And now with Tasha’s, a Mountain Dwarf will be able to get +2 Cha and Con and trade proficiencies they won’t need for tools like Herbalism Kit to spam Healing Potions.
And now with Tasha’s, a Mountain Dwarf will be able to get +2 Cha and Con and trade proficiencies they won’t need for tools like Herbalism Kit to spam Healing Potions.
Thank goodness that will never happen in my game, because of examples like the one you just provided.
Excellent. Then we are in agreement that a DM can cull content from their game as they like and there's no harm in Wizards adding/legitimizing optional rulesets, ne?
Not really sure what more there is to discuss on that front, Third. I've made my stance known every which way I know how to make it, and I feel like everybody else has, too. Some people feel like there's room for new classes if they're designed carefully. Some people feel like everything can be done with ten minutes in the homebrew subclass editor. One of those two clumps has put in more work than the other. Some other people feel like the whole game needs scrapping and do-overing to be more like 1984, and some people are wondering what the hell kind of minefield they stepped in when they posted this thread.
Is there a single opinion in this whole mess that hasn't ossified into the fossil record?
Excellent. Then we are in agreement that a DM can cull content from their game as they like and there's no harm in Wizards adding/legitimizing optional rulesets, ne?
Not really sure what more there is to discuss on that front, Third. I've made my stance known every which way I know how to make it, and I feel like everybody else has, too. Some people feel like there's room for new classes if they're designed carefully. Some people feel like everything can be done with ten minutes in the homebrew subclass editor. One of those two clumps has put in more work than the other. Some other people feel like the whole game needs scrapping and do-overing to be more like 1984, and some people are wondering what the hell kind of minefield they stepped in when they posted this thread.
Is there a single opinion in this whole mess that hasn't ossified into the fossil record?
In seriousness, all I can really think of is possible design spaces that could be explored. Yurei mentioned several thousand pages back something about a spelless Ranger, and there's a part of me that wants to take a crack at that, when I'm not swamped with IRL nonsense...
In seriousness, all I can really think of is possible design spaces that could be explored. Yurei mentioned several thousand pages back something about a spelless Ranger, and there's a part of me that wants to take a crack at that, when I'm not swamped with IRL nonsense...
Pretty sure that's Rogue (Scout), maybe multiclassed with Fighter. I guess you could come up with something a bit more specific, but that's actually a pretty competitive build.
Excellent. Then we are in agreement that a DM can cull content from their game as they like and there's no harm in Wizards adding/legitimizing optional rulesets, ne?
Glad we could finally come to an accord, Vince.
You mean "optional" rules like the ones that just came out, like the AL rules, that specifically state the player, not the DM, gets to decide if the player uses the idiotic rules in char creation? You mean those rules that the DM has zero say in?
In seriousness, all I can really think of is possible design spaces that could be explored. Yurei mentioned several thousand pages back something about a spelless Ranger, and there's a part of me that wants to take a crack at that, when I'm not swamped with IRL nonsense...
Silly question but why wouldn't a spell-less ranger simply be a fighter or rogue? Why would you need something new for a spell-less ranger? Rangers did not even originally have any particular two weapon fighting specialty. That only was added later as an attempt to explain a certain Dark Elf.
Similar question to answer your question. Why aren't barbarians a subclass of fighter? I mean, they both take weapons and hit people with them. Why do we need a new class to explain the barbarian?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Well, you very well could recreate a Ranger with Fighter or Rogue, (and when the opportunity arises I actually do intend to do just that) but for now I'm trying to see if I can create something analogous to a number of features/abilities available to the Ranger (Hunter's Mark, Primeval Awareness, etc) that aren't replicable by either of those classes. Additionally, I'd like to see if I could take at least some of the core features of the Ranger (Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer) and tweak them so that they aren't so limited and niche as they are currently. Furthermore, I'm also interested in creating a chassis for subclasses to be fitted on to, and how well they work in relation to how the Ranger and it's subclasses work.
Excellent. Then we are in agreement that a DM can cull content from their game as they like and there's no harm in Wizards adding/legitimizing optional rulesets, ne?
Glad we could finally come to an accord, Vince.
You mean "optional" rules like the ones that just came out, like the AL rules, that specifically state the player, not the DM, gets to decide if the player uses the idiotic rules in char creation? You mean those rules that the DM has zero say in?
For frying out loud Vince, the DM IS SUPPOSED TO HELP THE PLAYERS HAVE A GOOD TIME, stop being a sore looser.
Also, on the subject of the spellless ranger, there's already a UA. Check it out. Myself, I am a massive fan of the current ranger, when it's used well.
@Vince_Snetterstn: What are you actually on about? The DM is the final arbiter of everything, period. If I decide that Two-Weapon Fighting is the only fighting style available to all classes, then as DM that is well within my rights; now granted, that would be incredibly shitty of me, and my players would be well within their rights to call me out and dump me in favor of another DM, but it's still entirely within my purview do do whatever the **** I want.
Also, on the subject of the spellless ranger, there's already a UA. Check it out. Myself, I am a massive fan of the current ranger, when it's used well.
I am well aware of that UA actually, and have used some of the ideas behind it as the basis of what I'm thinking of currently! (namely, two of the things I'm thinking of are adding a "survival dice" and some manner of point-based system to help replicate some of the features, such as Hunter's Mark from the base Ranger and the Maneuver's added to the UA version)
If you don't like rangers, don't play them. SORTED. Now leave that class alone and go target the stupid sorcerer. Because Sorcerer is TOO POPULAR IN MY GAMES!
I mean sorcerer is the other class in the badly designed duo.
Having a crippled wizard with the metamagic feat from prior editions does not make a class. I hate how metamagic was made sorcerer only rather than what it used to be.
I do think that sorcerer deserves to be its own class, but not in its current state. It's one of my favourites thematically, but its just so badly designed.
A Sorhexadin is just disgusting.
And now with Tasha’s, a Mountain Dwarf will be able to get +2 Cha and Con and trade proficiencies they won’t need for tools like Herbalism Kit to spam Healing Potions.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Thank goodness that will never happen in my game, because of examples like the one you just provided.
Excellent. Then we are in agreement that a DM can cull content from their game as they like and there's no harm in Wizards adding/legitimizing optional rulesets, ne?
Glad we could finally come to an accord, Vince.
Please do not contact or message me.
(Also, that's not a problem with the new ruleset coming out, it's a problem with Mountain Dwarves being unbalanced.)
So, um, back to the new classes?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Not really sure what more there is to discuss on that front, Third. I've made my stance known every which way I know how to make it, and I feel like everybody else has, too. Some people feel like there's room for new classes if they're designed carefully. Some people feel like everything can be done with ten minutes in the homebrew subclass editor. One of those two clumps has put in more work than the other. Some other people feel like the whole game needs scrapping and do-overing to be more like 1984, and some people are wondering what the hell kind of minefield they stepped in when they posted this thread.
Is there a single opinion in this whole mess that hasn't ossified into the fossil record?
Please do not contact or message me.
Huzzah!!
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I don’t think so.
Back to Psionics?
😂🤣😂🤣😂
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
NO! BAD SPOSTA! 😠🗞️
In seriousness, all I can really think of is possible design spaces that could be explored. Yurei mentioned several thousand pages back something about a spelless Ranger, and there's a part of me that wants to take a crack at that, when I'm not swamped with IRL nonsense...
Pretty sure that's Rogue (Scout), maybe multiclassed with Fighter. I guess you could come up with something a bit more specific, but that's actually a pretty competitive build.
You mean "optional" rules like the ones that just came out, like the AL rules, that specifically state the player, not the DM, gets to decide if the player uses the idiotic rules in char creation? You mean those rules that the DM has zero say in?
Similar question to answer your question. Why aren't barbarians a subclass of fighter? I mean, they both take weapons and hit people with them. Why do we need a new class to explain the barbarian?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Well, you very well could recreate a Ranger with Fighter or Rogue, (and when the opportunity arises I actually do intend to do just that) but for now I'm trying to see if I can create something analogous to a number of features/abilities available to the Ranger (Hunter's Mark, Primeval Awareness, etc) that aren't replicable by either of those classes. Additionally, I'd like to see if I could take at least some of the core features of the Ranger (Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer) and tweak them so that they aren't so limited and niche as they are currently. Furthermore, I'm also interested in creating a chassis for subclasses to be fitted on to, and how well they work in relation to how the Ranger and it's subclasses work.
Plus, I also think it's fun, dagnabbit!
For frying out loud Vince, the DM IS SUPPOSED TO HELP THE PLAYERS HAVE A GOOD TIME, stop being a sore looser.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
Also, on the subject of the spellless ranger, there's already a UA. Check it out. Myself, I am a massive fan of the current ranger, when it's used well.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
@Vince_Snetterstn: What are you actually on about? The DM is the final arbiter of everything, period. If I decide that Two-Weapon Fighting is the only fighting style available to all classes, then as DM that is well within my rights; now granted, that would be incredibly shitty of me, and my players would be well within their rights to call me out and dump me in favor of another DM, but it's still entirely within my purview do do whatever the **** I want.
I am well aware of that UA actually, and have used some of the ideas behind it as the basis of what I'm thinking of currently! (namely, two of the things I'm thinking of are adding a "survival dice" and some manner of point-based system to help replicate some of the features, such as Hunter's Mark from the base Ranger and the Maneuver's added to the UA version)
If I played a ranger I'd probably only take it to lvl 5, and then switch to scout past that. Rangers progression is depressing.
If you don't like rangers, don't play them. SORTED. Now leave that class alone and go target the stupid sorcerer. Because Sorcerer is TOO POPULAR IN MY GAMES!
(please note I'm joking)
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
I mean sorcerer is the other class in the badly designed duo.
Having a crippled wizard with the metamagic feat from prior editions does not make a class. I hate how metamagic was made sorcerer only rather than what it used to be.
I do think that sorcerer deserves to be its own class, but not in its current state. It's one of my favourites thematically, but its just so badly designed.