D&D 5E Legends and Lore October 22nd

[Ratskinner]

5e seems to be going for something different. A game where the companions rule module is included may be a more high powered game than one where companions are not allowed, however the power between classes will be similar in either game. A modular approach keeps all classes level with each other.

Alternatively, the companions module could indicate what other standard issue features you can safely swap for a companion.

 

[hamstertamer]

I've never played that companions/followers are to be directly controlled by Player Characters. I've always seen them as loyal NPCs, so the DM plays them, and this encourages the PC to interact with them as living breathing real thing. I guess then, no one at my table will see the companions/followers as "extra actions" for the that PC, and everyone else could interact as well, thus they benefited all PCs more or less.

So this is an Issue that is not an Issue for me. This an example of how playstyle affects and creates balance for the game naturally.

In certain campaigns, I might create a NPC that would travel with them if I thought they needed help and I might let another PC help control that NPC but I never had anyone accuse that PC of having too many actions. Maybe I've been playing it wrong or it's all in how you present the companion to the Party.

A druid and his bear should be two different characters not one. It should have a name and even it's own personality. The bear should benefit the other party members as well as the Druid. I guess I just see a companion/follower as opportunity to RP a NPC in the party. I like seeing the PCs having to give commands and interact.

 

[Cybit]

For some reason, this article crystalized a feeling I've got about DndNext.

Everything is a module with no real attempt to balance anything. Rather than doing the difficult job of trying to vaguely balance a druid with and without an animal companion (which is what Pathfinder does) they're just going to throw out options and let the GM do all the hard work.

I've already got an extremely good and flexible D20 game in Mutants and Masterminds. I really don't need a semi flexible game with all the work of balancing things thrust onto the GM.

And they're all but certain to lose one of the main reasons that I play D&D, which is the ability to buy adventures that are already mostly balanced and written with the capabilities of characters of a particular level in mind.

One of the key questions I had at PAX was about the balance issue, and his response was along the lines of "Wizards would be doing the work of balancing, not the GM." The options would all be balanced within each other, and then have guidelines as to what this does for the overall balance of the game.

Adventure Modules would come with any assumptions about module usage explicitly stated, IIRC.

 

[pauljathome]

One of the key questions I had at PAX was about the balance issue, and his response was along the lines of "Wizards would be doing the work of balancing, not the GM." The options would all be balanced within each other, and then have guidelines as to what this does for the overall balance of the game.

Adventure Modules would come with any assumptions about module usage explicitly stated, IIRC.

I guess I'll have to wait a long while to see if Wizards deliver on that promise. At the risk of sounding cynical I admit that I have great doubt that they'll be able to pull that off. Certainly there is NOTHING in the playtest material that I've seen so far that indicates that this is even a serious concern of theirs at this point in time.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I love the idea of Bardic music being its own type of magic instead of just giving Bards spells. I've wanted to see something like that for a long time. I just hope there's an option for a non-musical bard. I'd like the option to play a more scholarly bard that uses oratory and ancient words of power instead of singing and playing a lute, for example.

As for the Ranger just taking archery or two-weapon fighting as specialties/feats instead of getting them as class abilities, that is also an idea I wholeheartedly approve. I have never really understood why rangers were shoe-horned into two-weapon fighting. If I want to play a ranger that uses a two handed axe, there's no reason such a character should be at a disadvantage compared to a ranger that uses TWF or archery.

Having animal companions, henchmen, bound elementals, etc all fall under an optional rules module along with followers is a great idea. Why should I have to be a druid or ranger to be able to play a character that has an animal companion? That never made sense to me. I also didn't like how pets multiplied the power of certain classes. I remember playing a druid in 3e whose pet was more powerful than the party fighter. No joke.

Some players were also turned off by the complexity of having to manage a pet in addition to their own character, and before, turning down a pet was simply a loss of power with no compensation. Pets can also be annoying and I can understand why some DM's may not wish to allow them in their games. By having pets/minions/henchmen as part of an optional rules module, it's there for people who want to use them, but easy to leave out for those that don't. When it's not a written part of a class, players have no reason to feel entitled to it.

 

[Falling Icicle]

For some reason, this article crystalized a feeling I've got about DndNext.

Everything is a module with no real attempt to balance anything. Rather than doing the difficult job of trying to vaguely balance a druid with and without an animal companion (which is what Pathfinder does) they're just going to throw out options and let the GM do all the hard work.

I've already got an extremely good and flexible D20 game in Mutants and Masterminds. I really don't need a semi flexible game with all the work of balancing things thrust onto the GM.

And they're all but certain to lose one of the main reasons that I play D&D, which is the ability to buy adventures that are already mostly balanced and written with the capabilities of characters of a particular level in mind.

As someone who plays Pathfinder, I can tell you that a druid with an animal companion and a druid without one are not balanced. Having the equivalent of a cleric domain is nothing compared to having a pet with its own actions that is by itself almost as powerful as a player character.

Is it possible to balance such companions with classes that don't have them? I don't know. 4e tried, but the result was characters that had to split their actions with their pet, and both could only act if a power was used that allowed it. The result was fairly well balanced but just felt nonsensical.

Besides, why should only some classes have the benefits of companions? Why can't a fighter have an animal companion? I can see why some more exotic animals might take a druid or ranger to tame them, but why can't a fighter have a wolf that's been his faithful friend and companion and goes adventuring with him? And what about spells like planar binding and planar ally that give spellcasters angels, demons, devils, elementals or other powerful beings as minions? What about things like the leadership feat and henchmen? 3e didn't even try to balance all of these things. You could have one player running around with his own army of animated dead, followers, summoned monsters, etc. It was out of control, and Pathfinder is no better in that respect.

How are you ever supposed to balance all of these things? I think having it as part of a followers module is the ideal solution. It's optional so you don't have the impossible task of trying to balance those who have companions with those who don't, and it's fair because it gives everyone the opportunity to have companions, not just druids and rangers. And before you say that it puts all the burden of balancing things on the DM, why don't we at least wait and see what this rules module looks like before jumping to that conclusion?

 

[Magil]

So, um... what is going to be the ranger's mechanical schtick that differentiates it from the fighter, if not an animal companion, dual wielding, archery, spells...?

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

So, um... what is going to be the ranger's mechanical schtick that differentiates it from the fighter, if not an animal companion, dual wielding, archery, spells...?

What are the defining features of the Ranger? What are the unifying qualities that Aragorn(as Strider), Robin Hood, Jack the Giant Killer, the goddess Diana/Artemis and Orion the Hunter share?

Animal companions, dual wielding, and spell casting are not prominent among them. Bow use is fairly common, but not really defining.

 

[MoonSong]

So, um... what is going to be the ranger's mechanical schtick that differentiates it from the fighter, if not an animal companion, dual wielding, archery, spells...?

That he is a survivor, a friggin commando that knows how to find the way through his environment, be it by fighting, skills or even spells. (Think Rambo, Bear Grylls or Les Stroud)

 

[Magil]

What are the defining features of the Ranger? What are the unifying qualities that Aragon(as Strider), Robin Hood, Jack the Giant Killer, the goddess Diana/Artemis and Orion the Hunter share?

That he is a survivor, a friggin commando that knows how to find the way through his environment, be it by fighting, skills or even spells. (Think Rambo, Bear Grylls or Les Stroud)

Okay, but what does that translate to, mechanically, and how does it relate to the "iconic Dungeons and Dragons Ranger?"