I will accept that that is gaming but it sure as hell ain't ROLEPLAYING to my mind.
I mean, in your described scenario you're asking your player to rely on their personal knowledge at the expense of whatever the character they're trying to play might actually be capable of.
That's pretty much the opposite of roleplaying to begin with.
No what I’m asking is for the player to infuse what they know about a topic into the character where appropriate to fill out the personalization of the character. If all your doing is playing the mechanics of the game with no personalization it’s pretty bland. If you have knowledge and experience you can add it can fill in around the rolls and expand your play, your enjoyment and gives room for others to interact with enhancing their play too. I don’t think I’ve ever said you CANNOT play if you don’t have knowledge and experience. And I’m fine if much of that experience is vicariously from books hence the thread on good reads for rangers. I’m sorry if you and others felt I was saying it was a requirement for play. It does make it harder to design and run an outdoor exploration campaign if your basically clueless about how to do outdoor exploration, travel and survival, again not impossible but considerably more difficult.
I'll bite: how does being basically clueless about outdoor exploration, travel, and survival make running those kinds of challenges more difficult? A compass isn't something we can have, so there's no adjusting maps for magnetic declination.
Burning mountain laurel creates poisonous smoke; do my players need to know that or can I spring a surprise hazard on them? Speaking of poison, do my players need to know that snakes with round "noses" are safe and flat ones are poisonous? How about other sources of food, like animals and berries? Do they need to know how to field dress a deer?
Is it necessary for them to know that a 1,000-foot change in elevation adds 30 minutes to the travel time, or can we just label it difficult terrain and call it a day? Does it really matter if I, or my players, don't narratively describe the 12 inches of leaves needed to waterproof a bivouac against the rain? Heck, even just making one is an optional rule in Xanathar's; nobody's required to use it. You could go an entire campaign without setting one up, or even buying a tent. And how important to the game is a bear bag, really?
So nobody risks contaminating water sources, do I need to remind my players to piss 75 paces away from water? And to do so on a rock, so animals have a salt lick?
You can want that kind of crunch and detail from your DM and fellow players, but you can't force it. It can be encouraged, but I'd much rather do that by rewarding them with Inspiration. And at what point does it just bog down the game? Sometimes less is more.
As a continuation point, I once tried to find a spider using locate creature(ritual) and the dm said none were within 5 miles. Just googling number of spiders per square meter on earth shows how ridiculous this is. The He probably thought I was going to try shenanigan's but all I needed was one to save incase I had to cast animal messenger or beast sense on.
My point is some dms say a thing is impossible until they understand it. So, understanding natural systems allows you to extrapolate a bit to help create a lower "suspension of disbelief" for situations where you roll to find a solution. This makes a more interesting narrative experience, players and dms can then learn useful real world tips and it helps avoid "petty dming" where the dm just says no because it beats their idea of encounter design or how it Should work in their opinion.
Is the real world info required to play?....... no.
will real world info make you a better player and dm?........... Probably.
This is why I believe so strongly in the players communicating the intent with what their characters are trying to achieve opposed to players telling the DM what their characters are rolling for. “I am making a history check.” That kind of thing. D&D 101.
This is why I believe so strongly in the players communicating the intent with what their characters are trying to achieve opposed to players telling the DM what their characters are rolling for. “I am making a history check.” That kind of thing. D&D 101.
That's specifically addressed in the introduction to the Player's Handbook.
Then the DM determines the results of the adventurers’ actions and narrates what they experience.
The game itself is a fantasy; not because of elves and magic but because it allows us to do things we otherwise can't. We're not all proficient in Nature or Survival, or any number of other skills. But that shouldn't hold us back.
I sing baritone, can read sheet music, and can find middle C on a piano. But I wouldn't call myself proficient in playing one. I can, however, still play a bard who's proficient with three instruments. Or I can be an entertainer who has proficiency with just one and still gets to roll three times on a d10 table to determine my specialties. I could be a dancer/fire-eater/juggler from a Polynesian dinner and stage show from a resort. Or I could do Drag Queen Story Hour as an actor/storyteller. Or I could just play a professional clown, a jester.
Nor am I going to demand any of my players be familiar with the guild systems of the Middle Ages or Renaissance if they wish to be a Guild Artisan or Guild Merchant. Truthfully, this tangent could apply to every aspect of player interaction with the game and deserves its own thread. It probably has several, here, already.
You tell the DM what you want to accomplish, and they decide what roll you attempt; setting the threshold for success or failure. We don't have to know how to do these things ourselves; we never did. If we decide to brush up on it, then it might enrich our experience. But that's it. And if we don't, for whatever reason, that's okay, too.
Yes, players shouldn't just say something akin to, "I'm going to roll a Perception check." That should go without saying, if for no other reason, because it breaks immersion. But the idea that players need to be familiar with these aspects in order to make an informed request of the DM just isn't true. Nor is it true that the DM needs to be familiar with everything the players might ever ask. You can't prepare for every eventuality. That's why the rules also give us a framework for determining the DCs for all sorts of challenges. Yes, even for wilderness exploration.
This is a game for 12-year-olds. Never forget that.
The game itself is a fantasy; not because of elves and magic but because it allows us to do things we otherwise can't. We're not all proficient in Nature or Survival, or any number of other skills. But that shouldn't hold us back.
Yes. that is why I indicated the amount of effort(skill dcs and amount) should be tied to the adventure benefit. Should a single check work for food for a few days or just one?
Should a single check remove a disease or do you need to first identify it, then find the ingredients, then mix them, then apply them?
depending on how big a part of the adventure design makes a difference. especially at "low item tracking" tables. This is why understanding skills and their use in the overall adventure is important and why I was curious about different peoples approaches.
one perfectly valid approach is to check comparable real world scenarios and let adventure design just happen organically. Another approach is to skill for success and not care how it happened only the end results. Some people use adventure templates, some give free info for "passive" skills. other dms do checks for everything. they all have advantages and disadvantages.
The disparity in approaches, however, directly affects how rangers are played.
swarm keeper is pretty high on my play next list. I may get to do one real soon for a oneshot. I am leaning towards a kenku with a raven swarm. the fact that it seems the best Single attribute builds with pushing and pulling is a strong draw for me.
I want to play a Gloomstalker/Assassin combo. I want to be the goblin that drops the big threat at the start of the fight to watch the minions scramble about for once!
My next big Ranger is a Monster Slayer I'm really hyped for who is a cross between a Vampire Slayer, a Belmont, and a Winchester.
Not sure what weapon to give him yet tho. A shotgun would be ideal, but firearms are very unlikely to make it to most campaigns. A javelin so I can take full advantage of both Mage Slayer and Slayer's Counter is another option. Sword and board is a classic, as is a CBE build (because I never use crossbows). Finally, there's a whip. Not because it's good or anything, but because it's the closest I can think of to get to a Trevor Belmont.
My next big Ranger is a Monster Slayer I'm really hyped for who is a cross between a Vampire Slayer, a Belmont, and a Winchester.
Not sure what weapon to give him yet tho. A shotgun would be ideal, but firearms are very unlikely to make it to most campaigns. A javelin so I can take full advantage of both Mage Slayer and Slayer's Counter is another option. Sword and board is a classic, as is a CBE build (because I never use crossbows). Finally, there's a whip. Not because it's good or anything, but because it's the closest I can think of to get to a Trevor Belmont.
I have a character getting ready to start with CoS in. I also wanted to go whip wielding Belmont family style. I did this instead: I took a glaive and flavored it as the chain morning star from the games and TV series! When Trevor wields it in the show he often uses two hands, so it makes sense there. I took PAM as well, just to simulate pulling the chain and whipping people when they are around me.
My next big Ranger is a Monster Slayer I'm really hyped for who is a cross between a Vampire Slayer, a Belmont, and a Winchester.
Not sure what weapon to give him yet tho. A shotgun would be ideal, but firearms are very unlikely to make it to most campaigns. A javelin so I can take full advantage of both Mage Slayer and Slayer's Counter is another option. Sword and board is a classic, as is a CBE build (because I never use crossbows). Finally, there's a whip. Not because it's good or anything, but because it's the closest I can think of to get to a Trevor Belmont.
This, too, is on my short list. But as much as I love the idea of playing a Trevor-like character, it's very campaign specific. And I'm more DM than player, though I might incorporate elements of him into NPCs. I have been working sporadically on stat blocks for the party from Vampire of the Mists: Jander Sunstar, Sahsa Petrovich, Katya Pulchenka, and Leisl. Sasha's the "Dawn Healer" of the Morninglord, but he's also a vigilante vampire hunter so I can probably swing something.
I also love the idea of playing a Goblin Slayer-esque ranger in half plate with a shield and shortsword. I just don't know if he should be a Hunter or Gloom Stalker.
I’m playing a level 2 pure ranger in a campaign now. We are trying to recapture and seal away 7 “spirits” to prevent the 7 gates to the Abyss from being opened. I don’t have the charisma for a Fey wanderer, we already have a horizon walker so I’m looking at a monster slayer. Silvered and wooden arrows, whip, sword and board for melee but archery as a fighting style.
By the way if your looking for a shotgun replacement maybe a pellet crossbow? Firing silver pellets or silver wrapped lead pellets and maybe discarding sabot (paper or cloth wrapping) hard wood flechettes? Silver is slightly less dense than lead (10.5 vs 11.2) and somewhat harder (Mohs 2.5 vs 1). Damage would be up to your DM but I can see 1D6 as reasonable.
Well, I have time to figure out what I want to do with this Monster Slayer. Might even mess around and try to homebrew a version of Morning Star.
My Horizon Walker campaign is coming to an end this weekend. After that, I'll be without DnD for about two months. The next campaign I'll be DMing starts first week of October, and I have a friend who already recruited me to be a player in his Witchlight campaign when that's released end of September.
For the Witchlight campaign, I'll be reusing my Fey Wanderer because, I mean, it's too perfect. And with two campaigns running at once, it'll be a while before I get to my Monster Slayer. I also want to play a Swashbuckler and a Star Druid in between. So yeah. Point is, I have time.
I’m playing a level 2 pure ranger in a campaign now. We are trying to recapture and seal away 7 “spirits” to prevent the 7 gates to the Abyss from being opened. I don’t have the charisma for a Fey wanderer, we already have a horizon walker so I’m looking at a monster slayer. Silvered and wooden arrows, whip, sword and board for melee but archery as a fighting style.
By the way if your looking for a shotgun replacement maybe a pellet crossbow? Firing silver pellets or silver wrapped lead pellets and maybe discarding sabot (paper or cloth wrapping) hard wood flechettes? Silver is slightly less dense than lead (10.5 vs 11.2) and somewhat harder (Mohs 2.5 vs 1). Damage would be up to your DM but I can see 1D6 as reasonable.
The way I handled shotguns in 5e was it was 3d6 to everyone in a 10ft cone Dex save. Save is based on 8+proficency+ DEX mod. If they save its no damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I mean, in your described scenario you're asking your player to rely on their personal knowledge at the expense of whatever the character they're trying to play might actually be capable of.
That's pretty much the opposite of roleplaying to begin with.
No what I’m asking is for the player to infuse what they know about a topic into the character where appropriate to fill out the personalization of the character. If all your doing is playing the mechanics of the game with no personalization it’s pretty bland. If you have knowledge and experience you can add it can fill in around the rolls and expand your play, your enjoyment and gives room for others to interact with enhancing their play too. I don’t think I’ve ever said you CANNOT play if you don’t have knowledge and experience. And I’m fine if much of that experience is vicariously from books hence the thread on good reads for rangers. I’m sorry if you and others felt I was saying it was a requirement for play. It does make it harder to design and run an outdoor exploration campaign if your basically clueless about how to do outdoor exploration, travel and survival, again not impossible but considerably more difficult.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I'll bite: how does being basically clueless about outdoor exploration, travel, and survival make running those kinds of challenges more difficult? A compass isn't something we can have, so there's no adjusting maps for magnetic declination.
Burning mountain laurel creates poisonous smoke; do my players need to know that or can I spring a surprise hazard on them? Speaking of poison, do my players need to know that snakes with round "noses" are safe and flat ones are poisonous? How about other sources of food, like animals and berries? Do they need to know how to field dress a deer?
Is it necessary for them to know that a 1,000-foot change in elevation adds 30 minutes to the travel time, or can we just label it difficult terrain and call it a day? Does it really matter if I, or my players, don't narratively describe the 12 inches of leaves needed to waterproof a bivouac against the rain? Heck, even just making one is an optional rule in Xanathar's; nobody's required to use it. You could go an entire campaign without setting one up, or even buying a tent. And how important to the game is a bear bag, really?
So nobody risks contaminating water sources, do I need to remind my players to piss 75 paces away from water? And to do so on a rock, so animals have a salt lick?
You can want that kind of crunch and detail from your DM and fellow players, but you can't force it. It can be encouraged, but I'd much rather do that by rewarding them with Inspiration. And at what point does it just bog down the game? Sometimes less is more.
As a continuation point, I once tried to find a spider using locate creature(ritual) and the dm said none were within 5 miles. Just googling number of spiders per square meter on earth shows how ridiculous this is. The He probably thought I was going to try shenanigan's but all I needed was one to save incase I had to cast animal messenger or beast sense on.
My point is some dms say a thing is impossible until they understand it. So, understanding natural systems allows you to extrapolate a bit to help create a lower "suspension of disbelief" for situations where you roll to find a solution. This makes a more interesting narrative experience, players and dms can then learn useful real world tips and it helps avoid "petty dming" where the dm just says no because it beats their idea of encounter design or how it Should work in their opinion.
Is the real world info required to play?....... no.
will real world info make you a better player and dm?........... Probably.
This is why I believe so strongly in the players communicating the intent with what their characters are trying to achieve opposed to players telling the DM what their characters are rolling for. “I am making a history check.” That kind of thing. D&D 101.
Thank you Roscoe Ian and Frank, I’ll let you take it from here so I don’t annoy Jounichi any further.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
That's specifically addressed in the introduction to the Player's Handbook.
The game itself is a fantasy; not because of elves and magic but because it allows us to do things we otherwise can't. We're not all proficient in Nature or Survival, or any number of other skills. But that shouldn't hold us back.
I sing baritone, can read sheet music, and can find middle C on a piano. But I wouldn't call myself proficient in playing one. I can, however, still play a bard who's proficient with three instruments. Or I can be an entertainer who has proficiency with just one and still gets to roll three times on a d10 table to determine my specialties. I could be a dancer/fire-eater/juggler from a Polynesian dinner and stage show from a resort. Or I could do Drag Queen Story Hour as an actor/storyteller. Or I could just play a professional clown, a jester.
Nor am I going to demand any of my players be familiar with the guild systems of the Middle Ages or Renaissance if they wish to be a Guild Artisan or Guild Merchant. Truthfully, this tangent could apply to every aspect of player interaction with the game and deserves its own thread. It probably has several, here, already.
You tell the DM what you want to accomplish, and they decide what roll you attempt; setting the threshold for success or failure. We don't have to know how to do these things ourselves; we never did. If we decide to brush up on it, then it might enrich our experience. But that's it. And if we don't, for whatever reason, that's okay, too.
Yes, players shouldn't just say something akin to, "I'm going to roll a Perception check." That should go without saying, if for no other reason, because it breaks immersion. But the idea that players need to be familiar with these aspects in order to make an informed request of the DM just isn't true. Nor is it true that the DM needs to be familiar with everything the players might ever ask. You can't prepare for every eventuality. That's why the rules also give us a framework for determining the DCs for all sorts of challenges. Yes, even for wilderness exploration.
This is a game for 12-year-olds. Never forget that.
“This is a game for 12-year-olds. Never forget that.”
Yes! LOL! This had me in stitches!
Yes. that is why I indicated the amount of effort(skill dcs and amount) should be tied to the adventure benefit. Should a single check work for food for a few days or just one?
Should a single check remove a disease or do you need to first identify it, then find the ingredients, then mix them, then apply them?
depending on how big a part of the adventure design makes a difference. especially at "low item tracking" tables. This is why understanding skills and their use in the overall adventure is important and why I was curious about different peoples approaches.
one perfectly valid approach is to check comparable real world scenarios and let adventure design just happen organically. Another approach is to skill for success and not care how it happened only the end results. Some people use adventure templates, some give free info for "passive" skills. other dms do checks for everything. they all have advantages and disadvantages.
The disparity in approaches, however, directly affects how rangers are played.
Okaaaay....let's change the subject.
Uhhh....what is a Ranger subclass you haven't played yet but really want to? And why?
Definitely swarm keeper. I want a swarm.
swarm keeper is pretty high on my play next list. I may get to do one real soon for a oneshot. I am leaning towards a kenku with a raven swarm. the fact that it seems the best Single attribute builds with pushing and pulling is a strong draw for me.
A full on Tasha's beast master.
I want to play a Gloomstalker/Assassin combo. I want to be the goblin that drops the big threat at the start of the fight to watch the minions scramble about for once!
My next big Ranger is a Monster Slayer I'm really hyped for who is a cross between a Vampire Slayer, a Belmont, and a Winchester.
Not sure what weapon to give him yet tho. A shotgun would be ideal, but firearms are very unlikely to make it to most campaigns. A javelin so I can take full advantage of both Mage Slayer and Slayer's Counter is another option. Sword and board is a classic, as is a CBE build (because I never use crossbows). Finally, there's a whip. Not because it's good or anything, but because it's the closest I can think of to get to a Trevor Belmont.
I have a character getting ready to start with CoS in. I also wanted to go whip wielding Belmont family style. I did this instead: I took a glaive and flavored it as the chain morning star from the games and TV series! When Trevor wields it in the show he often uses two hands, so it makes sense there. I took PAM as well, just to simulate pulling the chain and whipping people when they are around me.
This, too, is on my short list. But as much as I love the idea of playing a Trevor-like character, it's very campaign specific. And I'm more DM than player, though I might incorporate elements of him into NPCs. I have been working sporadically on stat blocks for the party from Vampire of the Mists: Jander Sunstar, Sahsa Petrovich, Katya Pulchenka, and Leisl. Sasha's the "Dawn Healer" of the Morninglord, but he's also a vigilante vampire hunter so I can probably swing something.
I also love the idea of playing a Goblin Slayer-esque ranger in half plate with a shield and shortsword. I just don't know if he should be a Hunter or Gloom Stalker.
I’m playing a level 2 pure ranger in a campaign now. We are trying to recapture and seal away 7 “spirits” to prevent the 7 gates to the Abyss from being opened. I don’t have the charisma for a Fey wanderer, we already have a horizon walker so I’m looking at a monster slayer. Silvered and wooden arrows, whip, sword and board for melee but archery as a fighting style.
By the way if your looking for a shotgun replacement maybe a pellet crossbow? Firing silver pellets or silver wrapped lead pellets and maybe discarding sabot (paper or cloth wrapping) hard wood flechettes? Silver is slightly less dense than lead (10.5 vs 11.2) and somewhat harder (Mohs 2.5 vs 1). Damage would be up to your DM but I can see 1D6 as reasonable.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Well, I have time to figure out what I want to do with this Monster Slayer. Might even mess around and try to homebrew a version of Morning Star.
My Horizon Walker campaign is coming to an end this weekend. After that, I'll be without DnD for about two months. The next campaign I'll be DMing starts first week of October, and I have a friend who already recruited me to be a player in his Witchlight campaign when that's released end of September.
For the Witchlight campaign, I'll be reusing my Fey Wanderer because, I mean, it's too perfect. And with two campaigns running at once, it'll be a while before I get to my Monster Slayer. I also want to play a Swashbuckler and a Star Druid in between. So yeah. Point is, I have time.
The way I handled shotguns in 5e was it was 3d6 to everyone in a 10ft cone Dex save. Save is based on 8+proficency+ DEX mod. If they save its no damage.