Search results

I don't think that's a blockade at all. Lose some artwork and you have space, or add 4 more pages. I don't see why you think there is a conspiracy to keep the ranger page count down for some reason. Oh, I don't know. I've seen several ranger versions with content across the net. In my...

Well, I think it is fine for them come here and complain, but then yeah they should expect some others to tell them it's not likely WotC will do it--which I think at this point we all realize. Of course, others will come here and agree with them--and maybe a few will start something and...

LOL, maybe yours do! ;) No. I actually find these not flavorful as spells. Nothing wrong with them, just not what I would call "flavorful" personally. I think that is because (a) many people like the spell-less ranger or (b) many spells which druids and/or wizards get SHOULD only be ranger...

Some people have. Like I said, I've played in homebrews where Barbarians were a Fighter subclass, and so on. My belief is that, because 5E is "good enough", that people don't think it is that important or if they do they just have the time to devote to making an RPG on their own time. People...

And the fact you think any of that isn't Tier 3 is the other 50% of the problem. ;) For instance, your "planar" assumption might be true for your games but aren't for all games, certainly not for the ones I've played in. Having enemies from other planes? Sure, but going to other planes or...

Just using the core four in the PHB doesn't work, though*. The other classes have to become part of them in some fashion. For example: Fighter, add subclasses for Barbarian, Monk, and Ranger Cleric, add subclasses for Druid, Paladin, Warlock Rogue, add subclasses for Bard, Monk, and Ranger...

Works for me! But what exactly is "Eldritch" for spells as opposed to arcane, divine, or primal?

I was more talking about the character creation process, sorry for any confusion. Yep, and it is why I like the Sidekicks in 5E. Anywho, back to the ranger part of the thread. :)

I think you need a Skill-Monkey. Magic-User and Cleric can be combined. Same coin, just different sides thing.

The destination is playing the character you want to play. For most people, playing the game is more fun than just making the PC--but I suppose some might just like making PCs and not playing them... Simpler, shorter, faster, more efficient means I get to play sooner, I don't have to wade...

Yes. I like half-casters, too. Arcane half-casters: Artificer, Bard Divine half-casters: Paladin, Warlock Primal half-caster: Ranger Something along those lines.

You're missing the point in the analogy: both paths get you exactly where you want to go. There is no benefit to the longer more twisted path. You're thinking the longer path gives you more to see, but it doesn't. What there "is to see" is at the destination, not the journey, Less often works...

HA HA HA. Yeah, I knew you would say that. It isn't scenic, it is just long and complex and gets people lost. :P

Well, of course "better" is subjective, I've been saying that all along. Here's an analogy: you are driving and have two ways to go. One is fast and direct, the other has more twists and turns and takes much longer. Both get you there so you can do what you want to do. Why would you possibly...

That was a given. If someone is not good at design and/or a novice at it, odds are they will over design and make things needlessly complex. Why do more when less works just as well, if not better?

I thought you were talking about that part, but wanted to make certain. The bonuses (i.e. proficiency+) are assumed. We don't use this if you aren't proficient or have a +5 ability. The way it came into being was through attacking. At 1st level, most PCs are +5, so if they roll 15, they hit AC...

I never said it was 'better'. I just said it works, and as I replied in my other post, 'better' is also subjective. Now in that light, yes it is better. ;) Because less is more effecient Mechanics come with subclasses, specialties, feats, etc., and yes, imagination helps a lot. :)

But it always matters because it impacts the players' experiences. I've never had any issue with confirmation rolls. I loved the threat ranges in 3E, for example! What I don't like is for there to be a 1% chance when there really is a 0% chance. If something just can't be done, don't allow it...

Sure, but the problem with that is functional is more or less "yes or no", as where "being well designed" is entirely subjective. So, as I said, if it fuctions, it works.

The problem with this is meta-currency. The player knows it was bad luck when they rolled a 4. You might think they shouldn't know why, but the truth is the player knows. Depending on the scene, they might feel it is pretty stupid and resent failing due simply to bad luck. I have no issue with...