Search results

Well WOTC only does it because of scandals and dumb ideas wasting t I me and forcing them to their deadline. What is suggested is not bothering with a survey and just doing it. WOTC has a bad track record on customer alignment when they force things without public feedback.

I trust their skill. I dont trust their design alignment. Like I said. D&D has 4 or more ideas of what psionics is. So there is literally a 75%+ chance of them being wrong.

Eeeehh.. You suggesting WOTC do this? Eeeeeh.... i dunno...

Most companies won't let designers do 20 surveys, each with a month or 2 roll over, unless its a major part of their profit generation. Thats the point. Taking 3 years to design psionics is never gonna fly unless its a core aspect of the game.

My point is that even if they didnt do that, psionics is too split in desire for WOTC to coalesce their design around anything but "magic with no V&S". Psionics at this point is a "Do what you want or you'll never make the deadline" mechanic. It would take 20+ external surveys to get it right.

Hasbro suits dont design. There is feedback from players to WOTC. The issue is the feedback for psionics splits in 4 mutually exclusive directions and WOTC doesnt pump out 20 books a year like 3e and 4e to fit 4 types of fully supported psionics it. There are people who want spells with no...

Thats a issue. But the biggest one is that D&D has 4 different histories for psioinics and the fans are split between about 4 ideas that cannot be combined NOR does wotc want to make 4 new mechanics. 1) Far Realm Struggling Tentacles and Claws Psychic 2) Psionic Spell Slot Wizard 3) Power...

For the D&D community, psionics is like 4 very different and distinct things. So WOTC offshore the more complex ideas to 3PPs.

Well if you get rid of Slayer of X or Master of Y terrain, there isnt much left in the ranger identity worth its own class if you dont force exploration mechanics OR hard on the overtime magic

Slayer of Everything? Sounds like Hunter's Mark

The rub is 1) What fits the ranger modus operendi in most sources of media is not 2) What is good in D&D Its sorta like the Full Martial Grounded Fighter problem. A realistic grounded fully martial fighter sucks in D&D without magical item requirements. A realistic orcslayer sucks in D&D...

Beastmaster Wisdom Based Combat Beast Pet focused Has Manevers Commander's Strike Distracting Strike Can speak to animals at will Animal Handling Expertise Hunter Dexterity Based Most Maneuvers Has Manevers Callous Slayer Hordebreaker Snipe Volley Attack Perception Expertise Marauder...

Its a bad idea to put ranger on its own schedule. That would be dang near impossible to balance. If we use Weapon Masteries, Maneuvers and Spells, maybe 1st level ranger could get 2 Weapon Masteries 2 Maneuvers "Favored Enemy" (but it runs on Superiority dice) Half Spellcasting Then on...

Would love to see it but dont think its possible without making ranger super complicated....Outside of doing spells. Now ironically, if you copying something like 4e AEDU system you might be able to do it. At Will basic attack or cantrip Encounter Martial abilty Daily Attack spell Utilty...

This is why spells work best for D&D rangers. In most media, rangers really mostly fight their Favored enemies in their Favored terrain. Aragon mostly fights orcs in forests and grasslands. Jon Snow fights mostly fights men in the arctic. Jack fights Giants. Pirate ranger fights at sea and on...

I think 4e had a good set up. Beastmaster Combat Beast Pet focused Can speak to animals at will Can buff beast offense and defense* Animal Handling Expertise Hunter Ranged focus Has a Sniper Shot* Has a Volley* Has a Pin Down* Perception Expertise Marauder Melee focused Bonus HP or THP*...

Yes and No The deities have names, domains, personalities, and favoritism. BUT The dieties are forces and religions worship aspects of multiples of them for a purpose. For example Mother Earth is litterally is the earth. She is the dirt and everything under it. She comes off as a slow...

Neither Tarzan nor Buffy seem rangery to me. To me the real difference between ranger and druid is rangers always have a foot in civilization. And some rangers can fight on the side of civilization or against the wild. The old school ranger was actual civilized and militaristic on the side of...

Rangers arent simic. But rangers are neccessarily full green. Rangers are civilized humaniods first. They use armor and weild blades. They usually are men first. They adapt to nature. Adaptation and Lore is blue.

A dedicated beastmaster might use it to free up their high level spells.