D&D (2024) Ranger playtest discussion

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Since when? The DM can design the adventure round parts of the players' backstory. But I've literally never seen a D&D campaign where the DM turned up to the table and said "well, um, I want to see your characters complete with two pages of backstory before I do a single thing to start on the adventure."

Normally it's more like "I've the outlines of an adventure including a starting location that should give you inspiration for the characters because I've already got the adventure at least half written".

(Note: there are other systems than D&D - Apocalypse World for example literally tells the DM to come with nothing).

"Normally"? Maybe normally for you, but unless I'm playing a pre-written adventure, I literally always wait for the PCs to be made until I make the adventure. Because I want to involve the players in what the campaign will be. I know some DMs that even make entire new homebrew worlds based around which races/classes the players choose.

Your example wasn't an aarakocra. It was specifically Tundra in an Underdark campaign. PC capabilities should either be adapted to or the wins should be given.

I gave multiple examples (Locathah in Desert Campaigns, non-aquatic races in an Elemental Plane of Water adventure). Can I not give more? A DM has to adjust encounters and campaign based on the mechanical capabilities of the party members.

On the contrary. You were explicitly opposing neutrality. You were saying that the player choices should be catered to and the world should be rebuilt round the PCs (remember your example was tundra in an underdark campaign. I didn't pick that).

I opposed a hostile view towards players. @Micah Sweet was saying that rangers should suffer if the DM didn't tell them what terrains the campaign would take place in. That's not neutrality. And if it is, then I do think that type of "neutrality" is bad DMing.

I'm not assuming it. I'm saying it's a legitimate choice. And one that doesn't indicate what you want.

I think it's a valid choice that the players should also be involved in.

And ended up making your position look like an absurd strawman.

An absurd strawman of what? What exactly do you think I was saying?

You were explicitly saying here that the DM should "sculpt the adventure, the setting and the campaign to the specific PCs presented" and here that a player who picked Tundra in an Underdark campaign should be catered to.

A) I was talking about that the DM should consider their choices and meet them halfway.
B) I was listing that as an example of failed communication and cooperation between the DM and player. It's bad if the DM plans on the campaign going to the Underdark early on but doesn't tell that to the Ranger that chose the Tundra as their favored terrain. That is bad DMing.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

No. It is not. One is putting the horse before the carriage and one is putting the carriage before the horse.

Are you saying that one of them is a wrong way to play? Because that's what "putting the carriage before the horse" means. If you don't intend that meaning, you're using a bad metaphor.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Are you saying that one of them is a wrong way to play? Because that's what "putting the carriage before the horse" means. If you don't intend that meaning, you're using a bad metaphor.

No. I just wanted to make sure that you understand that if you swap positions, you have things work differently, as you just told me, that two different things are the same.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

No. I just wanted to make sure that you understand that if you swap positions, you have things work differently, as you told me, that 2 different things are the same.

Putting a cart before a horse makes the system not work anymore. Having players design characters around a specific adventure and having a DM design an adventure around specific characters are equally valid ways to play. They have basically the same effect (the DM and players communicating in order to have a fun/satisfying play experience).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Putting a cart before a horse makes the system not work anymore. Having players design characters around a specific adventure and having a DM design an adventure around specific characters are equally valid ways to play. They have basically the same effect (the DM and players communicating in order to have a fun/satisfying play experience).

I never disagreed to that.

Only thing I said: not every DM is designing their adventures around the player's abilities, some DM's use premade adventures. So having abilities that are only useful in very narrow enviroments can be problematic for them.

Everything else was your own imagination.

Then you told me, both styles are the same. I quoted it.
So I am realy not sure what we are arguing about.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I never disagreed to that.

Only thing I said: not every DM is designing their adventures around the player's abilities, some DM's use premade adventures. So having abilities that are only useful in very narrow enviroments can be problematic for them.

Everything else was your own imagination.

Then you told me, both styles are the same. I quoted it.
So I am realy not sure what we are arguing about.

Me neither. This is probably a misunderstanding.

 

[Olrox17]

I get it. I too would like all the benefits of spellcasting without having to worry about verbal and somatic components, costly material components, anti-magic, magic resistance, dispel magic, counterspell, spell slots, loss of concentration, etc.

I get it that you're being sarcastic here, but I agree, unironically. Yes, people would like their characters to be able to accomplish some of the things that are currently spell-locked, without all the thematic and mechanical baggage that comes with spellcasting. Especially things that competent people can do without magic IRL.

 

[Remathilis]

I get it that you're being sarcastic here, but I agree, unironically. Yes, people would like their characters to be able to accomplish some of the things that are currently spell-locked, without all the thematic and mechanical baggage that comes with spellcasting. Especially things that competent people can do without magic IRL.

My problem is that there are so few checks on spellcasting as is (slots per day, components, antimagic, counter/dispel and concentration) that removing the few left feels like an attempt to circumvent any check on PC power. I agree martials need a power boost, and if the height of it was giving them some low level spells to replicate, that might be fine. But the talk usually drifts to martials having demigod-like powers to split mountains or win fights before initiative is rolled, and I wonder how they plan on curtailing such power from being abused. Even discussions on non-spell psionics end up bogged down with "I want magical effects, but I don't want them checked by antimagic or VSM components."

I guess if you want martials (or psionics) having all the power of magic without the drawbacks, let's unshackle spellcasting from components, antimagic, and the other hard counters as well. It will move the game closer to the 4e "magic and martial are opposite sides of the same coin" design, but if that's where it's going, let's make it fair.

 

[Olrox17]

My problem is that there are so few checks on spellcasting as is (slots per day, components, antimagic, counter/dispel and concentration) that removing the few left feels like an attempt to circumvent any check on PC power. I agree martials need a power boost, and if the height of it was giving them some low level spells to replicate, that might be fine. But the talk usually drifts to martials having demigod-like powers to split mountains or win fights before initiative is rolled, and I wonder how they plan on curtailing such power from being abused. Even discussions on non-spell psionics end up bogged down with "I want magical effects, but I don't want them checked by antimagic or VSM components."

I guess if you want martials (or psionics) having all the power of magic without the drawbacks, let's unshackle spellcasting from components, antimagic, and the other hard counters as well. It will move the game closer to the 4e "magic and martial are opposite sides of the same coin" design, but if that's where it's going, let's make it fair.

D&D is a complex game with many moving parts. Balance is hard to find in such a game. The closest we ever got to a balanced D&D game was 4e, and that was because every class worked in the same mechanical framework: powers and (to a lesser degree) feats.

I see your point. The extreme scenario of a purely martial "caster", with "exploits" capable of mimicking spellcasting up to ninth level with none of the drawbacks your regular wizard get (antimagic, concentration, limited spell slots) would be overpowered. And how do you even represent a martial Meteor Swarm, short of giving the character an F-35 aircraft?

This is, however, an extreme example. Surely, a middle ground can be found somewhere. I don't think anyone's asking for martial fireballs and martial teleports.
My first thought is that, perhaps, the ol' 3e distinction between spell-like abilities and supernatural abilities could come in handy.

 

[Neonchameleon]

My problem is that there are so few checks on spellcasting as is (slots per day, components, antimagic, counter/dispel and concentration) that removing the few left feels like an attempt to circumvent any check on PC power. I agree martials need a power boost, and if the height of it was giving them some low level spells to replicate, that might be fine. But the talk usually drifts to martials having demigod-like powers to split mountains or win fights before initiative is rolled, and I wonder how they plan on curtailing such power from being abused. Even discussions on non-spell psionics end up bogged down with "I want magical effects, but I don't want them checked by antimagic or VSM components."

I guess if you want martials (or psionics) having all the power of magic without the drawbacks, let's unshackle spellcasting from components, antimagic, and the other hard counters as well. It will move the game closer to the 4e "magic and martial are opposite sides of the same coin" design, but if that's where it's going, let's make it fair.

First spellcasters are expected to keep versatility as a major advantage. Also the same people asking for fighters to be able to do more are precisely the same people who want fighters to have to pace themselves like athletes rather than be these untiring robots that always spam their best attacks that the ridiculous 3.x feat system landed us with.

Second, as you note, spellcasters have been largely unshackled and non-casters haven't. Meanwhile we're left with a magic user/muggle divide. Yet you somehow think that keeping the muggles as muggles is a good thing.

Third VSM components are a trivial drawback for all other than a very few spells (and Resurrection and others should stay special). What they are is obnoxious worldbuilding unless you are a caster. Imagine if each time you swung a sword in character you had to say "izzy wizzy let's get busy" or turn yound three times and touch your nose. Would that break your sense of immersion as a fighter? You're talking about an RP issue as a balance thing.

And I can't remember the last time I saw an anti magic field in game. It's not a serious balance issue but it is again a worldbuilding one. Not all abilities are spells or even magic.

Your notions that (a) every spell with no limits is what's being insisted on if we let fighters be more than muggles-with-hp and (b) vsm and antimagic are what balances spellcasting are both so wide of the mark I find it difficult to take them as good faith.