NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6993926" data-attributes="member: 42582">But why should the viability of a mob depend upon its possession of ranged capabilities? In real life, there have been many powerful "mobs" that don't depend upon ranged attacks. The fantasy genre is also replete with them (eg Theoden's charge on the Pelennor Fields).If, in 5e, a mob is only powerful if it has ranged attacks, that seems to be a distinctive consequence of 5e's mechanics. That's not a default assumption that any FRPG GM needs to have.Or, in other words, . . .I think [MENTION=6774887]Ashkelon[/MENTION] made this same observation some way upthread.By that last occurrence of "change", do you mean change by WotC or change by some hypothetical D&Der who doesn't like the way Spirit Guardians works? If the former, I think I agree. If the latter, I don't agree - if someone doesn't like the fiction that SG - or some other mechanic - generates, then absolutely they should change that mechanic.I don't agree with this.First, I don't share your theory of criticism in general. Sometimes a creator's intention is not the most important thing about their work. (Eg the reason many people admire the great cathedrals of Europe, as works of architecture that are worth protecting, is quite divorced from the intent of their architects and buiilders.) And sometimes creators' intentions are flawed, and are worth identifying as such. (Eg in the sphere of RPGing, Ggygax's intent seems to have been to balance MUs vs fighters over a campaign in which it is assumed that even experienced players don't begin their PCs much above 3rd level. That design intention seems open to criticism, if it does not mesh well with the way the intended audience of the game are actually going to play the game.)Second, not everyone who wants to change something about the game is thereby disagreeing with WotC's intent. Maybe they think the game, in actual accomplishment, falls short of its ambitions. If a few feats, at someone's table, undermine the game's realisation of its intent, then that person absolutely has a reason to fix those feats. If enough people have that problem, then WotC has a (commercial) reason to fix them. WotC seems to take that view of the ranger - enough people are dissatisfied that WotC think it is worth their while coming up with a verion that the players of the game will be more receptive of as satisfyig the design intentions of the game.</blockquote>

Verification