D&D (2024) What type of ranger would your prefer for 2024?

[Emberashh]

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.

Ez solution:

ignore them

 

[Charlaquin]

I am not shocked.

However that doesn't dispute the fact that 5e doesn't provide the spot and escape DCs of a whirlpool.

I think I’ve made it clear how I feel about providing stock DCs anyway.

Or the stats of an electromagnetic whirlpool nor how to design one.

Setting aside the choice of electromagnetic rather than something more fantasy-flavored like elemental chaos or wild magic or something… I don’t think that’s something that requires a complex subsystem to execute. Take a fiction-first approach, narrate the effects this strange whirlpool has on the world, and adjudicate the actions the players take in response.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

I think if followed through on, this design approach would result in something that looks very much like PF2. Which to be clear is not a bad thing. PF2 is a good game, it does a lot of things well, including this.

 

[Charlaquin]

Ez solution:

ignore them

Sounds like this approach is setting groups up for conflict. Whereas, teaching DMs to set DCs sets them up to handle more diverse and unexpected in-game scenarios, without creating tension between player expectations and DM adjudication that DMs are put into the position of having to confront or ignore.

 

[Minigiant]

I think I’ve made it clear how I feel about providing stock DCs anyway.

I'm not saying stock DCs should be provided.
Is spotting or escaping a whirlpool Easy DC 10, Moderate DC 15, or Hard DC 20?
Is a whirlpool a Tier 1, 2 3, or 4?

 

[Shardstone]

I think if followed through on, this design approach would result in something that looks very much like PF2. Which to be clear is not a bad thing. PF2 is a good game, it does a lot of things well, including this.

Maybe.

PF2E is a little too feat focused for me, and my idea sounds a lot like feats, so I'd need another angle to avoid recreating another game entirely.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm not saying stock DCs should be provided.
Is spotting or escaping a whirlpool Easy DC 10, Moderate DC 15, or Hard DC 20?
Is a whirlpool a Tier 1, 2 3, or 4?

That depends on what the PC is doing to try to spot or escape the whirlpool.

 

[Charlaquin]

Maybe.

PF2E is a little too feat focused for me, and my idea sounds a lot like feats, so I'd need another angle to avoid recreating another game entirely.

You could make them class features instead of feats. I just meant that it feels like PF2 in terms of having a lot of specific codified uses of skills, many of which are unlocked as part of character advancement.

 

[Reef]

I'm not saying stock DCs should be provided.
Is spotting or escaping a whirlpool Easy DC 10, Moderate DC 15, or Hard DC 20?
Is a whirlpool a Tier 1, 2 3, or 4?

But, isn't that completely up to the DM? I'm not trying to be facetious, I'm serious. The whirlpool is as easy to spot as the DM wants it to be. Bright clear day, with good visibility? Easy to see. Middle of a storm, harder. Is it a simple whirlpool? Tier 1. An electrified Elemental Whirlpool, Tier 4.

I mean, when creating the adventure, doesn't the DM come up with the idea for the difficulty of the encounter first, and then describe it? For example,

"Hmmm...I need this mountain pass to be difficult, otherwise the temple of plothooks would have been discovered. So, DC20 to navigate. Because...um...sheer cliffs and unpredicable gusty winds"

They generally don't go

"Hmmm...this pass needs to have sheer cliffs. The chart says DC15. Lets add in Icy Slopes...nope, that raises the DC too high. Drat. Um...oh well, guess just go with wind then. That's DC20"

 

[Emberashh]

Sounds like this approach is setting groups up for conflict. Whereas, teaching DMs to set DCs sets them up to handle more diverse and unexpected in-game scenarios, without creating tension between player expectations and DM adjudication that DMs are put into the position of having to confront or ignore.

Or we can just stop shackling ourselves to the assumed whims of ghosts we can neither reason nor negotiate with.