Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I've spent the past few months breaking down the Ranger and trying to find some common ground across different fan expectations. Here's what I've got.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Acr0ssTh3P0nd" data-source="post: 6871861" data-attributes="member: 6762652"><p>Survivalist Dice are an inherently more flexible mechanic that can be applied in a wider variety of ways than a Quarry mechanic would. The Ranger needs a wide variety of subclasses to cover every identity people want from it while remaining both focused and balanced, so the more flexible a mechanic is, the better. To put it this way - it would be very easy and simple to make a Marking mechanic using survivalist dice, but it would require a lot more work and complication to make a purely utility option from a Marking mechanic.</p><p></p><p>Sure, the uses of survivalist dice are mostly combat-related <em>right now</em>, but that's due to the unfinished nature of the work. One could easily make more utility options with them, or more healing, or different combat mechanics than we currently have. Additionally, I've run the base math, and it's actually very well balanced - 2d6 is an extra 7 damage, on average, which is the same as what a Have-Your-Cake Beast Master beast does at that level, and is less than what a Hunter Official-Ranger with Colossus Slayer and Hunter's Mark up would get. Have-Your-Cake Hunter Rangers also do not benefit from the extra utility, healing, and combat power of magic. </p><p></p><p>At the core of it, it comes down to needing a mechanic that can be applied (whether in the current or future builds, or in other subclases made post-final-release) in a wide variety of utility and combat situations to represent a single set of skills being applied in different ways. A Hunter's Mark inherently limits unifying mechanics like this to combat, even if it's not solely for damage-increase effects, and furthermore limits what <em>kind</em> of combat the character does. Should rangers have <em>the option </em> to gain their combat power from focusing on a single creature? Yeah! Is it an absolutely core, irremovable part of the identity of every ranger? No more so than magic, and look at the disagreements over that. </p><p></p><p>In the end, I don't feel comfortable saying "If your character does not gain its combat power from focusing on one creature, they aren't a ranger", which is what putting such a mechanic in the core class functionally does. It's an idea that may easily be worth its own subclass, but is not as vital to the identity of every ranger.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Acr0ssTh3P0nd, post: 6871861, member: 6762652"] Survivalist Dice are an inherently more flexible mechanic that can be applied in a wider variety of ways than a Quarry mechanic would. The Ranger needs a wide variety of subclasses to cover every identity people want from it while remaining both focused and balanced, so the more flexible a mechanic is, the better. To put it this way - it would be very easy and simple to make a Marking mechanic using survivalist dice, but it would require a lot more work and complication to make a purely utility option from a Marking mechanic. Sure, the uses of survivalist dice are mostly combat-related [I]right now[/I], but that's due to the unfinished nature of the work. One could easily make more utility options with them, or more healing, or different combat mechanics than we currently have. Additionally, I've run the base math, and it's actually very well balanced - 2d6 is an extra 7 damage, on average, which is the same as what a Have-Your-Cake Beast Master beast does at that level, and is less than what a Hunter Official-Ranger with Colossus Slayer and Hunter's Mark up would get. Have-Your-Cake Hunter Rangers also do not benefit from the extra utility, healing, and combat power of magic. At the core of it, it comes down to needing a mechanic that can be applied (whether in the current or future builds, or in other subclases made post-final-release) in a wide variety of utility and combat situations to represent a single set of skills being applied in different ways. A Hunter's Mark inherently limits unifying mechanics like this to combat, even if it's not solely for damage-increase effects, and furthermore limits what [I]kind[/I] of combat the character does. Should rangers have [I]the option [/I] to gain their combat power from focusing on a single creature? Yeah! Is it an absolutely core, irremovable part of the identity of every ranger? No more so than magic, and look at the disagreements over that. In the end, I don't feel comfortable saying "If your character does not gain its combat power from focusing on one creature, they aren't a ranger", which is what putting such a mechanic in the core class functionally does. It's an idea that may easily be worth its own subclass, but is not as vital to the identity of every ranger. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I've spent the past few months breaking down the Ranger and trying to find some common ground across different fan expectations. Here's what I've got.
Top