This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

5e Modularity: How Much, Really?

Started by Harlock, August 18, 2016, 10:45:38 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 4 5 6
User actions

Christopher Brady

#75
August 30, 2016, 06:14:26 PM
Tenbones, what edition of D&D made the Ranger Class right, to you?

I'm not entirely sure I'm seeing the issue with the class to warrant wanting to change it.
"And now, my friends, a Dragon\'s toast!  To life\'s little blessings:  wars, plagues and all forms of evil.  Their presence keeps us alert --- and their absence makes us grateful." -T.A. Barron[/SIZE]

Harlock

#76
August 31, 2016, 09:22:42 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;916141The idea in 5e is that you could fairly easily pick and choose just how many of the rules you wanted to make use of. The difference between the D&D Basic rules and the rules as they appear in the PHB are an example of that. One of the main goals with this is that you could easily alter the rules to fit different styles and genres; you get some guidelines for how to do this in the DMG, with suggestions if you want to make a more 'lethal' or old-school style campaign, for example.

And that's a pretty accurate description of what I was asking about in the OP. Specifically, how much 5e can I drop and still keep it "5e"? Put another way, without feats and skills and trimming the classes and races to more the scale of AD&D, is it worth trying 5e out or is one better off going with the older game? Would current 5e players scoff at such a slimmed down version?
~~~~~R.I.P~~~~~
Tom Moldvay
Nov. 5, 1948 – March 9, 2007
B/X, B4, X2 - You were D&D to me

tenbones

#77
August 31, 2016, 10:41:14 PM
Quote from: Christopher Brady;916276Tenbones, what edition of D&D made the Ranger Class right, to you?

I'm not entirely sure I'm seeing the issue with the class to warrant wanting to change it.

It's not an issue for me as I don't play 5e currently. It apparently is an issue with many many of the 5e fans and Mearls himself. Hence they have tried re-tooling the class and likely will again.

As for what edition was "right" - in context, I'm perfectly happy with the 1e/2e versions.

tenbones

#78
August 31, 2016, 10:42:07 PM
Quote from: Harlock;916486And that's a pretty accurate description of what I was asking about in the OP. Specifically, how much 5e can I drop and still keep it "5e"? Put another way, without feats and skills and trimming the classes and races to more the scale of AD&D, is it worth trying 5e out or is one better off going with the older game? Would current 5e players scoff at such a slimmed down version?

Based on these criteria - I'd simply go with 1e.

Omega

#79
September 01, 2016, 07:28:06 AM
Quote from: tenbones;916251I think a BIG part of the problem is not just the light-touch they did in terms of modularity, but the extremely conservative production-schedule they've adhered to since launch. When I compare their released product line and the overall content compared to say - FFG, whose business model is pretty much the same (Corebooks and Adventure-splats with rules sprinkled across the line.) FFG has produced an amazing amount of quality material for three lines of games that has easily plugged most holes that existed at launch. 5e still feels pretty vanilla and lackluster in their attempts to push more than fluff and adventures. Which is fine - if that's all you want.

FFGs business model is to pump out expansions/supplements fairly regularly. Not quite at the madcap rate of their LCGs. But FFG does crank out the product.

Omega

#80
September 01, 2016, 07:53:35 AM
Quote from: tenbones;916502It's not an issue for me as I don't play 5e currently. It apparently is an issue with many many of the 5e fans and Mearls himself. Hence they have tried re-tooling the class and likely will again.

As for what edition was "right" - in context, I'm perfectly happy with the 1e/2e versions.

1: After watching Jan use the ranger to around level 15 I think the Hunter path works overall. Its the Beastmaster that everyone bitches incessantly about. Mainly due to how the companion beast is limited. Kefra's thinking of running one at some point so we may see eventually. Jan built a (to her) better Ranger via the Fighter and taking the Battle Master path since she really just wanted to plink away with lots of arrows without having to have a crowd present.

2: Jan loved the AD&D ranger. No clue what she thought of the 2e one. Probably much the same since there isnt that much change.

jadrax

#81
September 01, 2016, 08:13:37 AM
I think the issue with the ranger is that 5e is basically an edition that largely goes with whatever is the most popular for each class/element. That's why the surveys where such a big deal.

The problem with that is, there seems to be very little consensus on what a Ranger should be, and in every past edition they have been pretty different. So you have people wanting the spell-less ultimate Archer of 4e, the Druid/Rogue hybrid of 3e, the Druid/Fighter hybrid of 2e and the OMFGHowManyHitPoints? of 1e.

hexgrid

#82
September 01, 2016, 02:55:35 PM
Quote from: Harlock;916486And that's a pretty accurate description of what I was asking about in the OP. Specifically, how much 5e can I drop and still keep it "5e"? Put another way, without feats and skills and trimming the classes and races to more the scale of AD&D, is it worth trying 5e out or is one better off going with the older game? Would current 5e players scoff at such a slimmed down version?

The free Basic Rules already do much of what you're describing:

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules?x=dnd/basicrules
 

Haffrung

#83
September 01, 2016, 03:54:21 PM
Quote from: jadrax;916560I think the issue with the ranger is that 5e is basically an edition that largely goes with whatever is the most popular for each class/element. That's why the surveys where such a big deal.

The problem with that is, there seems to be very little consensus on what a Ranger should be, and in every past edition they have been pretty different. So you have people wanting the spell-less ultimate Archer of 4e, the Druid/Rogue hybrid of 3e, the Druid/Fighter hybrid of 2e and the OMFGHowManyHitPoints? of 1e.

Yeah, the Ranger is a class that has been dramatically different in each edition of D&D. I come from the wilderness tracking monster-hunter tradition. But I've come across people for whom Ranger means dual-wielding melee combatant. Others thing super-archer. Druid is another class that has changed a lot of over the editions - I think of them as wilderness clerics, but others see shapechanging as an essential Druid trait.

5E has tried to compromise or go with whatever is most popular for most elements of D&D. With Rangers, they kinda have to pick something when there's no consensus, and it will undoubtedly piss some people off.
 

Omega

#84
September 01, 2016, 04:14:49 PM
Quote from: jadrax;916560The problem with that is, there seems to be very little consensus on what a Ranger should be, and in every past edition they have been pretty different. So you have people wanting the spell-less ultimate Archer of 4e, the Druid/Rogue hybrid of 3e, the Druid/Fighter hybrid of 2e and the OMFGHowManyHitPoints? of 1e.

Actually the AD&D Ranger averages less HP than the fighter. They start off with on average a little more. But by level 6 the Fighter and Paladin start pulling ahead. By level 20 the Ranger is behind by 13 HP and about equal to a Cleric.

Doom

#85
September 01, 2016, 04:43:24 PM
Quote from: jadrax;916560I think the issue with the ranger is that 5e is basically an edition that largely goes with whatever is the most popular for each class/element. That's why the surveys where such a big deal.

The problem with that is, there seems to be very little consensus on what a Ranger should be, and in every past edition they have been pretty different. So you have people wanting the spell-less ultimate Archer of 4e, the Druid/Rogue hybrid of 3e, the Druid/Fighter hybrid of 2e and the OMFGHowManyHitPoints? of 1e.

I have to agree, the ranger really has been the class that changes/varies the most from edition to edition, or even within some editions. The huge hit points of 1e (a really big deal for the first few levels, to be sure), combined with the "interesting" batch of free henchmen they got later, is a far cry from the dual-wielding clones of a certain drow, or the Redwood-sized arrows of other editions.

It does cause a problem when a new edition comes out, since the range of rangers guarantees a wide range of (dis)satisfaction
(taken during hurricane winds)

A nice education blog.

jadrax

#86
September 01, 2016, 06:26:23 PM
Quote from: Omega;916642Actually the AD&D Ranger averages less HP than the fighter. They start off with on average a little more. But by level 6 the Fighter and Paladin start pulling ahead. By level 20 the Ranger is behind by 13 HP and about equal to a Cleric.

I agree, but the 5th ed take on it when they tried to recreate this in Unearthed Arcana ended up giving them 2d6 Hit Die per level, which easily put them on the top of the HP pile.

Omega

#87
September 01, 2016, 10:19:51 PM
In AD&D the ranger uses a d8 and gets an extra at level 1. But ends up with less than a Fighter or Paladin over time. They could surprise on a 3 in 6 an are surprised on a 1 in 6. Attack bonus vs giant types, Tracking, picked up a handfull of druid and wizard spells starting level 8, and could eventually use various ESP type magic items.

In 2e the Ranger used a d10 for HD just like the Fighter. Still had tracking but their foe could now be various humanoids. And now had a Hide in Shadows and move Silently skill like a Thief, and animals were less likely to attack them (essentially better reaction rolls for animals.) Didnt get spells, priest type,  till level 8.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 4 5 6
User actions