I do think there are classes or subclasses that need some rework to modernize with newer subclasses. Definitely phb Ranger and the Rogue assassin to be sure
I do think there are classes or subclasses that need some rework to modernize with newer subclasses. Definitely phb Ranger and the Rogue assassin to be sure
Agreed, but a lot of the game's subclasses have seemingly bizarre benefits not built to synergize with their own class or how the game works. Even just among Rogue subclasses in the PHB, the Thief L3 benefits are just... bizarre, like how a class intentionally designed to dump stat strength gets what amounts to a climb speed, as if Rogues were any good at climbing. Meanwhile, Beast Barbarians are written the opposite way - they can be so genuinely good at climbing at L6 that they don't need the strength you know they have anyway.
I do think there are classes or subclasses that need some rework to modernize with newer subclasses. Definitely phb Ranger and the Rogue assassin to be sure
Agreed, but a lot of the game's subclasses have seemingly bizarre benefits not built to synergize with their own class or how the game works. Even just among Rogue subclasses in the PHB, the Thief L3 benefits are just... bizarre, like how a class intentionally designed to dump stat strength gets what amounts to a climb speed, as if Rogues were any good at climbing. Meanwhile, Beast Barbarians are written the opposite way - they can be so genuinely good at climbing at L6 that they don't need the strength you know they have anyway.
I actually think the thief getting a climb speed makes sense, it helps to make them better at what would otherwise be an athletics check on what is probably a dump stat.
I think they purposely tried to leave big parts of the game open to creativity, communication, and imagination and it failed with a large chunk of the players.
I agree, but then they realized that what that translated to largely was tables ignoring things like tool proficiency and so Xanathars was designed to help with those, travel, wilderness encounters etc…
This is basically a response to the last three or so replies. There seems to be a difference in what each of us thinks a roll can do. I think there are limits to what a roll can tell you, but you seem to think if you just roll high enough you can get any level of detail you want. Am I wrong?
To me, having a favored enemy in goblins will let you know alot about goblins, but to know on a micro level that these goblins are from the west and there was rift and they have been exiled because of their religion is a level of specificity that a roll no matter how good will never tell you. You could be level 20 with a +17, hit a nat 20 for a total of 37 and you still won’t know that. The only way for you to know that is if this was some MAJOR historical event. Something like that all goblins used to be part of one tribe and that they broke off. This group now lives here, that group there etc. But short of a massive event, knowing that a dozen goblins left their tribe just doesn’t make sense.
its the story of the adventurer who falls off a cliff. He says to his DM “I start flapping my arms” - ok make a dex check “nat 20 - 25 total” - Can he fly now? Rolls can’t do EVERYTHING.
Rolls can't do everything.
But equating flight to knowledge in your head is very different.
If the adventurer fell off the cliff and instead of saying "I flap my arms" like a comedian or a dumbass. He said. "I want to use my acrobatic skills to to use the cliff near me to slow my fll somewhat to be able to make it to the bottom." That Natural 20. MIght actually mean something. It may be entirely fantastical if it succeeds but it at least means something.
But "I flap my arms" is the Equivalent of walls closing in on a person in a trap and the player going "I'm going to think real hard at them to stop". Unless the character has incredible mind powers it doesn't matter what he rolls. It's not going to work.
However. These limits and false equivalencies we're talking about in these examples. They apply because they are outside the entire scope of anything that they are actually trying to do. These are examples of Oranges but trying to say that Apples have certain characteristics and the Orange doesn't fit. Of course it doesn't. It's an orange. But that does not mean Another apple does not fit the characteristics.
Knowledge about Forest Animals and Natural Explorer? That's very different from the whole flapping your wings argument with the cliff. That's a particular kind of apple in a basket full of apples when we are trying to make sure they fit the characteristics of an Apple so that the DM can give you results based upon Apples, All while I have specialized in that particular kind of apple.
But your repeated attempts to say I can't know about things like Forest Animals and their properties and diets and such, When all animals have terrains listed to them in their writeups, just because I'm not in a Forest. That's like Telling me I can't use an Athletics Checks to climb a Granite Wall because I'm not in a Quarry when I have expertise in Granite Surfaces that can be applied to my Athletics check.
I do think there are classes or subclasses that need some rework to modernize with newer subclasses. Definitely phb Ranger and the Rogue assassin to be sure
Agreed, but a lot of the game's subclasses have seemingly bizarre benefits not built to synergize with their own class or how the game works. Even just among Rogue subclasses in the PHB, the Thief L3 benefits are just... bizarre, like how a class intentionally designed to dump stat strength gets what amounts to a climb speed, as if Rogues were any good at climbing. Meanwhile, Beast Barbarians are written the opposite way - they can be so genuinely good at climbing at L6 that they don't need the strength you know they have anyway.
Rogues do not necessarily dump stat their Strength. Players Dump Stat their strength. It's one of the ways that player choices for characters, particularly in effort to maximize only a single part of the game, are what do not actually synergize and or make real sense. It's one of the reasons why declaring some kind of universal dumpstat to various classes isn't really all that logical in many respects.
Not all Rogues are supposed to be as flexible as a gymnast but barely able to lift a full bag of expensive loot (gold and jewels and all those fancy resellable items are not exactly light). That's what we as players do to them. Rogues are actually meant to be fairly good at climbing. They are meant to have some strength just like that Gymnast does. So Boosts to something like the ability to climb. Particularly for a subclass that is focused on things like potentially have to climb up buildings or over walls or whatever to get to their paydays makes a lot of sense. Except for when you apply it to something that the Player has designed basically only for combat on flat ground. The Thief Subclass is all about your pickpocket and break in artists. The guys that one day might be winding their way across a busy plaza sticking their hands in peoples pockets for a nice meal and the Next day might be Making their way Across Ropes between Towers Mission Impossible Style by climbing up the outside of the one tower to fire that line across to the other side because that Tower belongs to a Wizard and the Ground Level's are heavily guarded or potential death sentences but nobody expects them to get in through the top. They are actually easy to make work and most of what they do makes sense. When we take the min-maxing of players out of the equation.
Assassin on the other hand. I want to like them. But realistically we have to jump through as many or more hoops to make them actually work as advertised when it comes to RaW than we do with Natural Explorer. And Assassins are written at least 20 times simpler to understand since we're talking about what should be the most starter friendly and combat focused subclass on a starter friendly and starter focused overall class. Assassin's are the one that need a rework and they always have.
This is basically a response to the last three or so replies. There seems to be a difference in what each of us thinks a roll can do. I think there are limits to what a roll can tell you, but you seem to think if you just roll high enough you can get any level of detail you want. Am I wrong?
To me, having a favored enemy in goblins will let you know alot about goblins, but to know on a micro level that these goblins are from the west and there was rift and they have been exiled because of their religion is a level of specificity that a roll no matter how good will never tell you. You could be level 20 with a +17, hit a nat 20 for a total of 37 and you still won’t know that. The only way for you to know that is if this was some MAJOR historical event. Something like that all goblins used to be part of one tribe and that they broke off. This group now lives here, that group there etc. But short of a massive event, knowing that a dozen goblins left their tribe just doesn’t make sense.
its the story of the adventurer who falls off a cliff. He says to his DM “I start flapping my arms” - ok make a dex check “nat 20 - 25 total” - Can he fly now? Rolls can’t do EVERYTHING.
i mean those are still bits of information that could be acessible to people outside the tribe and thus information your character might have come across at some point in the past (even if it is very obscure), thus theoretically there should be some way for him to know that information.
Similarly if your ranger has goblins as their favoured enemy they are probably already familiar with the larger group of goblinoids depending on their size (are we talking like a small bandit gang or are we talking about a goblinoid host consisting of several goblin tribes and hobgoblin legions?). The ranger might be familiar with the arrowheads and their specific religion if it is infamous or sticks out a lot (for instance they might be the only ones in the world to prefer glass for their arrowheads and might scream the name of their god before battle or even just a proverb closely connected to a god)
if on the other hand the goblin tribe only split extremely recently such that news of the split could not possibly ever reach your ears and is so isolated that even if it did you would not be able to recognize their arrowheads or their god, yeah i could buy that it is just straight up impossible to know much about the tribe no matter how highly you roll for the int check
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
This is basically a response to the last three or so replies. There seems to be a difference in what each of us thinks a roll can do. I think there are limits to what a roll can tell you, but you seem to think if you just roll high enough you can get any level of detail you want. Am I wrong?
To me, having a favored enemy in goblins will let you know alot about goblins, but to know on a micro level that these goblins are from the west and there was rift and they have been exiled because of their religion is a level of specificity that a roll no matter how good will never tell you. You could be level 20 with a +17, hit a nat 20 for a total of 37 and you still won’t know that. The only way for you to know that is if this was some MAJOR historical event. Something like that all goblins used to be part of one tribe and that they broke off. This group now lives here, that group there etc. But short of a massive event, knowing that a dozen goblins left their tribe just doesn’t make sense.
its the story of the adventurer who falls off a cliff. He says to his DM “I start flapping my arms” - ok make a dex check “nat 20 - 25 total” - Can he fly now? Rolls can’t do EVERYTHING.
i mean those are still bits of information that could be acessible to people outside the tribe and thus information your character might have come across at some point in the past (even if it is very obscure), thus theoretically there should be some way for him to know that information.
Similarly if your ranger has goblins as their favoured enemy they are probably already familiar with the larger group of goblinoids depending on their size (are we talking like a small bandit gang or are we talking about a goblinoid host consisting of several goblin tribes and hobgoblin legions?). The ranger might be familiar with the arrowheads and their specific religion if it is infamous or sticks out a lot (for instance they might be the only ones in the world to prefer glass for their arrowheads and might scream the name of their god before battle or even just a proverb closely connected to a god)
if on the other hand the goblin tribe only split extremely recently such that news of the split could not possibly ever reach your ears and is so isolated that even if it did you would not be able to recognize their arrowheads or their god, yeah i could buy that it is just straight up impossible to know much about the tribe no matter how highly you roll for the int check
I described the Goblins to the west in Basic as a marauding Band roving another nearby area. That is ambiguous but covers a number of possible scenarios.
As for the Recent Break. if it happened last night? No. You wouldn't necessarily know that. But recent is relative. To some Recent might mean the last few years. yet in those few years there would still end up being Rumors about something odd about their god, about the strangeness of their arrowheads from what is normal and that they are in the area. Relatively speaking that is recent but it is still something that could have knowledge about them floating around. But I didn't bother specifying to that much detail because for a general example I shouldn't need to. Though if we are going to get realistic. If they are Forest Goblins but they come from a different group that prefers mountains and plains. The reality is that this split is likely not reason to make that distinction. That kind of difference likely took some time to establish and become noticable.
The Reality is that those goblin Groups. They do not function in isolation. Very little in any campaign world does. and when it does it's usually called out for being fairly unique about it. Kobolds for example are actually called out for prefering to be somewhat isolationist and from that somewhat territorial and that it's often bigger things that drive them to be anything else. This is done because complete isolationism is not normal.
Your Typical Goblins are going to have relations with other goblins. They are going to potentially trade or work with or fear and try to avoid other Goblinoid Races, Or have Dealing with Orcish or Lesser Giant races. They even are going to ahve dealings whether peacable, neutral, or antagonistic with races like humans and elves and dwarves and the like in their area more than likely.
This is basically a response to the last three or so replies. There seems to be a difference in what each of us thinks a roll can do. I think there are limits to what a roll can tell you, but you seem to think if you just roll high enough you can get any level of detail you want. Am I wrong?
To me, having a favored enemy in goblins will let you know alot about goblins, but to know on a micro level that these goblins are from the west and there was rift and they have been exiled because of their religion is a level of specificity that a roll no matter how good will never tell you. You could be level 20 with a +17, hit a nat 20 for a total of 37 and you still won’t know that. The only way for you to know that is if this was some MAJOR historical event. Something like that all goblins used to be part of one tribe and that they broke off. This group now lives here, that group there etc. But short of a massive event, knowing that a dozen goblins left their tribe just doesn’t make sense.
its the story of the adventurer who falls off a cliff. He says to his DM “I start flapping my arms” - ok make a dex check “nat 20 - 25 total” - Can he fly now? Rolls can’t do EVERYTHING.
Rolls can't do everything.
But equating flight to knowledge in your head is very different.
If the adventurer fell off the cliff and instead of saying "I flap my arms" like a comedian or a dumbass. He said. "I want to use my acrobatic skills to to use the cliff near me to slow my fll somewhat to be able to make it to the bottom." That Natural 20. MIght actually mean something. It may be entirely fantastical if it succeeds but it at least means something.
But "I flap my arms" is the Equivalent of walls closing in on a person in a trap and the player going "I'm going to think real hard at them to stop". Unless the character has incredible mind powers it doesn't matter what he rolls. It's not going to work.
However. These limits and false equivalencies we're talking about in these examples. They apply because they are outside the entire scope of anything that they are actually trying to do. These are examples of Oranges but trying to say that Apples have certain characteristics and the Orange doesn't fit. Of course it doesn't. It's an orange. But that does not mean Another apple does not fit the characteristics.
Knowledge about Forest Animals and Natural Explorer? That's very different from the whole flapping your wings argument with the cliff. That's a particular kind of apple in a basket full of apples when we are trying to make sure they fit the characteristics of an Apple so that the DM can give you results based upon Apples, All while I have specialized in that particular kind of apple.
But your repeated attempts to say I can't know about things like Forest Animals and their properties and diets and such, When all animals have terrains listed to them in their writeups, just because I'm not in a Forest. That's like Telling me I can't use an Athletics Checks to climb a Granite Wall because I'm not in a Quarry when I have expertise in Granite Surfaces that can be applied to my Athletics check.
I wasn't suggesting the cliff and anything are the same, I was simple illustrating that just rolling won't always work. And again, I have to emphasize that the key difference is the level of specificity and am using your goblin example so lets try and stick to that.
Think about it this way, lets say your character grew up in a large city. Then as an adventurer you visit Waterdeep for the first time. You say "what do I know about Waterdeep?" - roll a history check. You roll a 19.
In my mind you know the general size of the city, any major historical events, and recent large scale events that would have happened there since you were a teenager. You would know the general hustle and bustle of how a large city flows and would fit in without any real adjustment. You would know the names of some of the more renowned landmarks such as the Yawning Portal and the names of the various wards.
It would seem in your mind you think you should know anything you want. You apparently know the name of every street and can tell the party the name, profession, and disposition of the guy who owns the house with a blue door on Coachlamp Lane.
This is basically a response to the last three or so replies. There seems to be a difference in what each of us thinks a roll can do. I think there are limits to what a roll can tell you, but you seem to think if you just roll high enough you can get any level of detail you want. Am I wrong?
To me, having a favored enemy in goblins will let you know alot about goblins, but to know on a micro level that these goblins are from the west and there was rift and they have been exiled because of their religion is a level of specificity that a roll no matter how good will never tell you. You could be level 20 with a +17, hit a nat 20 for a total of 37 and you still won’t know that. The only way for you to know that is if this was some MAJOR historical event. Something like that all goblins used to be part of one tribe and that they broke off. This group now lives here, that group there etc. But short of a massive event, knowing that a dozen goblins left their tribe just doesn’t make sense.
its the story of the adventurer who falls off a cliff. He says to his DM “I start flapping my arms” - ok make a dex check “nat 20 - 25 total” - Can he fly now? Rolls can’t do EVERYTHING.
i mean those are still bits of information that could be acessible to people outside the tribe and thus information your character might have come across at some point in the past (even if it is very obscure), thus theoretically there should be some way for him to know that information.
Similarly if your ranger has goblins as their favoured enemy they are probably already familiar with the larger group of goblinoids depending on their size (are we talking like a small bandit gang or are we talking about a goblinoid host consisting of several goblin tribes and hobgoblin legions?). The ranger might be familiar with the arrowheads and their specific religion if it is infamous or sticks out a lot (for instance they might be the only ones in the world to prefer glass for their arrowheads and might scream the name of their god before battle or even just a proverb closely connected to a god)
if on the other hand the goblin tribe only split extremely recently such that news of the split could not possibly ever reach your ears and is so isolated that even if it did you would not be able to recognize their arrowheads or their god, yeah i could buy that it is just straight up impossible to know much about the tribe no matter how highly you roll for the int check
I never said there is NO way for you to know these things, there are ways your character can have learned them, but an event as specific as described is going to require some form of interaction in game. You will have to have been in town and talked to a store who's last shipment was attacked and they have a description of the goblins or something like that. Just finding an arrow and rolling a check isn't going to tell you all of that. Its not like he touches the arrow and a vision of the entire history of that object.
If you found an arrow and got a good roll to see what you know I am going to give you that it is an arrow that looks like it is made by a goblin, the craftsmanship is odd for this area - more like something you'd see in the mountains (since these are goblins that split from a mountain tribe in their example) and you wonder why they are so far from there. and that's it, you don't know the specific tribe they came from, you don't know that they were exiled for religious reasons, you don't know the god they are worshiping.
Skill check do have limits. No auto natural 20 success in this edition.
Favored enemy would certainly apply to a goblin made arrow. SO much of what a PHB ranger can do with their level 1 abilities remind me of Sherlock Holmes looking at an object, creature, or things in an environment. "You see, but you do not observe, Watson."
To many folks, especially min/makers, ranger is poor class because it’s focused far more on concept and character development than on combat power. Always keep in mind that the 2 basic concepts behind the ranger were Tolkien’s Dunedin (Aragorn especially) and the mountain men of early 1800’s USA. (And more on them than on Arathorn who is really a fighter with the survival and nature skills). With the mountain men you might also include the native Americans of the USA. Fighters, clerics, rogues, wizards are all specialists that focus on thing and need a team to be successful at handling all parts of adventuring. The ranger is a loner and generalist out away from civilization having to rely only on himself (and maybe his companion). So no a ranger doesn’t fight quite as well as a fighter, he might not be as stealthy as a rogue, he doesn’t heal as well as a cleric or cast damaging spells as well as a mage ; BUT, he can do all of these fairly well, AND he has the wilderness survival, tracking and navigation skills that none of the other core classes have. I would love it if they got 1 or 2 more favored foes and terrains but realistically 3 will cover most rangers needs. A home brew solution is to allow the ranger to switch out one each if they want when they get a new one. There are also builds like the Rat King that provide urban alterations as well. So it’s not that the ranger sucks it’s that it is far more character development based than combat based and to min/maxers that may be anathema. There are really 6 to 8 different terrains: Forest, Mountain, Prairie, Desert, Underdark, Swamp, Alpine/Arctic & Ocean. Rangers should probably be able to select one every 5 levels. Leaving out ocean and underdark as basically for special concept builds (sea elf/menfolk, Drizzt) forest + alpine gives you mountain and then have to decide between desert, swamp and prairie for the third and you’ve covered almost anything on any typical continent. Think Forgotten realms how many rangers from the sword coast actually would visit Calimshan or Anauroch enough to master that terrain type? Forest, Alpine/Mountain & Swamp would cover most of northern Faerun. Similarly the favored foes are meant to be foes you’ve run into a lot so humanoids or undead at love level, giants, drow or aberrations at medium level and dragons, fiends, or something equally high level at high level works very well story wise even if it doesn’t combat wise.
Skill check do have limits. No auto natural 20 success in this edition.
Favored enemy would certainly apply to a goblin made arrow. SO much of what a PHB ranger can do with their level 1 abilities remind me of Sherlock Holmes looking at an object, creature, or things in an environment. "You see, but you do not observe, Watson."
The check might apply to the arrow, but the amount of information you are gonna get from that arrow is pretty limited in scope. Prior discussions have been wildly charitable about the types of things you can tell from an arrowhead, also your level 1 Ranger is not Sherlock Holmes, they are not THAT insightful about everything, favored enemy or not.
Skill check do have limits. No auto natural 20 success in this edition.
Favored enemy would certainly apply to a goblin made arrow. SO much of what a PHB ranger can do with their level 1 abilities remind me of Sherlock Holmes looking at an object, creature, or things in an environment. "You see, but you do not observe, Watson."
The check might apply to the arrow, but the amount of information you are gonna get from that arrow is pretty limited in scope. Prior discussions have been wildly charitable about the types of things you can tell from an arrowhead, also your level 1 Ranger is not Sherlock Holmes, they are not THAT insightful about everything, favored enemy or not.
Maybe.
That's what's so fun/irritating about the ranger class I guess. Interpretation.
Skill check do have limits. No auto natural 20 success in this edition.
Favored enemy would certainly apply to a goblin made arrow. SO much of what a PHB ranger can do with their level 1 abilities remind me of Sherlock Holmes looking at an object, creature, or things in an environment. "You see, but you do not observe, Watson."
The check might apply to the arrow, but the amount of information you are gonna get from that arrow is pretty limited in scope. Prior discussions have been wildly charitable about the types of things you can tell from an arrowhead, also your level 1 Ranger is not Sherlock Holmes, they are not THAT insightful about everything, favored enemy or not.
Maybe.
That's what's so fun/irritating about the ranger class I guess. Interpretation.
I would give a player examining an arrow made by a favored enemy the following, since we have been using goblin:
- (low roll) it was made by a goblin - (high roll) above +, the material and style suggest (a region) [which may or may not match where they are] - (really high roll) above + how long the arrow has been there
and that is the extent of the information you are going to get
Skill check do have limits. No auto natural 20 success in this edition.
Favored enemy would certainly apply to a goblin made arrow. SO much of what a PHB ranger can do with their level 1 abilities remind me of Sherlock Holmes looking at an object, creature, or things in an environment. "You see, but you do not observe, Watson."
The check might apply to the arrow, but the amount of information you are gonna get from that arrow is pretty limited in scope. Prior discussions have been wildly charitable about the types of things you can tell from an arrowhead, also your level 1 Ranger is not Sherlock Holmes, they are not THAT insightful about everything, favored enemy or not.
Maybe.
That's what's so fun/irritating about the ranger class I guess. Interpretation.
I would give a player examining an arrow made by a favored enemy the following, since we have been using goblin:
- (low roll) it was made by a goblin - (high roll) above +, the material and style suggest (a region) [which may or may not match where they are] - (really high roll) above + how long the arrow has been there
and that is the extent of the information you are going to get
Anything that can be obtained from a knowledge check (let’s say for an arrow) is just that, information. DM decides what that/those bits of information is. The player makes their roll. Anyone can do that. Some PCs might have a high ability score, proficiency, or even expertise that will wield higher results
ANYTHING that is traceable back to specifics of a type of creature (favored enemy) and the ranger gets advantage on that same check. No high ability score or proficiency needed.
It doesn't even have to provide MORE information about the thing from a roll, the ranger just has a greater natural ability to meet or exceed the given DC(s).
Also, a level 1 ranger is not Sherlock, for sure. No level 1 character is. But Sherlock had great knowledge of certain types of creatures and places and could hold his own in a fight. He even had a companion!
Also, a level 1 ranger is not Sherlock, for sure. No level 1 character is. But Sherlock had great knowledge of certain types of creatures and places and could hold his own in a fight. He even had a companion!
I'd love to have an ex-soldier doctor for my BM companion. Watson really holds his own in a fight in the books. It's one of the things that Sherlock relies on him for.
Also, a level 1 ranger is not Sherlock, for sure. No level 1 character is. But Sherlock had great knowledge of certain types of creatures and places and could hold his own in a fight. He even had a companion!
I'd love to have an ex-soldier doctor for my BM companion. Watson really holds his own in a fight in the books. It's one of the things that Sherlock relies on him for.
An apprentice wizard from Volo's would work. Watson's pistol would be the fire bolt. Add proficiency with medicine and you're all set!
........... also your level 1 Ranger is not Sherlock Holmes, they are not THAT insightful about everything, favored enemy or not.
I am not sure this is a true statement. A basic level 1 hero/pc can fight more than than most common soldiers or at least on their level. A basic level 1 pc has more specific knowledge than most commoners or even non-adventuring professionals .
A group Adventurers are suppose to be the hero and the Protagonists in a story. They are the elite strike team. This means by default they are skilled and have the tools to succeed but the conflict gets in the way. This is where the dice tell the story and make it an epic or a tragedy. some times you have to justify the action post roll. you get a 20 and you have a flashback of the night your old trainer said something relevant. or you get a 20 and your mind won't let go of one detail until the pieces click together. We do this all the time with attacks skills are the same way. the inverse is also true we explain away why the expert wizard failed the Archana check but the barbarian knows what it actually is. This creates fun moments and narrative situations that make up the difference between roleplaying and simulation.
The main questions are
1. Is it possible this pc could have gained the information sometime in their travels?
2. are the ranger choices what would be narratively considered the expert in this situation?
3. adventure design interaction.
Is this information actively hidden for the adventure?
Is this information an auto win or just a slight advantage?
does revealing vs hiding the information show tell a different story?
is this a side reward or a core feature of the story?
should this information be free for certain backstories or characters living in the world?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I do think there are classes or subclasses that need some rework to modernize with newer subclasses. Definitely phb Ranger and the Rogue assassin to be sure
Agreed, but a lot of the game's subclasses have seemingly bizarre benefits not built to synergize with their own class or how the game works. Even just among Rogue subclasses in the PHB, the Thief L3 benefits are just... bizarre, like how a class intentionally designed to dump stat strength gets what amounts to a climb speed, as if Rogues were any good at climbing. Meanwhile, Beast Barbarians are written the opposite way - they can be so genuinely good at climbing at L6 that they don't need the strength you know they have anyway.
I actually think the thief getting a climb speed makes sense, it helps to make them better at what would otherwise be an athletics check on what is probably a dump stat.
I agree, but then they realized that what that translated to largely was tables ignoring things like tool proficiency and so Xanathars was designed to help with those, travel, wilderness encounters etc…
Rolls can't do everything.
But equating flight to knowledge in your head is very different.
If the adventurer fell off the cliff and instead of saying "I flap my arms" like a comedian or a dumbass. He said. "I want to use my acrobatic skills to to use the cliff near me to slow my fll somewhat to be able to make it to the bottom." That Natural 20. MIght actually mean something. It may be entirely fantastical if it succeeds but it at least means something.
But "I flap my arms" is the Equivalent of walls closing in on a person in a trap and the player going "I'm going to think real hard at them to stop". Unless the character has incredible mind powers it doesn't matter what he rolls. It's not going to work.
However. These limits and false equivalencies we're talking about in these examples. They apply because they are outside the entire scope of anything that they are actually trying to do. These are examples of Oranges but trying to say that Apples have certain characteristics and the Orange doesn't fit. Of course it doesn't. It's an orange. But that does not mean Another apple does not fit the characteristics.
Knowledge about Forest Animals and Natural Explorer? That's very different from the whole flapping your wings argument with the cliff. That's a particular kind of apple in a basket full of apples when we are trying to make sure they fit the characteristics of an Apple so that the DM can give you results based upon Apples, All while I have specialized in that particular kind of apple.
But your repeated attempts to say I can't know about things like Forest Animals and their properties and diets and such, When all animals have terrains listed to them in their writeups, just because I'm not in a Forest. That's like Telling me I can't use an Athletics Checks to climb a Granite Wall because I'm not in a Quarry when I have expertise in Granite Surfaces that can be applied to my Athletics check.
Rogues do not necessarily dump stat their Strength. Players Dump Stat their strength. It's one of the ways that player choices for characters, particularly in effort to maximize only a single part of the game, are what do not actually synergize and or make real sense. It's one of the reasons why declaring some kind of universal dumpstat to various classes isn't really all that logical in many respects.
Not all Rogues are supposed to be as flexible as a gymnast but barely able to lift a full bag of expensive loot (gold and jewels and all those fancy resellable items are not exactly light). That's what we as players do to them. Rogues are actually meant to be fairly good at climbing. They are meant to have some strength just like that Gymnast does. So Boosts to something like the ability to climb. Particularly for a subclass that is focused on things like potentially have to climb up buildings or over walls or whatever to get to their paydays makes a lot of sense. Except for when you apply it to something that the Player has designed basically only for combat on flat ground. The Thief Subclass is all about your pickpocket and break in artists. The guys that one day might be winding their way across a busy plaza sticking their hands in peoples pockets for a nice meal and the Next day might be Making their way Across Ropes between Towers Mission Impossible Style by climbing up the outside of the one tower to fire that line across to the other side because that Tower belongs to a Wizard and the Ground Level's are heavily guarded or potential death sentences but nobody expects them to get in through the top. They are actually easy to make work and most of what they do makes sense. When we take the min-maxing of players out of the equation.
Assassin on the other hand. I want to like them. But realistically we have to jump through as many or more hoops to make them actually work as advertised when it comes to RaW than we do with Natural Explorer. And Assassins are written at least 20 times simpler to understand since we're talking about what should be the most starter friendly and combat focused subclass on a starter friendly and starter focused overall class. Assassin's are the one that need a rework and they always have.
i mean those are still bits of information that could be acessible to people outside the tribe and thus information your character might have come across at some point in the past (even if it is very obscure), thus theoretically there should be some way for him to know that information.
Similarly if your ranger has goblins as their favoured enemy they are probably already familiar with the larger group of goblinoids depending on their size (are we talking like a small bandit gang or are we talking about a goblinoid host consisting of several goblin tribes and hobgoblin legions?). The ranger might be familiar with the arrowheads and their specific religion if it is infamous or sticks out a lot (for instance they might be the only ones in the world to prefer glass for their arrowheads and might scream the name of their god before battle or even just a proverb closely connected to a god)
if on the other hand the goblin tribe only split extremely recently such that news of the split could not possibly ever reach your ears and is so isolated that even if it did you would not be able to recognize their arrowheads or their god, yeah i could buy that it is just straight up impossible to know much about the tribe no matter how highly you roll for the int check
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
I described the Goblins to the west in Basic as a marauding Band roving another nearby area. That is ambiguous but covers a number of possible scenarios.
As for the Recent Break. if it happened last night? No. You wouldn't necessarily know that. But recent is relative. To some Recent might mean the last few years. yet in those few years there would still end up being Rumors about something odd about their god, about the strangeness of their arrowheads from what is normal and that they are in the area. Relatively speaking that is recent but it is still something that could have knowledge about them floating around. But I didn't bother specifying to that much detail because for a general example I shouldn't need to. Though if we are going to get realistic. If they are Forest Goblins but they come from a different group that prefers mountains and plains. The reality is that this split is likely not reason to make that distinction. That kind of difference likely took some time to establish and become noticable.
The Reality is that those goblin Groups. They do not function in isolation. Very little in any campaign world does. and when it does it's usually called out for being fairly unique about it. Kobolds for example are actually called out for prefering to be somewhat isolationist and from that somewhat territorial and that it's often bigger things that drive them to be anything else. This is done because complete isolationism is not normal.
Your Typical Goblins are going to have relations with other goblins. They are going to potentially trade or work with or fear and try to avoid other Goblinoid Races, Or have Dealing with Orcish or Lesser Giant races. They even are going to ahve dealings whether peacable, neutral, or antagonistic with races like humans and elves and dwarves and the like in their area more than likely.
I wasn't suggesting the cliff and anything are the same, I was simple illustrating that just rolling won't always work. And again, I have to emphasize that the key difference is the level of specificity and am using your goblin example so lets try and stick to that.
Think about it this way, lets say your character grew up in a large city. Then as an adventurer you visit Waterdeep for the first time. You say "what do I know about Waterdeep?" - roll a history check. You roll a 19.
In my mind you know the general size of the city, any major historical events, and recent large scale events that would have happened there since you were a teenager. You would know the general hustle and bustle of how a large city flows and would fit in without any real adjustment. You would know the names of some of the more renowned landmarks such as the Yawning Portal and the names of the various wards.
It would seem in your mind you think you should know anything you want. You apparently know the name of every street and can tell the party the name, profession, and disposition of the guy who owns the house with a blue door on Coachlamp Lane.
Maybe I am wrong, but you let me know.
I never said there is NO way for you to know these things, there are ways your character can have learned them, but an event as specific as described is going to require some form of interaction in game. You will have to have been in town and talked to a store who's last shipment was attacked and they have a description of the goblins or something like that. Just finding an arrow and rolling a check isn't going to tell you all of that. Its not like he touches the arrow and a vision of the entire history of that object.
If you found an arrow and got a good roll to see what you know I am going to give you that it is an arrow that looks like it is made by a goblin, the craftsmanship is odd for this area - more like something you'd see in the mountains (since these are goblins that split from a mountain tribe in their example) and you wonder why they are so far from there. and that's it, you don't know the specific tribe they came from, you don't know that they were exiled for religious reasons, you don't know the god they are worshiping.
There is no logical reason why you should.
Skill check do have limits. No auto natural 20 success in this edition.
Favored enemy would certainly apply to a goblin made arrow. SO much of what a PHB ranger can do with their level 1 abilities remind me of Sherlock Holmes looking at an object, creature, or things in an environment. "You see, but you do not observe, Watson."
Perception and investigation. Favored terrain "London" and favored enemy humans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ho6t683GazQ
To many folks, especially min/makers, ranger is poor class because it’s focused far more on concept and character development than on combat power. Always keep in mind that the 2 basic concepts behind the ranger were Tolkien’s Dunedin (Aragorn especially) and the mountain men of early 1800’s USA. (And more on them than on Arathorn who is really a fighter with the survival and nature skills). With the mountain men you might also include the native Americans of the USA. Fighters, clerics, rogues, wizards are all specialists that focus on thing and need a team to be successful at handling all parts of adventuring. The ranger is a loner and generalist out away from civilization having to rely only on himself (and maybe his companion). So no a ranger doesn’t fight quite as well as a fighter, he might not be as stealthy as a rogue, he doesn’t heal as well as a cleric or cast damaging spells as well as a mage ; BUT, he can do all of these fairly well, AND he has the wilderness survival, tracking and navigation skills that none of the other core classes have. I would love it if they got 1 or 2 more favored foes and terrains but realistically 3 will cover most rangers needs. A home brew solution is to allow the ranger to switch out one each if they want when they get a new one. There are also builds like the Rat King that provide urban alterations as well. So it’s not that the ranger sucks it’s that it is far more character development based than combat based and to min/maxers that may be anathema.
There are really 6 to 8 different terrains: Forest, Mountain, Prairie, Desert, Underdark, Swamp, Alpine/Arctic & Ocean. Rangers should probably be able to select one every 5 levels. Leaving out ocean and underdark as basically for special concept builds (sea elf/menfolk, Drizzt) forest + alpine gives you mountain and then have to decide between desert, swamp and prairie for the third and you’ve covered almost anything on any typical continent. Think Forgotten realms how many rangers from the sword coast actually would visit Calimshan or Anauroch enough to master that terrain type? Forest, Alpine/Mountain & Swamp would cover most of northern Faerun. Similarly the favored foes are meant to be foes you’ve run into a lot so humanoids or undead at love level, giants, drow or aberrations at medium level and dragons, fiends, or something equally high level at high level works very well story wise even if it doesn’t combat wise.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The check might apply to the arrow, but the amount of information you are gonna get from that arrow is pretty limited in scope. Prior discussions have been wildly charitable about the types of things you can tell from an arrowhead, also your level 1 Ranger is not Sherlock Holmes, they are not THAT insightful about everything, favored enemy or not.
Maybe.
That's what's so fun/irritating about the ranger class I guess. Interpretation.
I would give a player examining an arrow made by a favored enemy the following, since we have been using goblin:
- (low roll) it was made by a goblin
- (high roll) above +, the material and style suggest (a region) [which may or may not match where they are]
- (really high roll) above + how long the arrow has been there
and that is the extent of the information you are going to get
Anything that can be obtained from a knowledge check (let’s say for an arrow) is just that, information. DM decides what that/those bits of information is. The player makes their roll. Anyone can do that. Some PCs might have a high ability score, proficiency, or even expertise that will wield higher results
ANYTHING that is traceable back to specifics of a type of creature (favored enemy) and the ranger gets advantage on that same check. No high ability score or proficiency needed.
It doesn't even have to provide MORE information about the thing from a roll, the ranger just has a greater natural ability to meet or exceed the given DC(s).
Also, a level 1 ranger is not Sherlock, for sure. No level 1 character is. But Sherlock had great knowledge of certain types of creatures and places and could hold his own in a fight. He even had a companion!
I'd love to have an ex-soldier doctor for my BM companion. Watson really holds his own in a fight in the books. It's one of the things that Sherlock relies on him for.
An apprentice wizard from Volo's would work. Watson's pistol would be the fire bolt. Add proficiency with medicine and you're all set!
I am not sure this is a true statement. A basic level 1 hero/pc can fight more than than most common soldiers or at least on their level. A basic level 1 pc has more specific knowledge than most commoners or even non-adventuring professionals .
A group Adventurers are suppose to be the hero and the Protagonists in a story. They are the elite strike team. This means by default they are skilled and have the tools to succeed but the conflict gets in the way. This is where the dice tell the story and make it an epic or a tragedy. some times you have to justify the action post roll. you get a 20 and you have a flashback of the night your old trainer said something relevant. or you get a 20 and your mind won't let go of one detail until the pieces click together. We do this all the time with attacks skills are the same way. the inverse is also true we explain away why the expert wizard failed the Archana check but the barbarian knows what it actually is. This creates fun moments and narrative situations that make up the difference between roleplaying and simulation.
The main questions are
1. Is it possible this pc could have gained the information sometime in their travels?
2. are the ranger choices what would be narratively considered the expert in this situation?
3. adventure design interaction.