Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Reef" data-source="post: 9064966" data-attributes="member: 4533">[USER=7040941]@Emberashh[/USER], first off, I just wanted to say thank you taking the time to explain what you are looking for in that level of detail.&nbsp; I sincerely appreciate it.It does show me that I was right, with the point this isn’t necessarily about the Ranger class for you.&nbsp; You’re looking for a whole Wilderness overhaul.Personally, that’s not a level of detail I am looking for.&nbsp; I certainly don’t want a skill list any longer than it is now.&nbsp; The idea of separate crafting skills, or breaking Survival up any finer makes my eyes glaze over.&nbsp; I’m not looking for a camping simulator, although I accept some people are.But even if they did go all the way and add the level of detail to those areas that you want, the Ranger would still be a problem.&nbsp; If the skills are critical, or the consequences of them are dire, the Ranger becomes essential.&nbsp; Or, if they aren’t that bad, the Ranger ends up being a ‘get out of jail free’ card that bypasses all that too easy.In the old days, Rogues (or Thieves) were the only ones who could Find and Remove traps.&nbsp; So having one became critical in any dungeon that had traps.&nbsp; A party without one ate a lot of unnecessary damage, or the DM stopped using traps.&nbsp; 5e eliminated that issue by making trap finding skill/tool based, and not locking them behind one class.&nbsp; Sure, the Rogue might have Expertise, but another class could quite easily get the skill required not to need a Rogue.&nbsp; To my mind, this is excellent.&nbsp; It opens up party composition possibilities immensely.What I think you’re asking for goes back to making one class necessary for an aspect of the game.&nbsp; Or requires that aspect to be avoidable enough that basing a whole class around those skills is questionable.Anyway, while I disagree with you, I do appreciate you being willing to discuss it with me (us).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Reef, post: 9064966, member: 4533"] [USER=7040941]@Emberashh[/USER], first off, I just wanted to say thank you taking the time to explain what you are looking for in that level of detail. I sincerely appreciate it. It does show me that I was right, with the point this isn’t necessarily about the Ranger class for you. You’re looking for a whole Wilderness overhaul. Personally, that’s not a level of detail I am looking for. I certainly don’t want a skill list any longer than it is now. The idea of separate crafting skills, or breaking Survival up any finer makes my eyes glaze over. I’m not looking for a camping simulator, although I accept some people are. But even if they did go all the way and add the level of detail to those areas that you want, the Ranger would still be a problem. If the skills are critical, or the consequences of them are dire, the Ranger becomes essential. Or, if they aren’t that bad, the Ranger ends up being a ‘get out of jail free’ card that bypasses all that too easy. In the old days, Rogues (or Thieves) were the only ones who could Find and Remove traps. So having one became critical in any dungeon that had traps. A party without one ate a lot of unnecessary damage, or the DM stopped using traps. 5e eliminated that issue by making trap finding skill/tool based, and not locking them behind one class. Sure, the Rogue might have Expertise, but another class could quite easily get the skill required not to need a Rogue. To my mind, this is excellent. It opens up party composition possibilities immensely. What I think you’re asking for goes back to making one class necessary for an aspect of the game. Or requires that aspect to be avoidable enough that basing a whole class around those skills is questionable. Anyway, while I disagree with you, I do appreciate you being willing to discuss it with me (us). [/QUOTE]

Verification