Search results

I stand by the statement that 13th Age has the best ranger in a 21st century DnD-alike. Mostly by letting you pick which tropes matter to you.

Weirdly enough, I have an opposite experience: strangers I met online are more likely to go there than people I know well. The mask of anonymity makes it easier to stay in the fictional space and romance the character rather than the player (is my hypothesis)

Only if you're Egyptian-themed.

That's also how 13th Age rangers work...

Being the "pet class" is my favored way to give the ranger a mechanical identity. Hunter's mark can work here but pets are more distinctive. But it's a pretty big change, since most non-beast pets wouldn't really mesh with the 'wilderness warrior' identity rangers have always tried to go for.

From an unknown dm advertising for players: no. I've played out all the "classic" tropes over the past 30 years of gaming. Without some other gimmick it'd feel rather cliche to me. With a dm I know and trust: maybe, but I would want a darn good reason why.

The pandemic happened after six years of DnD going off the charts with sales. Is your assertation that for six years millions of players were hating the game and continuing to play it anyways? Or just that they didn't understand that they hated it because they have no sense of what entertains...

You're right: I asserted they weren't "horrible" which is a totally different thing.

If they weren't content, they would move to other games - maybe not other ttrpgs, but other genres entirely. But people stick around. So subclasses as a system aren't ruinous. Which is about as much as I can prove; but I think any more positive descriptor is subjective anyways.

If they were terrible, they either would look for alternatives or drop out of the hobby. Neither of which appears to be happening.

Anyone here watch Revengeful of the Nerds lately?

Yeah nut you can’t just not have size. I guess it would be “purer” to make everyone medium.

I think the lack of clear movement means most people aren’t horribly disappointed with subclasses as a concept. The assertion that they are requires some evidence; the assertion that subclasses are objectively terrible for dnd requires a lot of evidence.

Subclasses provide a certain amount of player-driven customization - whether that's "too much," "too little" or "just right" is simply a preference. The market seems to think it's just right, otherwise either PF2 or DCC would be taking over.

I was working on the assumption that they meant the mechanics granted by your choice of race - so all the bullet points in the race description like ability score changes, darkvision bonus proficiencies, bonus feats, special attacks, movement, et al. Of course, you'd have to give some kind of...

You're basically stuck with "gain water-breathing as a class feature" or "explain why your fishman can't breathe underwater." (I suppose if you have starting feats those would count as class features as well, even though I suspect a lot of players would want to use them to cover the racial...

I kind of wish this was a survey, because I'd bet even here more people would play a non-human in that case than a human. People who comment might not see the point, but for a lot of us the aesthetics is enough.

Why would a centaur have problems with stairs? They’re as smart as a human and wouldn’t have a horse’s difficulties. I don’t think I’ve seen a ladder in play in the past 30 years. And I’ve been gaming multiple times a week for the past 10. Centaurs are medium sized, so they should be able to...

I'd even be okay if they needed simple, thematic foci, like a crystal. But aside from a few spells just ignoring components shouldn't change anything in actual gameplay.

I'm in love with the Glam Rock Bard