D&D 5E Mostly Useless Things in 5E?

[FormerlyHemlock]

Makes sense to me. Feels fiddlier than I prefer (liked a slightly souped-up and fiddlier version of the 5'-step, which I actually find Disengage to be a more elegant solution to; and in particular a neat tool in the Rogue's toolbox) but sounds like it works a lot better than I initial perception of it.

Note that the Rogue still has the same capabilities under this rule (in most situations) that he would in vanilla 5E.

bonus action Disengage = (30' movement, no opportunity attacks) = bonus action Dash + move backwards

The only time the rogue suffers is if the Rogue wants to use his bonus action to Dash and his regular action to Disengage (or vice-versa), in which case this rule makes him run 45' backwards instead of 60', because double-Dashing isn't multiplicative under 5E rules.

 

[Gradine]

Note that the Rogue still has the same capabilities under this rule (in most situations) that he would in vanilla 5E.

bonus action Disengage = (30' movement, no opportunity attacks) = bonus action Dash + move backwards

The only time the rogue suffers is if the Rogue wants to use his bonus action to Dash and his regular action to Disengage (or vice-versa), in which case this rule makes him run 45' backwards instead of 60', because double-Dashing isn't multiplicative under 5E rules.

The Rogue suffers still in two fairly significant ways:

1) Something that used to be their shtick (disengaging and acting in the same turn) is now something everyone can do (even though the Rogue is still just a little bit better at it)

2) It takes away any character's ability (and thus the Rogue's particular ability to exploit) getting around and past enemies.

That's an important aspect of Disengage that's easy to overlook (I certainly did, at first); the tactical decision to either give up an action or take an attack of opportunity to run past/around an enemy (and the Rogue's particular ability to have their cake and eat it to) is something that you lose with this proposed variant.

Again, if that's the design intent, it works perfectly. Again, though, I personally don't believe this measurably improves the system at all.

 

[ccs]

I don't think it's odd. On a purely mechanical and mathematical level, INT is not relevant for most classes.

For classes, sure. But I'm not playing JUST a class....
I'm playing a character. And class is only 1 aspect of them. Sometimes - believe it or not - it's not even the most important aspect.

Class =/= Character

 

[Umbran]

I think he simply can't be part of a discussion where he disagrees with something without taking a shot at the other person. This somewhat weakens his points.

Let me get this straight - taking shots at people weakens your position. So you... take a shot at someone? This does not seem like the most sensible approach.

Nor is it particularly wise, from a ,"maybe I don't want to get the hairy eyeball from a moderator," standpoint.

How about we all play nice, hm? Treat people with respect, even when you disagree with them. That's the standard we expect you to hold to.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The Rogue suffers still in two fairly significant ways:

1) Something that used to be their shtick (disengaging and acting in the same turn) is now something everyone can do (even though the Rogue is still just a little bit better at it)

2) It takes away any character's ability (and thus the Rogue's particular ability to exploit) getting around and past enemies.

That's an important aspect of Disengage that's easy to overlook (I certainly did, at first); the tactical decision to either give up an action or take an attack of opportunity to run past/around an enemy (and the Rogue's particular ability to have their cake and eat it to) is something that you lose with this proposed variant.

Again, if that's the design intent, it works perfectly. Again, though, I personally don't believe this measurably improves the system at all.

I see your point with #1. But I don't follow #2. In what way do you lose the ability to get around and past enemies? Mechanically you're losing nothing; you can still move 30' and avoid opportunity attacks. The fact that it's now called "Dash" instead of "Disengage" doesn't alter your tactical menu. In particular, the choice in bold is exactly the same choice in either system, except in the case where the distance is so short that 15' of movement is enough to get around/past the enemy. Is that 15' the case you're talking about?

 

[Gradine]

I see your point with #1. But I don't follow #2. In what way do you lose the ability to get around and past enemies? Mechanically you're losing nothing; you can still move 30' and avoid opportunity attacks. The fact that it's now called "Dash" instead of "Disengage" doesn't alter your tactical menu. In particular, the choice in bold is exactly the same choice in either system, except in the case where the distance is so short that 15' of movement is enough to get around/past the enemy. Is that 15' the case you're talking about?

So you're saying in your system you can back away around an enemy? That's what I'm taking about. I didn't get the sense that your system would allow that, but I might still be thinking about torso facing a little too literally. If that's the case by all means ignore my second point.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

So you're saying in your system you can back away around an enemy? That's what I'm taking about. I didn't get the sense that your system would allow that, but I might still be thinking about torso facing a little too literally. If that's the case by all means ignore my second point.

Yes. You can do this in real life, and you can do it under this variant rule (which is essentially identical to AD&D's official rule). You just have to move at half speed.

 

[eayres33]

I’ve heared the “Rangers suck”/ “Rangers are the weakest class in 5E” a lot, especially on the internet, and while I’ve never played a ranger, (I get stuck Dming most of the time), I’ve seen two played. The Beastmaster seemed a little underpowered but the Hunter seemed pretty even with the fighters at the table and the groups go to save was pass without a trace.
The Ranger was usually the one who saved the parties bacon, with either pass without a trace, or his hord breaker ability, or even his limited healing. Granted the group was two champion fighters an EK and the Ranger, but the Ranger’s versitiality save the day more than the fighters DPR.

 

[Ricochet]

Having hands free to cast - forcing swapping of shields, holy symbols, components etc. The sage advice on the matter didn't make things simpler either.

It just detracts from the fun imo. I want to cast a spell one round, beat something up with a greatsword the next and so on without having to worry about things like that.

Luckily, we play very fast and loose with these rules, same with encumbrance.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I dunno... I think if you feel you can make a better "ranger" concept character for yourself by making a Fighter (because of whatever it is you think a "ranger" denotes)... that's the game working as intended. The whole point of backgrounds was to be able to create the essence of most of the non-Core Four classes just using the Core Four classes plus an applicable background. Wizard + Entertainer makes you a "bard". Fighter + Outlander makes you a "ranger" or "barbarian". Cleric + Nature domain makes you a "druid". Rogue + Acolyte makes you a "monk". Etc. etc.

The main reason for selecting the actual classes rather than creating these essences is because the actual classes get more specific things on the theme that the Core Four don't. Monks get better unarmed combat than Rogue + Acolyte. Ranger gets more mystical ties to nature and hyperawareness of their surroundings than Fighter + Outlander. Paladins get better smiting abilities than Cleric + Knight. But if those extra abilities don't do anything for you and don't really add to the essence of what you think those classes are (or if you are primarily focused on creating the most powerful combatant)... then just sticking with Core Four classes and building the best combatant is fine. That's the way the game was built-- so you could create your character fifteen ways to Sunday in whatever manner that works best for you.

The pointless part is to get upset that of those fifteen ways to Sunday, you believe ONE of them should be the primary way to create the character you want, but that way isn't "as good" as one the other fourteen. Like " I want to play a Ranger, NOT a Fighter + Outlander, but the game won't let me because the Ranger sucks!" Which means you are completely going against the ideals of the edition, as Ranger, Fighter + Outlander, UA Spell-less Ranger, UA Ranger Variant, UA Scout subclass Fighter etc. are all equal paths towards giving players the essence of the ranger that they might want. And just because there is a class with the word "Ranger" at the top of the chapter doesn't make it the end-all-and-be all.