Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Upcoming One D&D: Unearthed Arcana 'Expert' Classes (Bard, Ranger, Rogue)
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="Levistus's_Leviathan" data-source="post: 8787628" data-attributes="member: 7023887"><p>Noted. Is this dumb semantics argument done now? I'll call them "Pet Classes" if it's really that important to you. </p><p></p><p>I can guarantee you that will change when we get to see the OneD&D Beast Master. </p><p></p><p>How do Gloomstalkers protect the wild? Or Rangers that choose Beasts as their favored enemies? How do the rules enforce "protecting the wild"? How is the Ranger version of protecting the wild thematically different from the Paladin way (through Oath of the Ancients)?</p><p></p><p>You're being purposefully dense here. "Type of ranger" is no more specific than the "type" of any other class. The Wizard subclasses from the PHB are different types of wizard that focus on different spell schools. The subclasses that make a different type of oath that grants them different features. The subclasses of Rangers are just "different types of Rangers". They're different types of Rangers for any purpose. </p><p></p><p>Not a fan of Discworld, I take it. Or Theros. Or Planescape. </p><p></p><p>I didn't say "symmetry". I said "consistency". Things can be consistent without being symmetrical. </p><p></p><p>No, they're not. They all act very differently based on their oaths. Conquest Paladins are terrifying conquerors that subjugate the weak and often side with Devils. Ancient Paladins protect nature and use its powers to protect their allies and harm others. Redemption Paladins are pacifists that believe humanoids can be redeemed and shouldn't be killed unprovoked, but that demons and other monsters should be exterminated. Vengeance Paladins swear a sacred oath to get revenge against those that wrong them and avenge those that have been wronged. Oathbreakers have broken their oaths and made pacts with unholy monsters. </p><p></p><p>How in the world are "all paladins basically the same thing"? </p><p></p><p>By that argument, the classes shouldn't exist. If classes demand internal consistency or "forced symmetry", then they're overly restrictive, harm creativity, and should be removed from the game. By this point, I think that the game has proved that creativity can thrive under restraints. And restraints can help make creativity easier. </p><p></p><p>The Great Wheel is a victim of alignment, which is a nonsensical system that should not have been mapped on an afterlife/cosmological system. Eberron has the constraint of all of its major topics (moons, planes of existence, dragonmarks, nations on Khorvaire) coming in sets of 13-1. It has restrictions on the number of planes and other major factors of the world, but doesn't suffer for it. Alignment (and the in-between alignments) are the main problems with the Great Wheel. Not "internal consistence". </p><p></p><p>Then the lore should have said that! If Rangers get their magic from protecting a certain part of nature (Fey Forests or the Underdark, for example) and their version of magic is specific to the part of nature they protected that is how the subclass system should have worked. Change Natural Explorer to be what the subclasses are based on in that case. Have an Arctic Ranger subclass, a Desert Nomad, a Deepsea Stalker, Fey Wanderer, Underdark Explorer, and Rangers of all other types of terrain! That would have been good class design! Then, whether the Ranger has a Pet, monster-hunting specialization, or some other primal feature could have been the Ranger's version of the Warlock's Pact Boons! That is an interesting design for the Ranger class! </p><p></p><p>But that's not what we got. We have Environment Rangers (Feywild, Underdark/Shadowfell, Planar Traveler) as some subclasses, Monster Hunters (Monster Slayer, Hunter) as other subclasses, Pet Summoners as other subclasses (Drakewarden, Beastmaster, Swarmkeeper). The subclasses don't share anything besides the Ranger class! The lore doesn't unite them and explain why the different types exist! That is a flaw in the design of the Ranger! Under this theoretical design of the Ranger, all of the different "types" you would want a Ranger to fill could still be playable. But the class would be better designed because you would have an ounce of understanding of why the different subclasses exist and what different types could exist in the future! </p><p></p><p>In what world does "I get different magic based on what different god/concept I worship" make less sense than "I get any random nature-y nonsense that the designers feel like giving me because my subclasses don't make sense"? </p><p></p><p>The whole premise of the class poorly explains it. Mages/Spellcasters in D&D do need explanations for their magic. That was clearly an intended part of the design of 5e classes. Rangers fail at that goal because it just says "you're kind of like a druid in how you get magic". It doesn't say why they get that magic, just that they're connected to nature in some unexplained unique way compared to Druids/Nature Clerics and that they use magic to help hunt enemies. Every other class has at least a serviceable explanation. </p><p></p><p>Warlocks explain why they have magic. Powerful demigod-like entities give it to them. Their subclasses change based on these "demigods". They get different benefits specific to the pact they make with this demigod (Pact Boons). Warlocks are one of the best-designed classes in 5e because of this. </p><p></p><p>Rangers could be like that. They could have a good lore explanation for their magic and it could enhance their class features. It could make them more versatile and compelling characters.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Levistus's_Leviathan, post: 8787628, member: 7023887"] Noted. Is this dumb semantics argument done now? I'll call them "Pet Classes" if it's really that important to you. I can guarantee you that will change when we get to see the OneD&D Beast Master. How do Gloomstalkers protect the wild? Or Rangers that choose Beasts as their favored enemies? How do the rules enforce "protecting the wild"? How is the Ranger version of protecting the wild thematically different from the Paladin way (through Oath of the Ancients)? You're being purposefully dense here. "Type of ranger" is no more specific than the "type" of any other class. The Wizard subclasses from the PHB are different types of wizard that focus on different spell schools. The subclasses that make a different type of oath that grants them different features. The subclasses of Rangers are just "different types of Rangers". They're different types of Rangers for any purpose. Not a fan of Discworld, I take it. Or Theros. Or Planescape. I didn't say "symmetry". I said "consistency". Things can be consistent without being symmetrical. No, they're not. They all act very differently based on their oaths. Conquest Paladins are terrifying conquerors that subjugate the weak and often side with Devils. Ancient Paladins protect nature and use its powers to protect their allies and harm others. Redemption Paladins are pacifists that believe humanoids can be redeemed and shouldn't be killed unprovoked, but that demons and other monsters should be exterminated. Vengeance Paladins swear a sacred oath to get revenge against those that wrong them and avenge those that have been wronged. Oathbreakers have broken their oaths and made pacts with unholy monsters. How in the world are "all paladins basically the same thing"? By that argument, the classes shouldn't exist. If classes demand internal consistency or "forced symmetry", then they're overly restrictive, harm creativity, and should be removed from the game. By this point, I think that the game has proved that creativity can thrive under restraints. And restraints can help make creativity easier. The Great Wheel is a victim of alignment, which is a nonsensical system that should not have been mapped on an afterlife/cosmological system. Eberron has the constraint of all of its major topics (moons, planes of existence, dragonmarks, nations on Khorvaire) coming in sets of 13-1. It has restrictions on the number of planes and other major factors of the world, but doesn't suffer for it. Alignment (and the in-between alignments) are the main problems with the Great Wheel. Not "internal consistence". Then the lore should have said that! If Rangers get their magic from protecting a certain part of nature (Fey Forests or the Underdark, for example) and their version of magic is specific to the part of nature they protected that is how the subclass system should have worked. Change Natural Explorer to be what the subclasses are based on in that case. Have an Arctic Ranger subclass, a Desert Nomad, a Deepsea Stalker, Fey Wanderer, Underdark Explorer, and Rangers of all other types of terrain! That would have been good class design! Then, whether the Ranger has a Pet, monster-hunting specialization, or some other primal feature could have been the Ranger's version of the Warlock's Pact Boons! That is an interesting design for the Ranger class! But that's not what we got. We have Environment Rangers (Feywild, Underdark/Shadowfell, Planar Traveler) as some subclasses, Monster Hunters (Monster Slayer, Hunter) as other subclasses, Pet Summoners as other subclasses (Drakewarden, Beastmaster, Swarmkeeper). The subclasses don't share anything besides the Ranger class! The lore doesn't unite them and explain why the different types exist! That is a flaw in the design of the Ranger! Under this theoretical design of the Ranger, all of the different "types" you would want a Ranger to fill could still be playable. But the class would be better designed because you would have an ounce of understanding of why the different subclasses exist and what different types could exist in the future! In what world does "I get different magic based on what different god/concept I worship" make less sense than "I get any random nature-y nonsense that the designers feel like giving me because my subclasses don't make sense"? The whole premise of the class poorly explains it. Mages/Spellcasters in D&D do need explanations for their magic. That was clearly an intended part of the design of 5e classes. Rangers fail at that goal because it just says "you're kind of like a druid in how you get magic". It doesn't say why they get that magic, just that they're connected to nature in some unexplained unique way compared to Druids/Nature Clerics and that they use magic to help hunt enemies. Every other class has at least a serviceable explanation. Warlocks explain why they have magic. Powerful demigod-like entities give it to them. Their subclasses change based on these "demigods". They get different benefits specific to the pact they make with this demigod (Pact Boons). Warlocks are one of the best-designed classes in 5e because of this. Rangers could be like that. They could have a good lore explanation for their magic and it could enhance their class features. It could make them more versatile and compelling characters. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Upcoming One D&D: Unearthed Arcana 'Expert' Classes (Bard, Ranger, Rogue)
Top