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

[nevin]

still no where near as good as other horror campaigns set in games made to be horror. Just saying.

 

[Reef]

i don't have a problem with it pc to npc. I agree on the persuasion stuff etc. I just think the PC's who know each other should roll play it out rather than roll a dice and say suck it up buttercup I convinced you.

I never thought about PC to PC. But I can’t remember the last time a PC tried to use a skill on another player. In general, they do just talk to each other in character, but that sort of thing never requires a roll of any kind. I suppose some groups go more into the pvp aspect than we do.

 

[FrogReaver]

still no where near as good as other horror campaigns set in games made to be horror. Just saying.

That may be true. Can’t speak to it, but that there might be a better game of type X doesn’t mean you shouldn’t play a D&D game of type X.

There are reasons enough for both to exist and be played.

 

[Emberashh]

I don't know why anyone would play dnd as their horror game when there are so many better horror game systems. It's the same cognitive disonnance i have about low magic games. so many games built to play in different ways, I don't understand trying to make DND a one size fits all . Gurps is the game for one size fits all.

Because DND isn't capable of providing satisfaction without an adventure and/or a GM to curate that satisfaction.

Its designed in a way that makes you want to continue playing it even when you don't actually want to, not too dissimilarly to many video games that disingenously string players along towards increasingly tedius goals. A

And because of the games nature of being relatively open-ended (and not to mention billed as a universal system), that leads people to keep trying to do things with it to chase the satisfaction the game fundamentally can't and doesn't want to give.

 

[FrogReaver]

Because DND isn't capable of providing satisfaction without an adventure and/or a GM to curate that satisfaction.

Its designed in a way that makes you want to continue playing it even when you don't actually want to, not too dissimilarly to many video games that disingenously string players along towards increasingly tedius goals. A

And because of the games nature of being relatively open-ended (and not to mention billed as a universal system), that leads people to keep trying to do things with it to chase the satisfaction the game fundamentally can't and doesn't want to give.

Just curious. Why are you on the D&D forums?

 

[Keovar]

I'd like a spell-less start with a few options to add spellcasting via subclass. Some of the options could have a built-in minor version of Subtle Spell, so while you're mechanically casting a spell, it's easy to reflavor.
Aragorn's use of athelas would be an example: he said a few words, made a few motions, and used an object to cast something like Cure Wounds, but he wasn't wizarding it up and creating a lightshow. Many GMs would enjoy letting a ranger reflavor components like that, but then a full-time caster will want to use the same trick to stealth-Dominate or Fireball the queen while she's holding court. I'd rather have something that justifies the ability in the first case while not letting it apply to the combat and mind-control spells.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I'd like a spell-less start with a few options to add spellcasting via subclass. Some of the options could have a built-in minor version of Subtle Spell, so while you're mechanically casting a spell, it's easy to reflavor.
Aragorn's use of athelas would be an example: he said a few words, made a few motions, and used an object to cast something like Cure Wounds, but he wasn't wizarding it up and creating a lightshow. Many GMs would enjoy letting a ranger reflavor components like that, but then a full-time caster will want to use the same trick to stealth-Dominate or Fireball the queen while she's holding court. I'd rather have something that justifies the ability in the first case while not letting it apply to the combat and mind-control spells.

something like "ranger's casting is inherently more subdued than other casters, while they are still required to provide V, S and M components to perform a spell the target and any other observers must pass a perception check against the ranger's passive stealth score to notice the spell being cast, if the ranger is concealed from someone who is making the perception check or their attention is otherwise occupied by combat or a comparable level of activity their perception check is made with disadvantage"

 

[Minigiant]

I'd have argued vehemently with you a few years ago, but my current campaign that I'm playing not dming has completely changed my perspective. I've never seen such lazy reliance on skill checks even within the party while role playing. I've come to see vague generic skills as the ultimate crutch and something that needs to go away. Skills just seem to turn into a funnel that channels all ideas into them and limits creativity. I'm ready to go back to the old explain to me what you try and I'll give you an ability check number.

This only works for archetypes where the player has the same ability as the PC.

But for classes where the class is most lore like wizards and scientists, you have to lean on the character and not the players action.

Ranger to me is a lore class. So it needs hard coded features to represent things the PC knows that the player does not

 

[WanderingMystic]

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?

Whirlpool are found both in the spell control water and in the ghost of salt marshes adventure. DC is anywhere from 5-20 depending on the size. They follow the rules for traps which is how most natural hazards work. Now I agree that I want a more fleshed out system and that while the rules do exist they are not easy to find or clear.

 

[Charlaquin]

my problem with skills is a relatively new one. I'm seeing more and more younger players that don't want to roleplay things out to completion. they want to roleplay it and then roll a bluff check, (or some other skill). And get a roll to lock in that they succeeded even in situations like the party arguing out next course of action. It's driving me crazy and I'm beginning to consider just not playing in those game or even running games with people who demandit because the rules say that's how it works.

Personally, I’m not particular about players acting out conversations in-character. As long as you can describe what you’re trying to get out of the interaction and how your character goes about trying to do that generally, I’m good with that. But I’m not a fan of “push-button” play, where players want to just say “I use [skill]” without specifying what they want to achieve or how their character attempts to do so.