Search results

So...this huge civil war is going to happen now because of some misunderstood words from a dying man high on milk of the poppy? Hrm.

Really? Easier than just saying "no psionics?" Or no necromancy, no conjuration, etc.

Is it working?

Best of luck! I hear great things about Foundry for PF2E. As an aside, isn't there another adventure that is directly related to Otari that acts as a direct sequel? Might be worth checking out!

You're trying to read into things again, and (I'm sorry, but) failing. Again. I mentioned it only because it does a non-magical Ranger well. I am not trying to bring up anything else. But since you insist on (now, constantly) mis-reading me...please stop responding to me. I will do the same...

!!! The bolded part is me saying professional game designers CAN design things a certain way (it shouldn't be be beyond them to be able to do that), so that if they don't, it's because they're CHOOSING to not do so (because of the design goal of popularity). How is this insulting or even...

Experiencing the same, though I am not ignored yet. I genuinely don't understand what's happening.

Insultingly? Where? Where are we actually disagreeing?

Looking at the responses and all the pushback against the idea of including an non-magical ranger, it is not a given that it is, in fact, an absurd notion. Honest question: Are you trying to raise the hostility level in this exchange? Because between the (frankly, arrogant) presumptions of my...

Not necessarily, if the people who are against the idea of a non-casting ranger are numerous and vocal enough such that net popularity would take a hit.

Yeah, we're not disagreeing on the definition of popular. I don't think we're disagreeing on popularity being the goal of the design, either. If some aspect of the game was fun but not necessarily popular, it would not make it into the game. The D&D ranger has been conceptually magical for...

Ummm...no. In the other thread, Umbran points out that one needs to discuss design goals when evaluating if the design is well-done or not. The goal for 5e, clearly, is to be popular. As a result, design is simple, as you point out. This means, for example, removing nuance from the game and...

I dunno...I think making a popular game is goals 1-5. Part of that may mean simplifying (remains to be seen if making everything spells does this, but it really might). Not trying to be harsh, btw; just thinking about the other thread about how 5e is akin to the Cheesecake Factory and it's...

It seems so. It really shouldn't be, though, right? Professional game designers and all that. Other systems seem to have managed (PF2E for example). It seems though, that anything slightly not-normal is going to be represented by spells, moving forward. It's the simplest, easiest solution...

Isn't default spellcasting mechanics what is being offered in the packet? Totally willing to admit I missed it if it wasn't.

Right. And WotC rules say that the ranger's abilities... ...need V,S,M components. ...can be dispelled. ...can be counter-spelled. ...are subject to anti-magic zones, issues with The Weave (is that still a thing in FR?), etc. ...legendary resistance (haven't gone through all the spells, may...

It doesn't matter how you envision your character when you sit down to play? I mean, there are technical issues to be sure (if you don't have the material components, etc.) but primarily it's about how the character plays from one's imagination...which is why we play RPGs, right? If we were...

So, if a person wanted to play a highly skilled outdoorsman who could accomplish things like calming the wild horse down, minor healing, befriending a wolf, knowing weaknesses of creatures, and other rangery-stuff...the answer has to be spells. D&D spells, mind you, with their VSM components...

So...is there anything to discuss?

No, it wasn't. DMG2 had awesome advice for skill challenges, better than anything we've gotten for 5e, sadly.