We need to sell a new book. Everyone loves player options. Let’s make the beast master more of a tanky, damage focused, combat subclass!
That’s great! The game is mostly combat these days anyways.
While we’re at it let’s replace all of the Rangers expiration abilities with more combat focused ones.
Another great idea!
Of course if we’re going to do that we should help the monk out a little bit as well. Maybe give it even more attacks?
Also a great idea! Monks are really terrible.
You know, players really hate it when they lose combats. We should add something for clerics or druids that gives temporary hit points over and over and over again. That way combat encounters are even more lopsided in favor of the players.
That’s a great idea too. Players these days really don’t like challenging combats with a risk of losing their characters.
Oh! Here’s a good idea! How about if druids can use their short rest ability do use the find familiar spell? Everyone loves familiars!
That’s a super idea it’s thematic, but most importantly a lot of fun!
I have an even better idea! How about we add some spells that allow every spellcaster in the game to have control of an additional creature on the battlefield?! That way everybody has a friend, and druids, wizards, artificers, and Rangers can have two or more!
Perfect!
And even though no one complains about their combat abilities, now that we’ve boosted all the other classes we have to give a boost to rogues and paladins as well. How about if we add some thing that allows Rogues to use their sneak attack all the time, even when they have a solo mission?
Sounds good to me!
And how about if we give paladins the ability to regain spell slots on a short rest, guaranteeing they are constantly able to use their divine smite?
Also perfect! Players hate running out of resources and not be able to use all of their abilities for every combat.
Great. Let’s do it. But also, make sure each class now has a weaponized bonus action. Players hate not being able to use every single possible action every turn.
Easy. Done.
Well, it’s been a year and players seem to love the new options.
They sure do! But have you noticed how much longer combines are taking?
Yes I half. Everyone complained before about how much time combat took, whether it was players taking their turns or having too many creatures on the battlefield from conjure spells.
Yes. For some reason it just takes forever to get through even medium and counter Combat and dungeon Masters have to have a lot more enemies for each combat because four players are now controlling 10 different creatures for each combat.
I’m not opposed to change. The game will change and grow. All for the betterment of the hobby. 5.5/6E is coming...some day. I’m simply opposed to the denial of these increases in power of the game and the leaving core options in the dust because of it, adding to “problems” that already exist elsewhere, and putting a new dungeon master in a position to have a level of competency that will soon rival that of a 3.5 DM.
Word....
The power creep is real for sure.
I'm just glad at this point I'm more experienced in the system. I would dread being a new DM with an this stuff.
And for what?! to kill human cultists and orc more efficiently?! Ridiculous.
If I ever DM for a table that has Tasha's "turned on" (That will never happen. LOL!) enemies will NOT just be swinging a sword or casting a cantrip. Enemies will be attacking with life drain, levels of exhaustion, and ability score loss effects, dealing multiple instances of damaging AoE, have access to their own healing magic, abilities, and equipment, and inflicting conditions to debilitate the PCs. Enemies will have their own beasts and "pets" to control as well.
And for what?! to kill human cultists and orc more efficiently?! Ridiculous.
If I ever DM for a table that has Tasha's "turned on" (That will never happen. LOL!) enemies will NOT just be swinging a sword or casting a cantrip. Enemies will be attacking with life drain, levels of exhaustion, and ability score loss effects, dealing multiple instances of damaging AoE, have access to their own healing magic, abilities, and equipment, and inflicting conditions to debilitate the PCs. Enemies will have their own beasts and "pets" to control as well.
My question is why don't you do some of this stuff at least in small doses to challenge your players already? One of the easiest ways to challenge a group. specially if they are the types to just rush in head first and slam it against the wall that is the opposing sides hp totals until it falls down is to use tactics or give them things they have to think around.
And for what?! to kill human cultists and orc more efficiently?! Ridiculous.
If I ever DM for a table that has Tasha's "turned on" (That will never happen. LOL!) enemies will NOT just be swinging a sword or casting a cantrip. Enemies will be attacking with life drain, levels of exhaustion, and ability score loss effects, dealing multiple instances of damaging AoE, have access to their own healing magic, abilities, and equipment, and inflicting conditions to debilitate the PCs. Enemies will have their own beasts and "pets" to control as well.
My question is why don't you do some of this stuff at least in small doses to challenge your players already? One of the easiest ways to challenge a group. specially if they are the types to just rush in head first and slam it against the wall that is the opposing sides hp totals until it falls down is to use tactics or give them things they have to think around.
We need to sell a new book. Everyone loves player options. Let’s make the beast master more of a tanky, damage focused, combat subclass!
That’s great! The game is mostly combat these days anyways.
While we’re at it let’s replace all of the Rangers expiration abilities with more combat focused ones.
Another great idea!
Of course if we’re going to do that we should help the monk out a little bit as well. Maybe give it even more attacks?
Also a great idea! Monks are really terrible.
You know, players really hate it when they lose combats. We should add something for clerics or druids that gives temporary hit points over and over and over again. That way combat encounters are even more lopsided in favor of the players.
That’s a great idea too. Players these days really don’t like challenging combats with a risk of losing their characters.
Oh! Here’s a good idea! How about if druids can use their short rest ability do use the find familiar spell? Everyone loves familiars!
That’s a super idea it’s thematic, but most importantly a lot of fun!
I have an even better idea! How about we add some spells that allow every spellcaster in the game to have control of an additional creature on the battlefield?! That way everybody has a friend, and druids, wizards, artificers, and Rangers can have two or more!
Perfect!
And even though no one complains about their combat abilities, now that we’ve boosted all the other classes we have to give a boost to rogues and paladins as well. How about if we add some thing that allows Rogues to use their sneak attack all the time, even when they have a solo mission?
Sounds good to me!
And how about if we give paladins the ability to regain spell slots on a short rest, guaranteeing they are constantly able to use their divine smite?
Also perfect! Players hate running out of resources and not be able to use all of their abilities for every combat.
Great. Let’s do it. But also, make sure each class now has a weaponized bonus action. Players hate not being able to use every single possible action every turn.
Easy. Done.
Well, it’s been a year and players seem to love the new options.
They sure do! But have you noticed how much longer combines are taking?
Yes I half. Everyone complained before about how much time combat took, whether it was players taking their turns or having too many creatures on the battlefield from conjure spells.
Yes. For some reason it just takes forever to get through even medium and counter Combat and dungeon Masters have to have a lot more enemies for each combat because four players are now controlling 10 different creatures for each combat.
Meh. All the non-combat abilities in the world won’t make a difference as long as the non-combat pillars are flawed at the basic level. We can and do make the social and exploration facets of the game work, but “making it work” is really just masking the flaws of the system as is. I’d care a lot more about the ranger’s exploratory abilities getting nixed in favor of more combat qualities if I wasn’t already shoehorning exploration in to begin with. If they’re useful enough because the DM makes them so, ranger players will stick with their original class abilities. If they’re not because the official rules make them largely superfluous, there’s nothing virtuous about keeping them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I guess the opinion that the game should supply all of the mechanical support for a part of itself that is the most unforeseeable, most wide in scope, most open to the endless possibilities, and has the most ability to be different from table to table has never really concerned me. I think people say that they want the game to support exploration, but I also think people wouldn’t like it if they did, as it would be “wrong” in some way. There are rule parameters for exploration, but in an amusing twist of meta fate, it takes the DM and players exploring the rules given to flush them out.
Also, the term “digestible for the masses“ comes to mind. Most of the content in the core rule books ate designed to be picked up quickly and played easily.
The core rules and additional optional books give options and variants along with alternative ways of approaching or adding onto the game, thereby increasing the ceiling of complexity if desired.
Even combat, which everyone seems to agree is the most focused, most played, and perhaps most exciting part of the game, even it is very simplistic in nature at its most basic level as presented in the core rules.
It is a chicken and egg scenario, however. Are so many players not interested in exploration because the rules are light for it, or are the rules light for it because so many players are not interested in it?
I am positive they have talked about, probably on multiple occasions, expanding and building thorough and specific rules for exploration, overland travel, and survival for the game. And I’m positive they decided that it would be met with too many opposing opinions, and would likely not do well from a sales perspective.
In a juxtaposition compared to Tasha’s which is full of things they know would sell well.
I guess the opinion that the game should supply all of the mechanical support for a part of itself that is the most unforeseeable, most wide in scope, most open to the endless possibilities, and has the most ability to be different from table to table has never really concerned me. I think people say that they want the game to support exploration, but I also think people wouldn’t like it if they did, as it would be “wrong” in some way. There are rule parameters for exploration, but in an amusing twist of meta fate, it takes the DM and players exploring the rules given to flush them out.
That is in fact my issue: I don't like the rules that do exist. A lot of assorted DCs are so low as to make becoming an expert in survival mostly unnecessary. Spells tend to outshine natural ability pretty quickly, but with the number of spells known and spell slots per day a ranger has, picking up and making use of a variety of exploration spells comes with a prohibitive opportunity cost. The usefulness of hunting/foraging is of usually questionable, but that can easily be remedied - however, doing so usually involves either the ranger player going off alone (not enjoyable for many groups) or things being limited to making a roll (not very interesting, so we're basically just making it useful for the sake of making the ranger player feel better about his abilities rather than as an attempt to do something fun with them). Tracking goes back to the magic issue, since some basic magic makes non-magical tracking not viable. Scouting is arguably better done via magic or a caster's pet, but here at least a reasonable case can be made for a ranger scouting slightly ahead of the rest of the party being a good option - doesn't involve actually splitting the party and doesn't have to end up being handled with a roll or two without some interesting roleplay. Just ask the players with characters who could send scouting pets or cast more spells not to do that so the ranger can have fun.
But we've had this conversation before (a couple of times, I think). Little point in hashing it out yet again.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I am positive they have talked about, probably on multiple occasions, expanding and building thorough and specific rules for exploration, overland travel, and survival for the game. And I’m positive they decided that it would be met with too many opposing opinions, and would likely not do well from a sales perspective.
In a juxtaposition compared to Tasha’s which is full of things they know would sell well.
The Survivalist's Guide to Spelunking was funded 10 times over on Kickstarter, and that's a 3rd party product you pretty much had to dig around KS for to find in the first place that's filled mostly with tables and dry mechanics. I think there'd be plenty of interest in an exploration book from WotC, especially one a little bit more eclectic and containing subclasses, spells, items and the like.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Meh. All the non-combat abilities in the world won’t make a difference as long as the non-combat pillars are flawed at the basic level. We can and do make the social and exploration facets of the game work, but “making it work” is really just masking the flaws of the system as is. I’d care a lot more about the ranger’s exploratory abilities getting nixed in favor of more combat qualities if I wasn’t already shoehorning exploration in to begin with. If they’re useful enough because the DM makes them so, ranger players will stick with their original class abilities. If they’re not because the official rules make them largely superfluous, there’s nothing virtuous about keeping them.
I'm curious as to what you think those flaws are, specifically. Not to say there aren't any, everything touched by human hands is flawed, but I think it would help if we're all on the same page.
For example, exploration covers everything from, well, I gave a decent (albeit incomplete) list here. But those are just the activities. How they're resolved is likely to be different from situation to situation. A dungeon/hex crawl is, by necessity, going to be different than inspecting a crime scene; which is different from looting a corpse or treasure horde; which is different from and researching lore in a library. Likewise, the social exploration pillar can span haggling over sale price, interrogating a captive, and convincing a noble or patron to support a cause. Should there be dedicated "good cop/bad cop" rules?
Dude, we don't even have anything resembling mass combat rules, and if you think players shouldn't be able to raise a peasant army then why the heck not? I had to improvise by porting those over from another system, and even then it wasn't a 1:1 fit.
This edition of the game deliberately pulled away from the idea that there should be a rule for everything. And the reason for it is actually quite sound: you can't actually plan for everything so any attempt to try will naturally limit player choices and inevitably lead to disappointment.
This edition of the game deliberately pulled away from the idea that there should be a rule for everything. And the reason for it is actually quite sound: you can't actually plan for everything so any attempt to try will naturally limit player choices and inevitably lead to disappointment.
Yes!
As a intentional design focus. The least rules. The most flexibility.
I guess the opinion that the game should supply all of the mechanical support for a part of itself that is the most unforeseeable, most wide in scope, most open to the endless possibilities, and has the most ability to be different from table to table has never really concerned me. I think people say that they want the game to support exploration, but I also think people wouldn’t like it if they did, as it would be “wrong” in some way. There are rule parameters for exploration, but in an amusing twist of meta fate, it takes the DM and players exploring the rules given to flush them out.
That is in fact my issue: I don't like the rules that do exist. A lot of assorted DCs are so low as to make becoming an expert in survival mostly unnecessary. Spells tend to outshine natural ability pretty quickly, but with the number of spells known and spell slots per day a ranger has, picking up and making use of a variety of exploration spells comes with a prohibitive opportunity cost. The usefulness of hunting/foraging is of usually questionable, but that can easily be remedied - however, doing so usually involves either the ranger player going off alone (not enjoyable for many groups) or things being limited to making a roll (not very interesting, so we're basically just making it useful for the sake of making the ranger player feel better about his abilities rather than as an attempt to do something fun with them). Tracking goes back to the magic issue, since some basic magic makes non-magical tracking not viable. Scouting is arguably better done via magic or a caster's pet, but here at least a reasonable case can be made for a ranger scouting slightly ahead of the rest of the party being a good option - doesn't involve actually splitting the party and doesn't have to end up being handled with a roll or two without some interesting roleplay. Just ask the players with characters who could send scouting pets or cast more spells not to do that so the ranger can have fun.
But we've had this conversation before (a couple of times, I think). Little point in hashing it out yet again.
The problem is not the DC's when it comes to being an Expert in Survival. The Problem is with the numbers that your using to Define "Expert" Most people in the world aren't even going to make it to level 10. Level 10 is a Celebrated adventurer (this means they could retire and live the rest of their life on what they have earned and open a well known tavern in the region or something) in D&D and 5e really got back to these roots. A Level 15 or 20 Adventurer is an Outright hero or God Damned Legend. Most people have heard of these characters in the world in some fashion. They might not recognize their name or their face immediately. But they've heard of their exploits. Of Tall Tales and wide spread news of their actions.
What this means is that Expert Levels of these skills is not +17 or +22 or +"whatever else". An Expert in these kinds of Skills is somewhere between +6 or +10. A Master in these skills that is teaching many many students rare skills in these fields isn't going to be higher than +12 or +14.
And yes. I can hear the complaint. "But I hit some of those numbers by level 5!". Excactly. Your a Level'd Up Character. Your a Hero/Villain adventurer putting these skills and showing your expertise by completing these tasks that are difficult for others.
But Most Players. Thanks to a whole lot of hangover from the 3.x/PF era that was power creep incarnate. That could kill you for not having the right level of magical gear or enough magical items has tainted a lot of older experienced players and a lot of those older experienced players have tainted newer players trying to learn from them that "If I can just get that +25 bonus then I'm finally doing good."
Meh. All the non-combat abilities in the world won’t make a difference as long as the non-combat pillars are flawed at the basic level. We can and do make the social and exploration facets of the game work, but “making it work” is really just masking the flaws of the system as is. I’d care a lot more about the ranger’s exploratory abilities getting nixed in favor of more combat qualities if I wasn’t already shoehorning exploration in to begin with. If they’re useful enough because the DM makes them so, ranger players will stick with their original class abilities. If they’re not because the official rules make them largely superfluous, there’s nothing virtuous about keeping them.
I'm curious as to what you think those flaws are, specifically. Not to say there aren't any, everything touched by human hands is flawed, but I think it would help if we're all on the same page.
For example, exploration covers everything from, well, I gave a decent (albeit incomplete) list here. But those are just the activities. How they're resolved is likely to be different from situation to situation. A dungeon/hex crawl is, by necessity, going to be different than inspecting a crime scene; which is different from looting a corpse or treasure horde; which is different from and researching lore in a library. Likewise, the social exploration pillar can span haggling over sale price, interrogating a captive, and convincing a noble or patron to support a cause. Should there be dedicated "good cop/bad cop" rules?
Dude, we don't even have anything resembling mass combat rules, and if you think players shouldn't be able to raise a peasant army then why the heck not? I had to improvise by porting those over from another system, and even then it wasn't a 1:1 fit.
This edition of the game deliberately pulled away from the idea that there should be a rule for everything. And the reason for it is actually quite sound: you can't actually plan for everything so any attempt to try will naturally limit player choices and inevitably lead to disappointment.
1) i mean one of the first unearthed arcana articles released did have rough rules for mass battles (not that it matters now)
2) i think their critique of the system is less "we don't have enough clear guidelines/ enough rules" and more "the rules we already have does not interact with the ranger in a satisfactory way". Your DM might want to come up with something on-the-fly if you start spear fishing in a nearby river (clearly just a foraging roll, does not matter), but if all you are doing is tracking another creature well that is already covered by the DMG. There may be circumstances where you don't own that rulebook or cannot be bothered to look the rule up, but it is still there. (that and the whole idea of potentially being unable to effectively utilize your class features because of the creature types/ environments your DM throws at you i guess, or the potential of the DM focusing on aspects of the exploration pillar where the ranger class does not excell)
3) while the situations that will arise throughout the entire Exploration game pillar and how those situations get resolved can vary greatly, the scope of your class features are much more limited and can much more effectively tread on the ground of established rules. You cannot write every single theoretical situation where Favored enemy and terrain would apply, just like you cannot say everywhere you will be using a particular skill / abillity score. But you can have these two features interact with existing features, such as with tracking.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
These two features do interact with tracking, which is done with a Wisdom (Survival) check. Natural Explorer alone interacts with half of the skills in the game; albeit you have to be proficient with those skills for the interaction to take place.
As one of those “tainted” old farts I take a certain exception to Fateless’ comments about us - I don’t need a +25 a solid +5 will do nicely 🤪😁
realistically much of the problem I have seen with the exploration leg has nothing to do with the rules and a lot to do with a lack of experience. The reality I have seen over the last 40+years is that those that both game an explore nature or other societies ( in person especially) is rather small. How do you decide what in the rules to use and what to jury right if you have never actually done it and have at least a feel for how it works. Books ( like those int thread on good reads for rangers) can help but again many of the best are actually westerns and that population and the fantasy readers don’t cross over too much either (yes there is some as shown by some of the posts there). The three major changes I would like to see would be getting a favored enemy and a new terrain every 5th level (1, 5, 10, 15, 20); having those features clearly spelled out as granting expertise with nature, perception and survival skills and getting something like the rogue’s reliable talent at about the same time they do. That would go a long way to making it possible for more folks to use the abilities. Still won’t help the experience problem but that would take a book dedicated to the exploration leg and consultants that actually have wilderness survival experience today ( something in fairly short supply).
As one of those “tainted” old farts I take a certain exception to Fateless’ comments about us - I don’t need a +25 a solid +5 will do nicely 🤪😁
realistically much of the problem I have seen with the exploration leg has nothing to do with the rules and a lot to do with a lack of experience. The reality I have seen over the last 40+years is that those that both game an explore nature or other societies ( in person especially) is rather small. How do you decide what in the rules to use and what to jury right if you have never actually done it and have at least a feel for how it works. Books ( like those int thread on good reads for rangers) can help but again many of the best are actually westerns and that population and the fantasy readers don’t cross over too much either (yes there is some as shown by some of the posts there). The three major changes I would like to see would be getting a favored enemy and a new terrain every 5th level (1, 5, 10, 15, 20); having those features clearly spelled out as granting expertise with nature, perception and survival skills and getting something like the rogue’s reliable talent at about the same time they do. That would go a long way to making it possible for more folks to use the abilities. Still won’t help the experience problem but that would take a book dedicated to the exploration leg and consultants that actually have wilderness survival experience today ( something in fairly short supply).
As someone who is not familiar with the fiction subgenre of western what does that material bring to playing of the class? Not saying that there is not value in it, but I am curious of some examples.
I’m very curious. What is it like for everyone else at your D&D table? When not engaged in a combat encounter, with individual turns that each represent six seconds of game time, how do the PCs move and interact within the game world?
How did they move within the confines of a dungeon complex, how do they navigate the streets of a densely packed urban city? Is there any kind of turn structure within the game at these points? If not, how does everyone communicate what their character is doing after the DM describes the situation(s) before them? Does everyone just shout at the DM, trying to be the first or the loudest to get their attention?
During a dungeon crawl, how do you keep the wizard and rogue from dominating the noncombat portion of the game? How do you keep the bard PC, or that one player at the table that is naturally talkative, outgoing, and overly social, from dominating a social encounter in a city or town? How to the players and their characters know what’s going on? How does the DM adjudicate the actions they wish to attempt? How do you keep more reserved players or PCs not designed for that particular part of the story at that given moment engaged in the game?
I’m very curious. What is it like for everyone else at your D&D table? When not engaged in a combat encounter, with individual turns that each represent six seconds of game time, how do the PCs move and interact with in the game world?
How did they move within the confines of a dungeon complex, how do they navigate the streets of a densely packed urban city? Is there any kind of turn structure within the game at these points? If not, how does everyone communicate what their character is doing after the DM describes the situation(s) before them? Does everyone just shout at the DM, trying to be the first or the loudest to get their attention?
During a dungeon crawl, how do you keep the wizard and rogue from dominating the noncombat portion of the dungeon crawl? How do you keep the bard PC, or that one player at the table that is naturally talkative, outgoing, and overly social, from dominating a social encounter in a city or town? How to the players and their characters know what’s going on? How does the DM adjudicate the actions they wish to attempt? How do you keep more reserved players or PCs not designed for that particular part of the story at that given moment engaged in the game?
I’m genuinely curious because there ate zero differences between playing a game during the examples above and playing the game during Overland travel and wilderness exploration
i’m curious if this is a problem that is more systemic within the game at large and just happens to rear its head during conversations about overland travel and wilderness exploration because it is so fun to dog pile on the Ranger class.
In combat everyone has a turn, there are set methods of gameplay with clear structure. Everyone has at least one goal, and there might be several goals at any given time. People expend resources and keep track of their characters accounting by tracking hit points, temporary hit points, spell slots, spent ammunition, used potions and scrolls, etc. There are hazards, obstacles, difficulties, and opposing creatures in the way of the characters goals.
In a dungeon there are floors, walls, ceilings, doors, traps, puzzles, wrong turns, dead ends, wandering dangerous creatures, mysteries, treasure, interesting NPC ‘s, and a variety of other things for the PCs to wander through, search for, interact with, solve, and meet.
The PCs keep track of many things during the time between combat and counters as well. Spell slots, ammunition, treasure, etc.
The game progresses and it’s mostly basic level during a dungeon crawl:
The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.
1. The DM describes the environment.
The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves (how many doors lead out of a room, what’s on a table, who’s in the tavern, and so on).
2. The players describe what they want to do.
Sometimes one player speaks for the whole party, saying, “We’ll take the east door,” for example. Other times, different adventurers do different things: one adventurer might search a treasure chest while a second examines an esoteric symbol engraved on a wall and a third keeps watch for monsters. The players don’t need to take turns, but the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions.
Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions.
Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.
This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or locked in mortal combat against a mighty dragon. In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions. But most of the time, play is fluid and flexible, adapting to the circumstances of the adventure.
Often the action of an adventure takes place in the imagination of the players and DM, relying on the DM’s verbal descriptions to set the scene. Some DMs like to use music, art, or recorded sound effects to help set the mood, and many players and DMs alike adopt different voices for the various adventurers, monsters, and other characters they play in the game. Sometimes, a DM might lay out a map and use tokens or miniature figures to represent each creature involved in a scene to help the players keep track of where everyone is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And for what?! to kill human cultists and orc more efficiently?! Ridiculous.
If I ever DM for a table that has Tasha's "turned on" (That will never happen. LOL!) enemies will NOT just be swinging a sword or casting a cantrip. Enemies will be attacking with life drain, levels of exhaustion, and ability score loss effects, dealing multiple instances of damaging AoE, have access to their own healing magic, abilities, and equipment, and inflicting conditions to debilitate the PCs. Enemies will have their own beasts and "pets" to control as well.
My question is why don't you do some of this stuff at least in small doses to challenge your players already? One of the easiest ways to challenge a group. specially if they are the types to just rush in head first and slam it against the wall that is the opposing sides hp totals until it falls down is to use tactics or give them things they have to think around.
🤔
Meh. All the non-combat abilities in the world won’t make a difference as long as the non-combat pillars are flawed at the basic level. We can and do make the social and exploration facets of the game work, but “making it work” is really just masking the flaws of the system as is. I’d care a lot more about the ranger’s exploratory abilities getting nixed in favor of more combat qualities if I wasn’t already shoehorning exploration in to begin with. If they’re useful enough because the DM makes them so, ranger players will stick with their original class abilities. If they’re not because the official rules make them largely superfluous, there’s nothing virtuous about keeping them.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I guess the opinion that the game should supply all of the mechanical support for a part of itself that is the most unforeseeable, most wide in scope, most open to the endless possibilities, and has the most ability to be different from table to table has never really concerned me. I think people say that they want the game to support exploration, but I also think people wouldn’t like it if they did, as it would be “wrong” in some way. There are rule parameters for exploration, but in an amusing twist of meta fate, it takes the DM and players exploring the rules given to flush them out.
Also, the term “digestible for the masses“ comes to mind. Most of the content in the core rule books ate designed to be picked up quickly and played easily.
The core rules and additional optional books give options and variants along with alternative ways of approaching or adding onto the game, thereby increasing the ceiling of complexity if desired.
Even combat, which everyone seems to agree is the most focused, most played, and perhaps most exciting part of the game, even it is very simplistic in nature at its most basic level as presented in the core rules.
It is a chicken and egg scenario, however. Are so many players not interested in exploration because the rules are light for it, or are the rules light for it because so many players are not interested in it?
I am positive they have talked about, probably on multiple occasions, expanding and building thorough and specific rules for exploration, overland travel, and survival for the game. And I’m positive they decided that it would be met with too many opposing opinions, and would likely not do well from a sales perspective.
In a juxtaposition compared to Tasha’s which is full of things they know would sell well.
That is in fact my issue: I don't like the rules that do exist. A lot of assorted DCs are so low as to make becoming an expert in survival mostly unnecessary. Spells tend to outshine natural ability pretty quickly, but with the number of spells known and spell slots per day a ranger has, picking up and making use of a variety of exploration spells comes with a prohibitive opportunity cost. The usefulness of hunting/foraging is of usually questionable, but that can easily be remedied - however, doing so usually involves either the ranger player going off alone (not enjoyable for many groups) or things being limited to making a roll (not very interesting, so we're basically just making it useful for the sake of making the ranger player feel better about his abilities rather than as an attempt to do something fun with them). Tracking goes back to the magic issue, since some basic magic makes non-magical tracking not viable. Scouting is arguably better done via magic or a caster's pet, but here at least a reasonable case can be made for a ranger scouting slightly ahead of the rest of the party being a good option - doesn't involve actually splitting the party and doesn't have to end up being handled with a roll or two without some interesting roleplay. Just ask the players with characters who could send scouting pets or cast more spells not to do that so the ranger can have fun.
But we've had this conversation before (a couple of times, I think). Little point in hashing it out yet again.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The Survivalist's Guide to Spelunking was funded 10 times over on Kickstarter, and that's a 3rd party product you pretty much had to dig around KS for to find in the first place that's filled mostly with tables and dry mechanics. I think there'd be plenty of interest in an exploration book from WotC, especially one a little bit more eclectic and containing subclasses, spells, items and the like.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You’re right, we have spoken about this before.
I disagree with your points about it having no value, not being fun, or spells eliminating the need for it.
You missed an opportunity to say that “...we’ve explored this before...”.
I'm curious as to what you think those flaws are, specifically. Not to say there aren't any, everything touched by human hands is flawed, but I think it would help if we're all on the same page.
For example, exploration covers everything from, well, I gave a decent (albeit incomplete) list here. But those are just the activities. How they're resolved is likely to be different from situation to situation. A dungeon/hex crawl is, by necessity, going to be different than inspecting a crime scene; which is different from looting a corpse or treasure horde; which is different from and researching lore in a library. Likewise, the social exploration pillar can span haggling over sale price, interrogating a captive, and convincing a noble or patron to support a cause. Should there be dedicated "good cop/bad cop" rules?
Dude, we don't even have anything resembling mass combat rules, and if you think players shouldn't be able to raise a peasant army then why the heck not? I had to improvise by porting those over from another system, and even then it wasn't a 1:1 fit.
This edition of the game deliberately pulled away from the idea that there should be a rule for everything. And the reason for it is actually quite sound: you can't actually plan for everything so any attempt to try will naturally limit player choices and inevitably lead to disappointment.
Yes!
As a intentional design focus. The least rules. The most flexibility.
The problem is not the DC's when it comes to being an Expert in Survival. The Problem is with the numbers that your using to Define "Expert" Most people in the world aren't even going to make it to level 10. Level 10 is a Celebrated adventurer (this means they could retire and live the rest of their life on what they have earned and open a well known tavern in the region or something) in D&D and 5e really got back to these roots. A Level 15 or 20 Adventurer is an Outright hero or God Damned Legend. Most people have heard of these characters in the world in some fashion. They might not recognize their name or their face immediately. But they've heard of their exploits. Of Tall Tales and wide spread news of their actions.
What this means is that Expert Levels of these skills is not +17 or +22 or +"whatever else". An Expert in these kinds of Skills is somewhere between +6 or +10. A Master in these skills that is teaching many many students rare skills in these fields isn't going to be higher than +12 or +14.
And yes. I can hear the complaint. "But I hit some of those numbers by level 5!". Excactly. Your a Level'd Up Character. Your a Hero/Villain adventurer putting these skills and showing your expertise by completing these tasks that are difficult for others.
But Most Players. Thanks to a whole lot of hangover from the 3.x/PF era that was power creep incarnate. That could kill you for not having the right level of magical gear or enough magical items has tainted a lot of older experienced players and a lot of those older experienced players have tainted newer players trying to learn from them that "If I can just get that +25 bonus then I'm finally doing good."
1) i mean one of the first unearthed arcana articles released did have rough rules for mass battles (not that it matters now)
2) i think their critique of the system is less "we don't have enough clear guidelines/ enough rules" and more "the rules we already have does not interact with the ranger in a satisfactory way". Your DM might want to come up with something on-the-fly if you start spear fishing in a nearby river (clearly just a foraging roll, does not matter), but if all you are doing is tracking another creature well that is already covered by the DMG. There may be circumstances where you don't own that rulebook or cannot be bothered to look the rule up, but it is still there. (that and the whole idea of potentially being unable to effectively utilize your class features because of the creature types/ environments your DM throws at you i guess, or the potential of the DM focusing on aspects of the exploration pillar where the ranger class does not excell)
3) while the situations that will arise throughout the entire Exploration game pillar and how those situations get resolved can vary greatly, the scope of your class features are much more limited and can much more effectively tread on the ground of established rules. You cannot write every single theoretical situation where Favored enemy and terrain would apply, just like you cannot say everywhere you will be using a particular skill / abillity score. But you can have these two features interact with existing features, such as with tracking.
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
These two features do interact with tracking, which is done with a Wisdom (Survival) check. Natural Explorer alone interacts with half of the skills in the game; albeit you have to be proficient with those skills for the interaction to take place.
As one of those “tainted” old farts I take a certain exception to Fateless’ comments about us - I don’t need a +25 a solid +5 will do nicely 🤪😁
realistically much of the problem I have seen with the exploration leg has nothing to do with the rules and a lot to do with a lack of experience. The reality I have seen over the last 40+years is that those that both game an explore nature or other societies ( in person especially) is rather small. How do you decide what in the rules to use and what to jury right if you have never actually done it and have at least a feel for how it works. Books ( like those int thread on good reads for rangers) can help but again many of the best are actually westerns and that population and the fantasy readers don’t cross over too much either (yes there is some as shown by some of the posts there). The three major changes I would like to see would be getting a favored enemy and a new terrain every 5th level (1, 5, 10, 15, 20); having those features clearly spelled out as granting expertise with nature, perception and survival skills and getting something like the rogue’s reliable talent at about the same time they do. That would go a long way to making it possible for more folks to use the abilities. Still won’t help the experience problem but that would take a book dedicated to the exploration leg and consultants that actually have wilderness survival experience today ( something in fairly short supply).
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
As someone who is not familiar with the fiction subgenre of western what does that material bring to playing of the class? Not saying that there is not value in it, but I am curious of some examples.
I’m very curious. What is it like for everyone else at your D&D table? When not engaged in a combat encounter, with individual turns that each represent six seconds of game time, how do the PCs move and interact within the game world?
How did they move within the confines of a dungeon complex, how do they navigate the streets of a densely packed urban city? Is there any kind of turn structure within the game at these points? If not, how does everyone communicate what their character is doing after the DM describes the situation(s) before them? Does everyone just shout at the DM, trying to be the first or the loudest to get their attention?
During a dungeon crawl, how do you keep the wizard and rogue from dominating the noncombat portion of the game? How do you keep the bard PC, or that one player at the table that is naturally talkative, outgoing, and overly social, from dominating a social encounter in a city or town? How to the players and their characters know what’s going on? How does the DM adjudicate the actions they wish to attempt? How do you keep more reserved players or PCs not designed for that particular part of the story at that given moment engaged in the game?
I’m genuinely curious because there ate zero differences between playing a game during the examples above and playing the game during Overland travel and wilderness exploration
i’m curious if this is a problem that is more systemic within the game at large and just happens to rear its head during conversations about overland travel and wilderness exploration because it is so fun to dog pile on the Ranger class.
In combat everyone has a turn, there are set methods of gameplay with clear structure. Everyone has at least one goal, and there might be several goals at any given time. People expend resources and keep track of their characters accounting by tracking hit points, temporary hit points, spell slots, spent ammunition, used potions and scrolls, etc. There are hazards, obstacles, difficulties, and opposing creatures in the way of the characters goals.
In a dungeon there are floors, walls, ceilings, doors, traps, puzzles, wrong turns, dead ends, wandering dangerous creatures, mysteries, treasure, interesting NPC ‘s, and a variety of other things for the PCs to wander through, search for, interact with, solve, and meet.
The PCs keep track of many things during the time between combat and counters as well. Spell slots, ammunition, treasure, etc.
The game progresses and it’s mostly basic level during a dungeon crawl:
The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.
1. The DM describes the environment.
The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves (how many doors lead out of a room, what’s on a table, who’s in the tavern, and so on).
2. The players describe what they want to do.
Sometimes one player speaks for the whole party, saying, “We’ll take the east door,” for example. Other times, different adventurers do different things: one adventurer might search a treasure chest while a second examines an esoteric symbol engraved on a wall and a third keeps watch for monsters. The players don’t need to take turns, but the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions.
Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions.
Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.
This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or locked in mortal combat against a mighty dragon. In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions. But most of the time, play is fluid and flexible, adapting to the circumstances of the adventure.
Often the action of an adventure takes place in the imagination of the players and DM, relying on the DM’s verbal descriptions to set the scene. Some DMs like to use music, art, or recorded sound effects to help set the mood, and many players and DMs alike adopt different voices for the various adventurers, monsters, and other characters they play in the game. Sometimes, a DM might lay out a map and use tokens or miniature figures to represent each creature involved in a scene to help the players keep track of where everyone is.