OneDnD Why no new packs since late September?

[MonsterEnvy]

Yeah. We have different definitions. I don't agree that LevelUp is compatible. Having looked at the playtest documents and some stuff since, I wouldn't allow playtest classes to play along side 5e classes. The LevelUp versions are better. To use an earlier term, they don't play well together. The differences are greater than those of 5.5e vs. 5e.

I would and do use monsters from my monstrous menagerie book in my 5e game, though. They're simply updated, better versions of monsters, similar to ones that are homebrewed by DMs.

Someday I hope to convince my group to make the switch to LevelUp, but until then monsters will remain the only thing that makes it into the game.

Them being balanced or better than each other has nothing to do with compatibility.

 

[Maxperson]

Them being balanced or better than each other has nothing to do with compatibility.

If the game doesn't work right when they are together(major balance issue), then it's not compatible. Compatible means I can use it without having to change anything, so broken due to balance = not compatible. That only applies to imbalance that breaks things, not lesser amounts of imbalance.

 

[mellored]

That Strawman fails on its face. I'm not claiming different = powerful.

Then why is the ranger who has persuasion not allowed in the same campaign as a ranger who has survival?

Seeing as they are charging my party with swords and axes drawn, I really don't care if one is closer to death than the others.

So you want to deal more damage then? Best take the old ranger.

So now it's 12 uses(assuming a 4 PC group)?

Never claimed it was 12 uses.
Just that you can have a better nova round with old bard.

The 5.5 ability is not combat only.

Neither is the 5.0.

How? The wizard is at long range and has shield.

Then he's out of range of the bard.
Also, if he has shield, then he can block the trap.

We're outside so that the 2014 ranger can get some limited use from his abilities.

Then the range spots the trap, since it's in his favorite terrain.

-1 versatility + a bazillion versatility = a lot more versatility.

Can you give it to child and have them lie to pursuers while you run off in a different direction?

PS Don't think I haven't noticed that you completely ignored the 5.5 bard's healing.

They have to make up for all the loss of versatility and uses somehow.

 

[Maxperson]

Then why is the ranger who has persuasion not allowed in the same campaign as a ranger who has survival?

I don't know. That's not something I ever said.

So you want to deal more damage then? Best take the old ranger.

Nah. Why gimp myself just to do slightly better in a fight against some orcs?

Neither is the 5.0.

Correct. I didn't claim otherwise. You said combat only for the 5.5 ability so I corrected you.

Then he's out of range of the bard.

And? This isn't really a response to that part of the discussion. Maybe you were confusing it with the other part where the wizard is hit by the trap. There weren't any archers there.

Also, if he has shield, then he can block the trap.

Is there some secret to shield that I don't know about that stops every kind of deadly trap?

Then the range spots the trap, since it's in his favorite terrain.

LOL Okay. That was a good one.

Can you give it to child and have them lie to pursuers while you run off in a different direction?

No need. I'll give it to the ranger if he fails to hide our tracks, so that the pursuers can't catch us.

They have to make up for all the loss of versatility and uses somehow.

Increase =/= loss no matter how many times you repeat it.

 

[mellored]

Correct. I didn't claim otherwise. You said combat only for the 5.5 ability so I corrected you.

That's not something I ever said.

No need. I'll give it to the ranger if he fails to hide our tracks, so that the pursuers can't catch us.

I'll give it to both the ranger and the kid.

Because old bard has more to give and can buff 2 places at once. It's more versatile like that.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

If the game doesn't work right when they are together(major balance issue), then it's not compatible. Compatible means I can use it without having to change anything, so broken due to balance = not compatible. That only applies to imbalance that breaks things, not lesser amounts of imbalance.

No it doesn't

able to exist together without conflict.

That does not mean one option can't be better, or that little modifications can't happen. It's also been shown in the first playtest pdf for example, that characters get an extra feat no matter what.

 

[Maxperson]

That's not something I ever said.

This is what you said.

"You don't see how handing out 4 buffs to each party member before kicking down the door to the big bads is better than using 2 reactions in combat?"

By deliberately only using combat, you are saying it's only used in combat. If you weren't saying that, you would have either said in or out of combat, or just left it at 2 reactions.

Perhaps you didn't mean to say it that way, but you did say it that way.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Best to think of character creation to not be compatible. (Monsters and campaigns are).

I think character creation is pretty compatible, once you factor in stuff like having to choose a source of ASIs at level 1, and probably not use feats or spells that have been replaced.

 

[mellored]

I think character creation is pretty compatible, once you factor in stuff like having to choose a source of ASIs at level 1, and probably not use feats or spells that have been replaced.

Or subclasses that have different levels...

I agree it's not too hard to house rule it together. But that falls short of what I would consider "compatible".

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No. It's called experience. In close to 40 years of game play, most of the advantages of Favored Enemy and Terrain are pretty corner case. Nature on the other hand is broad and generally useful so long as you are in nature, which happens a lot.

So back to gut feeling.

 

[Maxperson]

So back to gut feeling.

Sure. There's no such thing as learning. All experience is "gut feeling."

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Sure. There's no such thing as learning. All experience is "gut feeling."

I have 30 years of experience and I see it totally different than you.

So who is right?

You, because of 10 extra years or I, because I have grown up with newer D&D.

So experience is nice and such, but you should back it up with some data. And when evaluating data, you should evaluate them equally.

You can say: for our group, it is a buff, because X and Y are more valuable than Z. But this is no objective truth. It is your subjective truth, which results from your experience. Other's can have different experience.

See, I see where you are coming from and I agree, that the newer ranger is more versatile (not more powerful). I do however think it lines up with the tasha alternate features very well. I think it might be a debuff in some regards (the 3rd level feature from tasha is all around great...).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Sure. There's no such thing as learning. All experience is "gut feeling."

Oh, and yes. It is.

It is unconscious competence. The highest level of proficiency.

If you took the time to overcome unconscious incompetence with the inbetween states of conscious incompetence and competence.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh, and yes. It is.

All experience = gut feeling = no such thing as anything other than gut feeling. Congrats. You've made all knowledge useless!

So why is your gut feeling better than mine?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

All experience = gut feeling = no such thing as anything other than gut feeling. Congrats. You've made all knowledge useless!

So why is your gut feeling better than mine?

Didn't say so. But I also did not claim that my experience reflects universal truth.

No. I did not claim that knowledge = gut feeling. I do claim however, that what you call experience is only a gut feeling if you don't back it up with evidence. With your experience, you can make an educated guess about the power level regarding your group.

You are easily dismissing half of the facts, because by your experience they don't matter.

Also, don't confuse knowledge about things you can objectively know (3 +3=6) with "knowledge" about history, where depending on your point of view, it might look different.

But since you claim +6 = +20, i am not so sure about the extend of your confusion.

 

[Minigiant]

My experience is that mostly DMs who are ranger and druid fans who call for Animal Handling, Survival and Nature checks and make them meaningful.

The strength of ranger Expertise is taking the more commonly rolled skills: Stealth, Athletics, Acrobatics and the social skills.

It is possible that the early feedback before actual play is "this is awesome" then when people actually ran them the feedback drastically went down to "You know this isn't as good as it looks"

 

[UngeheuerLich]

My experience is that mostly DMs who are ranger and druid fans who call for Animal Handling, Survival and Nature checks and make them meaningful.

The strength of ranger Expertise is taking the more commonly rolled skills: Stealth, Athletics, Acrobatics and the social skills.

It is possible that the early feedback before actual play is "this is awesome" then when people actually ran them the feedback drastically went down to "You know this isn't as good as it looks"

Yes, probably expertise in nature and survival is quite rare. Although athletics might not be that important for a ranger, because they don't need it for grapple anymore and later they also don't need ot for swimming and climbing.

 

[Minigiant]

Yes, probably expertise in nature and survival is quite rare. Although athletics might not be that important for a ranger, because they don't need it for grapple anymore and later they also don't need ot for swimming and climbing.

Yeah but DMs are a lot more likely to call for Athletics checks as jumping is one in both 5e and 5.5e.

Natural Explorer was rare. However since it was a list, it kept players and DMs aware of what Nature and Survival checks could do. IE "When you arent in you favored terrain, you have to roll for these".

I have no proof of this but the overall nerfing and adjustment of skills in the playtest may have caused a slow slideof dissatisfaction in surveys as people actual tested them and realize the most skills don't do anything concrete and are extremely dependent of the DM, their calls, and their DCs.

 

[Maxperson]

Didn't say so. But I also did not claim that my experience reflects universal truth.

No. I did not claim that knowledge = gut feeling. I do claim however, that what you call experience is only a gut feeling if you don't back it up with evidence. With your experience, you can make an educated guess about the power level regarding your group.

You are easily dismissing half of the facts, because by your experience they don't matter.

I didn't dismiss anything as not mattering. 5 of the 6 abilities granted by Favored Terrain are highly situational and the last might still be highly situational if the campaign doesn't spend most of its time in two terrain types. Highly situation means that they aren't all that useful.

Compare that to nature skill which encompasses every single terrain type. So unless the campaign is almost exclusively or exclusively taking place in cities and dungeons, nature skill will be very useful.

Nature skill wins out because in the vast majority of campaigns it is going to be much more useful than being good at two terrains with some highly situational bells and whistles.

But since you claim +6 = +20, i am not so sure about the extend of your confusion.

My claim is that +6(Favored Terrain) < +20(expertise in Nature skill).

 

[Maxperson]

My experience is that mostly DMs who are ranger and druid fans who call for Animal Handling, Survival and Nature checks and make them meaningful.

The strength of ranger Expertise is taking the more commonly rolled skills: Stealth, Athletics, Acrobatics and the social skills.

It is possible that the early feedback before actual play is "this is awesome" then when people actually ran them the feedback drastically went down to "You know this isn't as good as it looks"

I don't think they're finding out that it's not as good as it looked. More likely they are finding out that simple expertise by itself is kind of bland and doesn't really have a ranger feel to it, especially if every expert class has it.

Edit: What they should have done was instead of giving them two expertise skills of choice, it should have been a choice of two from nature, survival, animal handling, athletics, perception and stealth. Then two more later on. At least you are giving a list of nature type skills which does give it a bit of a ranger feel.