Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Paul Farquhar" data-source="post: 8665017" data-attributes="member: 6906155">Any ranger plays very much like a fighter. Wearing lighter armour (usually) and popping off hunter's mark is the only practical way a ranger and a fighter differ in combat. Most of a Ranger's special stuff is out of combat and is therefore beyond the scope of the stat block. The albino dwarf spirit warrior is, no doubt, an ace tracker who knows the jungle like the back of their hand. But that is established narratively, not mechanically. And one could argue that using poisoned weapons better fulfils the narrative role of a ranger archetype than the hunter's mark spell.As for the archer, team them up with a pet and you have a Beastmaster. Put them in an army and you have a soldier. You establish their identity through their narrative role, not the mechanics, which the players shouldn't see anyway.Now, I'm sympathetic to the idea that the rest of the world should follow the same mechanics as the PCs, but I'm also aware of the big problem: a player only controls a single character who's abilities they know well. They can handle complex mechanics for that one character. But the DM has to control a bunch of mobs, whose abilities they might only have had time to glance at. Complexity needs to be avoided in favour of practicality.Now in my game, all mechanics stay &quot;behind the curtain&quot;. The players can only see how their own character works and nothing else. So they have no way of telling what mechanics are being used, they only see the effects.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Paul Farquhar, post: 8665017, member: 6906155"] Any ranger plays very much like a fighter. Wearing lighter armour (usually) and popping off hunter's mark is the only practical way a ranger and a fighter differ in combat. Most of a Ranger's special stuff is out of combat and is therefore beyond the scope of the stat block. The albino dwarf spirit warrior is, no doubt, an ace tracker who knows the jungle like the back of their hand. But that is established narratively, not mechanically. And one could argue that using poisoned weapons better fulfils the narrative role of a ranger archetype than the hunter's mark spell. As for the archer, team them up with a pet and you have a Beastmaster. Put them in an army and you have a soldier. You establish their identity through their narrative role, not the mechanics, which the players shouldn't see anyway. Now, I'm sympathetic to the idea that the rest of the world should follow the same mechanics as the PCs, but I'm also aware of the big problem: a player only controls a single character who's abilities they know well. They can handle complex mechanics for that one character. But the DM has to control a bunch of mobs, whose abilities they might only have had time to glance at. Complexity needs to be avoided in favour of practicality. Now in my game, all mechanics stay "behind the curtain". The players can only see how their own character works and nothing else. So they have no way of telling what mechanics are being used, they only see the effects. [/QUOTE]

Verification