Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8986252" data-attributes="member: 82106">5e simply doesn't have those rules in place, that's the issue. We don't even know what 'getting lost' might look like, except we know it will never happen! Anyway, I wouldn't assume a hex crawl. So, in any case, you are showing a bit of the whole possible range of 'uses of time and space' here. You could use space as a kind of puzzle, or obstacle, so presumably when you talk about the 'right' and 'wrong' hexes you are implying there is some goal that lurks out there in some unknown hex. That would be a way of using a hex map. Time will naturally come into play here too, if it is in short supply, or if something like reprovisioning is a significant factor (and note here that the 'double gathering' ranger ability definitely impacts this). I think what people are objecting to with these ranger abilities is the way in which they obviate entire classes of potential situation. For instance there is no &quot;you get lost and accidentally turn south, ending up in the Great Swamp&quot; and there is statistically little likelihood of the situation &quot;you are low on provisions, you can probably make it back to base before you completely run out&quot; situation. As these are common types of scenario that might arise in wilderness play, it seems a shame to have them entirely obviated by a basic class feature that every ranger has from the get-go. Lets imagine a similar feature, suppose rogues have one that says &quot;never surprised, nothing can sneak up on you.&quot; This is an ability of basically the same sort as 'never get lost', yet I think it is a bit more clear how it removes a lot of possible space from play. But carrying it back to the wand thing, IMHO a wand with lots of charges, or unlimited charges, that detects secret doors with perfect reliability doesn't seem like a very clever bit of game design. Even if the thing works perfectly, it should at least have a real resource cost. However I think its much better if there's a check involved. This is one of the sorts of design decisions 4e often made in its &quot;we really thought about how this works as a game&quot; style of design.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8986252, member: 82106"] 5e simply doesn't have those rules in place, that's the issue. We don't even know what 'getting lost' might look like, except we know it will never happen! Anyway, I wouldn't assume a hex crawl. So, in any case, you are showing a bit of the whole possible range of 'uses of time and space' here. You could use space as a kind of puzzle, or obstacle, so presumably when you talk about the 'right' and 'wrong' hexes you are implying there is some goal that lurks out there in some unknown hex. That would be a way of using a hex map. Time will naturally come into play here too, if it is in short supply, or if something like reprovisioning is a significant factor (and note here that the 'double gathering' ranger ability definitely impacts this). I think what people are objecting to with these ranger abilities is the way in which they obviate entire classes of potential situation. For instance there is no "you get lost and accidentally turn south, ending up in the Great Swamp" and there is statistically little likelihood of the situation "you are low on provisions, you can probably make it back to base before you completely run out" situation. As these are common types of scenario that might arise in wilderness play, it seems a shame to have them entirely obviated by a basic class feature that every ranger has from the get-go. Lets imagine a similar feature, suppose rogues have one that says "never surprised, nothing can sneak up on you." This is an ability of basically the same sort as 'never get lost', yet I think it is a bit more clear how it removes a lot of possible space from play. But carrying it back to the wand thing, IMHO a wand with lots of charges, or unlimited charges, that detects secret doors with perfect reliability doesn't seem like a very clever bit of game design. Even if the thing works perfectly, it should at least have a real resource cost. However I think its much better if there's a check involved. This is one of the sorts of design decisions 4e often made in its "we really thought about how this works as a game" style of design. [/QUOTE]

Verification