need to make the game into what they specifically (and through them their table of players) have to have for a successful and fun game... they can make for themselves or find what others have made and posted online. Either here at EN World, over in the various D&D subreddits, uploaded to DMs Guild, or wherever.

It is not a requirement that WotC themselves produce that stuff for you. Now if you get lucky and they DO produce something you wanted, then awesome! Go you! But there's a whole boatload of stuff-- character types, variant rules, special formating, etc. etc. that you just aren't going to get. Because it's just not something WotC feels like spending their time producing. So your choices ares to either do it yourself, play the game without it, or not play the 5E game at all. And Wizards of the Coast is fine with ANY of those that you choose.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

You could always re-skin the thieves cant with Ranger's call

This would be the ability to mimic various woodland creatures and bird sounds to communicate your quarry's position, and to communicate very basic information about what the scout sees ahead. Of course, you'd need a person on the other end that you have coordinated with, probably a Ranger or another scout.

(This would possibly also have to be given to the Ranger class at 3rd level?)

Gryjoy house words: We do not sow.

My House Words: We do not re-fluff.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Because they don't care about you or how you play the game. They give you a base game and then expect you to make the game your own. I thought that's been pretty obvious from the beginning.

I have a feel that the person who established the Adventurer's League would disagree with you.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I don't know what "danger" has to do with it... but you're right. At some individual tables, "game balance" DOESN'T matter. People play what they want to play and the DM uses or discards any-to-all game rules as they feel like to get the game to where they want it.

WotC has produced a game that allows DMs to do that. No more, no less. Any further work that an individual DM feels like they need to make the game into what they specifically (and through them their table of players) have to have for a successful and fun game... they can make for themselves or find what others have made and posted online. Either here at EN World, over in the various D&D subreddits, uploaded to DMs Guild, or wherever.

It is not a requirement that WotC themselves produce that stuff for you. Now if you get lucky and they DO produce something you wanted, then awesome! Go you! But there's a whole boatload of stuff-- character types, variant rules, special formating, etc. etc. that you just aren't going to get. Because it's just not something WotC feels like spending their time producing. So your choices ares to either do it yourself, play the game without it, or not play the 5E game at all. And Wizards of the Coast is fine with ANY of those that you choose.

Unless you play Adventurer's League.

 

[Mistwell]

But you still haven't answered the obvious question, Mistwell:

If it's that easy, why can't WotC give these players what they want?

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Helping players figure out how to do something they want to do is a valuable contribution. That you would respond with disdain towards an effort to do that, while still pursuing your goal of scolding WOTC on a message board which does not accomplish that goal in any way, seems odds. You are hell bent on sending a message to WOTC about a variety of issues you have with this edition, while simultaneously you adamantly refuse to send that message to WOTC yourself via the methods they set up for you to do just that, being primarily Twitter and email. You're free to do that, but don't come here, to a message board which is in no way intended as a form of communication with WOTC, and scold posters that they're not doing what you want them to do - which is misuse this message board as a misplaced and ineffective means of communicating with WOTC.

In short, I proposed something to help people here - what are you doing to help people, other than complain about people who frankly are not hearing your snipes because this isn't the forum intended to send them a message?

 

[DEFCON 1]

I have a feel that the person who established the Adventurer's League would disagree with you.

Nope... the people who developed the AL don't care about how you play the game either.

They made rules for the AL and said "take 'em or leave 'em!". Each person then gets to choose whether to take them, or to leave them. But again, just because there is AL doesn't not mean WotC is now obligated to put in a whole bunch of new, extra, and variants rules into the game so that those people who want to play AL *and* want to play their own special-snowflake version of D&D can do so.

Sorry. Dem's da breaks. You either play AL with the base game or you play a home game and use whatever crazy variants you want to insert into it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Gryjoy house words: We do not sow.

My House Words: We do not re-fluff.

So WotC isn't giving you want you want, and you're unwilling to give yourself what you want.

Well, then you're just screwed then, ain'tcha?

 

[JPicasso]

Gryjoy house words: We do not sow.

My House Words: We do not re-fluff.

That's cool. I suspect a number of people would agree with you.

I also suspect a number of people wouldn't like that I gave our 2nd level fighter flame swords (free savage attacker feat) because it fit the picture of the character portrait he picked out,
or that I gave our sorceress a free animal companion (that will level with her) because meta magic wasn't her idea of fun.

Every table is different, I was just suggesting some cool things. I do hope WotC is able to "officially" provide a non-spellcasting framework. Seems like there are really far too many classes that are now bringing spells to the table when some more purely martial characters could be done. (Are we all really wishing they bring back abilities like 4th ed? )