D&D General Besides Nimble, are there other stripped down versions of 5e...

[Reynard]

Exactly. I remember the follower table in 2e was filled with wild stuff.

I still think the 2e version of the class is the best take. In a world where the stealth skill or two-weapon fighting were class features, it was a great design. 3e's universal mechanics undermined that.

I feel like the modern ranger suffers from the same problem as the modern druid: an incidental, almost ribbon ability has become their whole personality.

 

[Tessarael]

[Moldvay] I think the social encounter structure stuff he's added here is pretty brilliant! It's a streamlined spin on the sort of thing Draw Steel! did with negotiations, but broader and more interesting in some ways (and a little less mechanical). I think the emphasis on having NPCs actively oppose player's attempts to Influence them is really interesting, and far more naturalistic without leaving the "RP thumbs up" to GM Fiat.

This sounds good.

I wrote up something for Vampire the Masquerade V5, with a range of outcomes depending on whether the PCs or opponents won 0, 1/3, 2/3, or 3/3 out of 3 social combat rounds. If they won 0 - they owe a major boon, or need to perform some task; 1 - owe a minor boon; 2/3 - gain a minor boon; 3/3 - gain a major boon. It worked okay, though quite few of the players were reluctant to engage in social combat, while happy to wade into physical combat. Perhaps this was because a number of them are introverts, and the VtM V5 core rules didn't codify the risks/rewards clearly - I only introduced this relatively late in my VtM campaign.

 

[zakael19]

I feel like the modern ranger suffers from the same problem as the modern druid: an incidental, almost ribbon ability has become their whole personality.

My favorite take on a “Druid” anywhere I’ve seen is in Stonetop - because they’re a priest of the Earth Goddess before all else (and no shapechanging, but they can borrow power from spirits and natural beasts).

The Druid has always seemed to be a bargain (other class) that can change shape; or does things that seem at odds with the core philosophy of somebody that.

Edit: in fact, I wonder if Druids aren’t best left as NPCs (wise people in tune with nature and life); and we have explicit “nature’s tooth and claw” via a more Ranger/warden thing to use 4e primal examples.

 

[Reynard]

My favorite take on a “Druid” anywhere I’ve seen is in Stonetop - because they’re a priest of the Earth Goddess before all else (and no shapechanging, but they can borrow power from spirits and natural beasts).

The Druid has always seemed to be a bargain (other class) that can change shape; or does things that seem at odds with the core philosophy of somebody that.

Edit: in fact, I wonder if Druids aren’t best left as NPCs (wise people in tune with nature and life); and we have explicit “nature’s tooth and claw” via a more Ranger/warden thing to use 4e primal examples.

The original druid's shape changing was a "magical thing they can do" -- turn into a snake to get away, turn into a sparrow to fly away, maybe turn into a bear to scare some goblins. But somewhere between 3.0 and World of Warcraft, they became battle focused shape changers. Ugh.

Similarly, everyone got companions in AD&D once they reached a certain level and/or built a stronghold. The ranger's list included beasts and other creatures to enforce the "wild" aspect of the ranger. So inevitably they were forced into the role of the "pet class."

I think it is valuable to go back to first principles when reimagining or redesigning a class (or race or whatever). Shadowdark's ranger is interesting because it leans into Aragorn making poultices and stuff.

 

[Weiley31]

When did the ranger become the "pet class"?

Rangers and Druids were ALWAYS the pet classes. At least, in different points of DND in some form/aspect.

 

[GuJiaXian]

For those of you who have played Nimble, how does it play as theater of the mind? Or is playing on a grid necessary?