D&D 5E Convince me that the Ranger is a necessary Class.

doctorbadwolf said:

I could never tolerate this line of thinking if it came up. I’d just shut it down immediately.

The Battlemaster doesn’t mean you can’t try to disarm someone. Obviously.

Click to expand...

It's not that you can't disarm.
It's that since the battle master exist, you can't disarm and deal damage in the same action.

90% of the DMs i know and heard of lets every martial character and monster perform all Battlemaster manuevers by trading out the damage.

MuhVerisimilitude said:

No no no. Your complaint might as well exist in the current system too. You can run into a GM who says that since some particular skill does not have any concrete rules about what it can do, it can't do anything.

I'd rather have a defined base line of things each skill can do rather than some fluff text that doesn't mean anything.

Click to expand...

Hence the popular believe that Medicine and Animal Handling don't do anything since 99% of DM don't let you do anything meaningful with either unless they set it up.

Minigiant said:

90% of the DMs i know and heard of lets every martial character and monster perform all Battlemaster manuevers by trading out the damage.

Click to expand...

Really? Like this:

Feinting Attack. You can expend one superiority die and use a bonus action on your turn to feint, choosing one creature within 5 feet of you as your target. You have advantage on your next attack roll against that creature this turn. If that attack hits, add the superiority die to the attack's damage roll.

Parry. When another creature damages you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction and expend one superiority die to reduce the damage by the number you roll on your superiority die + your Dexterity modifier.

It's a neat idea but I've never heard of it.

Flights of Fancy said:

Really? Like this:

Feinting Attack. You can expend one superiority die and use a bonus action on your turn to feint, choosing one creature within 5 feet of you as your target. You have advantage on your next attack roll against that creature this turn. If that attack hits, add the superiority die to the attack's damage roll.

Parry. When another creature damages you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction and expend one superiority die to reduce the damage by the number you roll on your superiority die + your Dexterity modifier.

It's a neat idea but I've never heard of it.

Click to expand...

Pretty much.

Basically you can spam maneuvers without the damage dice. The result is usually worse than most of your reactions, attacks, and bonus actions but weaker allies can set up enemies for allies.

MuhVerisimilitude said:

Consider: Without this feat, would it be possible to pin someone? Can you be sure, as a player, that you are able to attempt to pin someone? How? Since there are no rules for it without this feat it is impossible to say that "anybody can do".

Click to expand...

The problem is that feats are a 3 (ish) in your lifetime resource. So let's say it takes a feat to learn how to pin someone, or a feat to learn how to do algebra, or a feat to learn how to build a small robot. Well... there are lots of people with dozens or even hundreds of feats (or the equivalent). Yes, I could absolutely teach you how to pin someone, or how to do algebra (let alone calculus). It might take a bit and require some practice, but it's a thing you can learn, and you can learn way more than 3 (ish) such things.

Seramus said:

The problem is that feats are a 3 (ish) in your lifetime resource. So let's say it takes a feat to learn how to pin someone, or a feat to learn how to do algebra, or a feat to learn how to build a small robot. Well... there are lots of people with dozens or even hundreds of feats (or the equivalent). Yes, I could absolutely teach you how to pin someone, or how to do algebra (let alone calculus). It might take a bit and require some practice, but it's a thing you can learn, and you can learn way more than 3 (ish) such things.

Click to expand...

That's the problem with most designer's feat design..

Feats are supposed to be uncommon or rare Extraordinary or Magical knowledge or changes unless you hand out so many that everyone can access many of them.

doctorbadwolf said:

I could never tolerate this line of thinking if it came up. I’d just shut it down immediately.

The Battlemaster doesn’t mean you can’t try to disarm someone. Obviously.

Click to expand...

The question is not whether you can try something, the question is whether or not you can ever succeed at something. If you want to waste your characters time trying something that the rules will not let you do, absent the ability to do, so that is your choice. You can no more Grapple without the ability to do so than you can cast Magic Missile without the ability to do so.

MuhVerisimilitude said:

Consider: Without this feat, would it be possible to pin someone? Can you be sure, as a player, that you are able to attempt to pin someone? How? Since there are no rules for it without this feat it is impossible to say that "anybody can do".

Click to expand...

Does this no longer exist in 5.5 because it used to just take an attack and opposed athletics check.

MuhVerisimilitude said:

No no no. Your complaint might as well exist in the current system too. You can run into a GM who says that since some particular skill does not have any concrete rules about what it can do, it can't do anything.

I'd rather have a defined base line of things each skill can do rather than some fluff text that doesn't mean anything

Click to expand...

It only “doesn’t mean anything” if you ignore the How To Play section of the game, and go out of your way to make it not mean anything.

MuhVerisimilitude said:

Rules are power. If you have no rules, you have no power.

Click to expand...

Being catchy doesn’t make a statement true.

Minigiant said:

It's not that you can't disarm.
It's that since the battle master exist, you can't disarm and deal damage in the same action.

90% of the DMs i know and heard of lets every martial character and monster perform all Battlemaster manuevers by trading out the damage.

Click to expand...

IME only people arguing online struggle with just having the conversation of the game determine what is possible and using the rules as a friendly goubdation on which each group builds their own game.

Peter BOSCO'S said:

The question is not whether you can try something, the question is whether or not you can ever succeed at something. If you want to waste your characters time trying something that the rules will not let you do, absent the ability to do, so that is your choice. You can no more Grapple without the ability to do so than you can cast Magic Missile without the ability to do so.

Click to expand...

Except you can grapple. Not only is it in the general rules, but…even if it weren’t you could just tell the DM you’re doing it, and unless the DM is arguing on an Internet forum they will give you a roll to make.

doctorbadwolf said:

God no please. The most concrete skills should get us how they were in 4e, and even that is too specific and thus restricted.

I despise trying to do something that makes sense in the game and being stopped by, “Well the skill doesn’t list that as something you can do.” So the hell what??

Click to expand...

On the other hand, under 5e skill system, it's all "GM may I". There is no concrete guides what you can do with skills. Sure you can try and DM can rule it on the spot. Personally, I never encountered DM who said no in 3.5 days if i tried to use skill in creative way that wasn't covered with specifics. Was there DMs who said you can only do what's listed? Sure. Same as DMs who under 5e rules say - it isn't in skill description, so you can't do it (fe, Medicine states that you can diagnose but not cure illness or disease, so DM may just say - description doesn't cover curing, so you can't do it).

Best way is 4-5 concrete precise examples with DCs and wording that says that those are examples, give other general uses. FE Medicine- cure poison/disease with DC, stabilise with DC, heal x HP with DC. Then add - covers general medical knowledge, so it may be used for diagnosis and ways of transmitting various diseases, recognizing procedures done to someone, perform autopsy, determine cause of death etc.

Bae'zel said:

Or even the opposite: "no, GM, you can't let that player use the skill that way because that's covered by Feat X (which no one here has anyway, but still!)".

As the GM, I can decide to dish out advantage for cool player ideas whenever I damn well please.

Click to expand...

Yes, good experienced DM can on the fly make rulings. But inexperienced one, who's only experience of D&D is 5e, needs more guidelines. Let's use that Medicine example. If player says that he want's to use it to heal injured player. What DC for skill check? How many HP does he restore?