@anahata …This is the crux of my issue. I play 3.x every week and love it. When I compare the 3.x games I'm in to the 5e game I'm trying to run, the 5e game feels like a collapsing scaffold of toothpicks compared to the impregnable stone fortress of 3.x. It's not even that the foundation is bad; there is no foundation. I want consistency, I want predictability, and 5e doesn't offer it. As I said above, 5e makes the DM into a game designer and I desperately don't want to be one, because I'm bad at it and I know it……
I see your point. But when I did play 3.x games I thought the scaffolding was hiding the big picture and the game. Too many hard parts to remember or look up. So, and I hate using these words. So you are in to 3.x crunch and I am into the 5E Fluff.
On Intimidate. Real world example. One my roll players asked to Intimidate and said he was talking about the guy’s mom. He won and I had the npc pass on his attack action.
On tossing the baby and swimming Coach. Yes but when Nebulous brings in another coach (buys the new 3.x book) around these parts it was the dm had to use those rules too.
@Twosix…. "stone fortress" model of rules … Good one. I stealing this and my pick pockets is 99%. J
Radom mumble. “Whimper whine, Whimper whine. I haven't used all the monsters from the 1E MM or played all the classes from the 1E PHB. Whimper Whine.
How would I know what intimidate should do in combat? I don't get into fights. I have no experience or basis on which to decide. I also have no experience or basis on which to decide how magic works. That's why the rules exist: to provide a framework for things we humans in the real world have no experience of.
And which was 95% likely to have been made up in the first place by someone with just as much experience in these things as you.
How? On what basis? What do I choose? How do I justify the choice? I play an RPG instead of doing freeform makebelieve so that there's structure. Taking away the structure means it's no longer a game.
This last sentence is an interesting statement and worth a longer look, as by extension you're saying that an unstructured or even partly-structured game cannot be defied as a game at all. I rather suspect you'll hit a wall of disagrement on this one.
A game can be a game with only the most minimal of 'structure' behind it.
This is the crux of my issue. I play 3.x every week and love it. When I compare the 3.x games I'm in to the 5e game I'm trying to run, the 5e game feels like a collapsing scaffold of toothpicks compared to the impregnable stone fortress of 3.x. It's not even that the foundation is bad; there is no foundation. I want consistency, I want predictability, and 5e doesn't offer it. As I said above, 5e makes the DM into a game designer and I desperately don't want to be one, because I'm bad at it and I know it.
Let me guess - you never played or DMed 0e or 1e, did you.
In those editions, kitbashing the rules was an accepted (and sometimes necessary!) part of the DM's job: you were to some extent expected to look under the hood and figure out how it ran, and then both discouraged from* and encouraged to* tinker with the engine. 5e has to some extent** returned to that philosophy.
* - Gygax manages to do both, each in multiple places, in the 1e DMG.
** - but, sadly, nowhere near as much as was suggested during playtest.
Put another way, the game provides the framework - and it's not a bad one, all things considered - but it's on you to then provide the consistency and predictability to your players in the manner in which you would like to see it.
And as for being bad at game design: with rare exceptions people are bad at anything before they do much of it. Only by trial and error and practice do they become less bad, and in some cases even halfway good...and even the professionals aren't above making some real facepalm-worthy design decisions - look no further than this forum and its constant stream of threads either complaining about a rule or proposing ideas to fix one.
This is wrong. Here's the Intimidate skill description for 3.5 for in-combat use:
This is a mechanical, quantifiable, description of what the skill does and how to use it. Meanwhile, here's the entire text of the skill description for 5e:
There's no description of what kind of action it is, if it even is an action, what the effects are, how long they last, nothing.
And there's a reason for that: 5e tries (at least sort-of) to downplay player-side crunch mechanics in favour of giving ideas on how something can be done in character. And the PH is, remember, first and foremost for players.
Now if you want to blame something for not giving more specifics, blame the DMG; as that's where the DM guidance should in theory be found.
I'm not sure what you were going to say after "That", but yes, I absolutely do prefer 3.5, for reasons that should be clear from the rest of the post. 5e is like tossing your infant into the ocean and telling them to swim. 3.5 pairs you with an Olympic swimming coach.
Conversely, 5e (and 0e-1e) leave you-as-player free to think like your character and let the DM worry about the mechanics while at the table, where 3e (and 4e) instead keep you-as-player thinking about meta-mechanics all the time.
While I am not sure about your solution - I may agree with your conclusion for different reasons - I think that progression on to hit and hence skill change is innadequate to represent the distinction between tiers of characters (training tier is just too close to end game with only 25% increase although some attribute increase changes that the default amount of increase is low enough its still really really constrained )
The responses to this thread have really made me desire an upgraded and reorganized set of core books that hearken to the modular style of play that 5e originally said it would be like. I don't know if that will ever happen but it would be great.
How would I know what intimidate should do in combat? I don't get into fights. I have no experience or basis on which to decide. I also have no experience or basis on which to decide how magic works. That's why the rules exist: to provide a framework for things we humans in the real world have no experience of.
Anahata, I think your personal experiences are valid. While 5e isn't for you it's great that there is a game that you enjoy (3.5e).
Where I take issue with your statements are when they are broadened to the general.
5e has millions of players. Somewhere over 20 million at this time (though I think that is a low estimate). Most of those players are new to RPGs and hobby gaming.
I believe 5e is so popular and has this much momentum is because most people find it intuitive and easy to play.
Some, like you, don't and that's fine. The inverse is true with 3e. Most people find it to be hard to play.
Anecdotally I introduced many people to 3e who had trouble with it, found it to be a chore, and quickly abandoned it. In 5e everyone who I have introduced it to has picked it up well. 2 of the players who had no previous experience with RPGs started DMing for brand new groups of their friends after only a couple sessions.
In light of this, I think it is fair to say that the rules on intimidate are just fine.
Further, I think it is a mistake to try to codify everything in specific rules because the open nature of RPGs makes that impossible. Instead, 5e recognizes this and is designed around making rulings. This also allows players freedom to do things outside of what is written on their character sheets.
3e has a lot of play away from the table designing characters. 5e has a lot of play at the table where players come up with courses of action that aren't written on the character sheet.
13th Age is my go-to fantasy system, but even I have to say that mechanical support for other pillars of play besides combat are basically limited to backgrounds.
Heck, we aren't new at all, and have years of experience with other systems for crafting and invention, but the total lack of any guidance whatsoever is....frustrating for people who like a nicely balanced system. We get it done, by having conversations to figure out the nearest equivalent spells or existing magic items, vaguely average out the power level, then use the damage by level and magic item rarity by spell level charts in the DMG to figure out an equivelent rarity, and see if the cost and time for that makes sense to us for what I'm trying to create. It's...very imperfect.
Like...what is the power level of a magic rapier that has 7 charges, with which it can cast Absorb Elements, Dispel Magic, and Counterspel, but only on effects which either target or originate within 5ft of the user? Is it Rare? Very Rare? We can look up staves with similar spell levels, but they aren't also a finesse weapon.
How much does adding that it can be used as a spellcasting focus change the equation, if at all?
What if we gave it a random chance to regain charges when the user casts Absorb Elements, if they choose not to use the extra damage from that spell? Do we balance that like it has more charges?
What if instead, it eventually gains the ability to disrupt summoning and mind control magic, by perhaps causing damage to the caster of such magic when you damage a creature summoned or controlled by them, and forcing a concentration save to maintain the effect even if it normally isn't a concentration effect? Do we use Banishing Smite as a basis for that?
What if it instead gains a feature that boosts the Mage Slayer feat, making your reaction attacks as a result of spellcasting resolve before the spell resolves, thus allowing it to work against teleportation spells? The hell can that be compared to?
And that doesn't even get into stuff like a grappling gun attachment to a hand crossbow, or a arm bracer with a grappling retractor device built in that you can hook an arrow with webbing based cord packed into it onto, thus gaining a grapple shot device with the range of a longbow. Is it like a teleportation spell? Is it like a limited version of Fly? Is it like a more powerful Jump? What if it can pull flying creatures down if they fail a contested Strength check against the user?
What about a suit that resembles the flying suit of the kid from How To Train Your Dragon? Is that like a broom of flying?
What about improved designs for ship sails, weapons, etc? The damn ship related book didn't even have prices for the ship upgrades! How am I supposed to use that!?
Ugh! And don't get me started on Alchemy! At least I have the extensive list of Alchemical formulas from 4e to draw upon, but my wife's master alchemist needs some kind of system she can dig into to do more interesting things than acid and alchemist's fire without breaking the game! And my alchemist in a different game has like...2 alchemical inventions so far, because I don't want to push the DM. And those are literally just improved acid and alchemist's fire so that they can be loaded into an arrow with no loss of damage from the smaller amount of fluid.
Question for you and @Parmandur, who seem to have opposite viewpoints on this. I have a third option I'd like to hear from people.
Would an invocation-based ranger (like a spell-less warlock) work in 6e for you. This would allow some rangers to take "woodlands magic" invocations (or whatever terrain), which also could mean some are at-will or have other usage-per-day that fits the ranger, as opposed to fits the caster system. Or not to be taken for those who don't want to get magic involved. It would also allow invocations for beasts to get scouting, then combat, then even-cooler-in-various-ways customization. Plus Invocations like Hunter's Mark and others that fit other ragner archetypes (archer, scout, bounty hunter, warden, etc.)
I'd be fine with that. I actually think the Ranger would make sense as a Warlock style caster, with an option to trade spellcasting alltogether for something like manuevers, and woodslore type abilities.
As long as I don't have to choose between spellcasting and an animal companion, which would be entirely unacceptable, and which also just isn't ever going to happen outside of variant rules options published after a phb in order to "fix without errata" a screw up in balancing options.
Because they may claim they got the numbers right on the PHB beast, but they absolutely did not. A creature with 24 HP at level 8 is less powerful than a creature with 12 hp at level 3. The PHB beast loses power as you level. That isn't a balanced option. Monster damage output scales relative to PC HP. That means that a built in pet that can't be resummoned between fights has to scale it's HP by the same math.
People that claim that this calls for a pet that is bascially a full PC are being disingenuous. A wolf that can't even attack without using up the PC's actions, and has HP comperable to a rogue with none of the defensive or offensive class features, isn't anything like a PC.
Even the Revised Ranger Beast, which works, isn't anything like a full PC. It's a damage boost in the form of an extra attack most rounds, and an extra rogue's worth of HP and low AC on a moving target on your team. And that's all it is, without putting resources that you'd normally put into yourself into the pet, like magic armor.
Its the same perception issue that Hexblades have. They aren't more powerful than other warlocks, but they can seem that way on paper, because they seem to get "more" than other patrons. But what they actually get is the what they need to be as effective as other patrons while being in melee instead of the warlock's normal ranged focus. That's it. And if you make a ranged hexblade, much of the extra stuff doesn't even come into play. And yet, people claim they're OP or broken or "ruinously powerful" left and right.
But yeah, give me a ranger that keeps subclasses where they are, folds some later features into earlier levels and beefs up Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy, and/or uses something like invocations to let me get those things while someone else grabs something different, and I'm fine with it. As it is, the Ranger literally just needs some light tweaking here and there.
Aside: I'd actually love a FE feature that lets you study an enemy and hyperfocus on them, spending a spell slot to gain a non-concentration bonus to attack and damage against them, using d4s or d6s since it's multiple attacks, but balanced against the Paladin's Smite, and keeping in mind that the ranger can stack Hunter's Mark or other damage boost spells on top of it. You'd be able to activate this ability without a spell slot 1/day, or without an action, or something, against your favored enemy? For terrain, I'd love to be able to study an area, and become preternaturally surefooted and impossible to evade while in that area, gaining this feature automatically in my favored terrain.
Your "proof" that it was supposed to exist was merely that it existed in a previous edition. But the same level of proof to show how that's a ridiculous stance you called a strawman. Yet somehow that doesn't apply to your own proof.
This is a misrepresentation of their points. They never said that it should exist because it was in a previous edition. They used a previous edition's take on skills as an example of what they feel the game needs, directly contrasting it with what they see as effectively a lack of literally any system for skills.
The responding claim, that they were claiming that things from old editions shouldn't be removed, was a blatant strawman argument.
13th Age is my go-to fantasy system, but even I have to say that mechanical support for other pillars of play besides combat are basically limited to backgrounds.
Well, icon relationships have a fair amount of mechanical support and there are the usual D&D like skills such as Trap Sense and Thievery for the Rogue. There's also a range of mechanical effects like Swashbuckling that have mechanical parts, but require the GM to adjudicate; Wizards have the usual D&D sets of cantrips which are pretty much non-combat, and so on. Outside of core rules, the druid is probably the most mechanically complex in non-combat skills, allowing "scouting form" animal form and a fair number of terrain effects.
But overall, D&D is a game where the mechanics have always been about killing things and getting their loot, and the non-combat part has been mostly mechanics-free. 13th Age definitely sticks to that formula, adding more options for free-form non-combat and defining mechanics mostly for combat.
I don't think it would help D&D to move away from that; that's the space it owns and is defined by. Any variations from the D&D formula tend to get punished by the market
Heck, we aren't new at all, and have years of experience with other systems for crafting and invention, but the total lack of any guidance whatsoever is....frustrating for people who like a nicely balanced system. We get it done, by having conversations to figure out the nearest equivalent spells or existing magic items, vaguely average out the power level, then use the damage by level and magic item rarity by spell level charts in the DMG to figure out an equivelent rarity, and see if the cost and time for that makes sense to us for what I'm trying to create. It's...very imperfect.
Like...what is the power level of a magic rapier that has 7 charges, with which it can cast Absorb Elements, Dispel Magic, and Counterspel, but only on effects which either target or originate within 5ft of the user? Is it Rare? Very Rare? We can look up staves with similar spell levels, but they aren't also a finesse weapon.
How much does adding that it can be used as a spellcasting focus change the equation, if at all?
What if we gave it a random chance to regain charges when the user casts Absorb Elements, if they choose not to use the extra damage from that spell? Do we balance that like it has more charges?
What if instead, it eventually gains the ability to disrupt summoning and mind control magic, by perhaps causing damage to the caster of such magic when you damage a creature summoned or controlled by them, and forcing a concentration save to maintain the effect even if it normally isn't a concentration effect? Do we use Banishing Smite as a basis for that?
What if it instead gains a feature that boosts the Mage Slayer feat, making your reaction attacks as a result of spellcasting resolve before the spell resolves, thus allowing it to work against teleportation spells? The hell can that be compared to?
And that doesn't even get into stuff like a grappling gun attachment to a hand crossbow, or a arm bracer with a grappling retractor device built in that you can hook an arrow with webbing based cord packed into it onto, thus gaining a grapple shot device with the range of a longbow. Is it like a teleportation spell? Is it like a limited version of Fly? Is it like a more powerful Jump? What if it can pull flying creatures down if they fail a contested Strength check against the user?
What about a suit that resembles the flying suit of the kid from How To Train Your Dragon? Is that like a broom of flying?
What about improved designs for ship sails, weapons, etc? The damn ship related book didn't even have prices for the ship upgrades! How am I supposed to use that!?
Ugh! And don't get me started on Alchemy! At least I have the extensive list of Alchemical formulas from 4e to draw upon, but my wife's master alchemist needs some kind of system she can dig into to do more interesting things than acid and alchemist's fire without breaking the game! And my alchemist in a different game has like...2 alchemical inventions so far, because I don't want to push the DM. And those are literally just improved acid and alchemist's fire so that they can be loaded into an arrow with no loss of damage from the smaller amount of fluid.
I'd be fine with that. I actually think the Ranger would make sense as a Warlock style caster, with an option to trade spellcasting alltogether for something like manuevers, and woodslore type abilities.
As long as I don't have to choose between spellcasting and an animal companion, which would be entirely unacceptable, and which also just isn't ever going to happen outside of variant rules options published after a phb in order to "fix without errata" a screw up in balancing options.
Because they may claim they got the numbers right on the PHB beast, but they absolutely did not. A creature with 24 HP at level 8 is less powerful than a creature with 12 hp at level 3. The PHB beast loses power as you level. That isn't a balanced option. Monster damage output scales relative to PC HP. That means that a built in pet that can't be resummoned between fights has to scale it's HP by the same math.
People that claim that this calls for a pet that is bascially a full PC are being disingenuous. A wolf that can't even attack without using up the PC's actions, and has HP comperable to a rogue with none of the defensive or offensive class features, isn't anything like a PC.
Even the Revised Ranger Beast, which works, isn't anything like a full PC. It's a damage boost in the form of an extra attack most rounds, and an extra rogue's worth of HP and low AC on a moving target on your team. And that's all it is, without putting resources that you'd normally put into yourself into the pet, like magic armor.
Its the same perception issue that Hexblades have. They aren't more powerful than other warlocks, but they can seem that way on paper, because they seem to get "more" than other patrons. But what they actually get is the what they need to be as effective as other patrons while being in melee instead of the warlock's normal ranged focus. That's it. And if you make a ranged hexblade, much of the extra stuff doesn't even come into play. And yet, people claim they're OP or broken or "ruinously powerful" left and right.
But yeah, give me a ranger that keeps subclasses where they are, folds some later features into earlier levels and beefs up Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy, and/or uses something like invocations to let me get those things while someone else grabs something different, and I'm fine with it. As it is, the Ranger literally just needs some light tweaking here and there.
Aside: I'd actually love a FE feature that lets you study an enemy and hyperfocus on them, spending a spell slot to gain a non-concentration bonus to attack and damage against them, using d4s or d6s since it's multiple attacks, but balanced against the Paladin's Smite, and keeping in mind that the ranger can stack Hunter's Mark or other damage boost spells on top of it. You'd be able to activate this ability without a spell slot 1/day, or without an action, or something, against your favored enemy? For terrain, I'd love to be able to study an area, and become preternaturally surefooted and impossible to evade while in that area, gaining this feature automatically in my favored terrain.
This is a misrepresentation of their points. They never said that it should exist because it was in a previous edition. They used a previous edition's take on skills as an example of what they feel the game needs, directly contrasting it with what they see as effectively a lack of literally any system for skills.
The responding claim, that they were claiming that things from old editions shouldn't be removed, was a blatant strawman argument.
The Beastmaster math is right for what the designers intended to do with it: their mistake was not testing the Beastmaster adequately to find out that there was a mismatch between their intentions and what people wanted a beast pal to do. They've paid relatively harshly for that particular mistake.
Given that the Beastmaster is balanced properly as is, to get a meatier Beast requires something else to give in the Ranger's power economy: the Revised Ranger does a couple of things to help it, such as give it the power from an extra attack action, but that cure proved worse than the disease. The trade-off of spells allows the pet to get all of the oomph of the half-caster spell slots (which are the hidden point buy currency of 5E), which results in a serious contribute that scales over time.
The Variant Class features approach has promise, but honestly I don't see them really being able to "fix" the Ranger for player satisfaction until an honest to God ground up redesign in a 6E situation.
