D&D (2024) 2024 Player's Handbook reveal: "New Ranger"

FitzTheRuke · Thursday at 6:18 AM

Don't feel bad, @UngeheuerLich - I was mostly joking (and agreeing that we don't want to see anything like 2e Skills & Powers ever again in D&D).

UngeheuerLich · Thursday at 6:27 AM

FitzTheRuke said:
Don't feel bad, @UngeheuerLich - I was mostly joking (and agreeing that we don't want to see anything like 2e Skills & Powers ever again in D&D).

I don't feel bad. I understand it. Was that the wrong smiley?

FitzTheRuke · Thursday at 6:34 AM

UngeheuerLich said:
I don't feel bad. I understand it. Was that the wrong smiley?

Maybe. I wasn't sure if I'd overdone my exaggeration. We're good!

Horwath · Thursday at 7:53 AM

FitzTheRuke said:
Aggh! Why did you have to dredge up those old nightmares? I'd buried them deep.

Skills and Powers in en excellent idea, but not in the hands of WotC.
They cant balance classes against each other, let alone 200+ separate abilities and how they interact with synergy.

UngeheuerLich · Thursday at 11:27 AM

Horwath said:
Skills and Powers in en excellent idea, but not in the hands of WotC.

No. Thebold one was still TSR, wasn't it?

Horwath said:
They cant balance classes against each other, let alone 200+ separate abilities and how they interact with synergy.

Noone can do that perfectly. They do a pretty good job.

But you would probably do it better. So please make your game and share it with us.

Horwath · Thursday at 11:38 AM

UngeheuerLich said:
No. Thebold one was still TSR, wasn't it?

I meant, I would not trust them now to make 5E version of it.

UngeheuerLich said:
Noone can do that perfectly. They do a pretty good job.

eh, it's better balance than 3.5e that is for sure, but still we get things like Twilight cleric and 2014 Monk in same edition.
so... baby steps.

UngeheuerLich said:
But you would probably do it better.

You can criticize bad product without making one yourself.

UngeheuerLich said:
So please make your game and share it with us.

patience young padawan, I only got the ranger class reworked and generic warrior instead of fighter as 1st steps for classless 5E.

Or rather 4 classes:
warrior; d12 HD, no spellcasting, extra attacks at 5,9,13,17
gish(ranger, paladin, artificer); d10, half caster, extra attacks at level 5, 13
adept, d8 HD, 2/3rd spellcaster, extra attack at level 9
mage, d6 HD, full caster.

then it's just problem with number of feats for each, power of feats and level and other pre requirements.

Easy, isn't it?

UngeheuerLich · Thursday at 12:33 PM

Horwath said:
I meant, I would not trust them now to make 5E version of it.

eh, it's better balance than 3.5e that is for sure, but still we get things like Twilight cleric and 2014 Monk in same edition.
so... baby steps.

This seems to get some attention now.

Horwath said:
You can criticize bad product without making one yourself.

I would not call it bad. Far away from it. Just not perfect.

Horwath said:
patience young padawan, I only got the ranger class reworked and generic warrior instead of fighter as 1st steps for classless 5E.

Or rather 4 classes:
warrior; d12 HD, no spellcasting, extra attacks at 5,9,13,17
gish(ranger, paladin, artificer); d10, half caster, extra attacks at level 5, 13
adept, d8 HD, 2/3rd spellcaster, extra attack at level 9
mage, d6 HD, full caster.

then it's just problem with number of feats for each, power of feats and level and other pre requirements.

Easy, isn't it?

Yes. That is a completely different game. And you make it easier for yourself by reducing the number of options. Which is fine. But not if you build an iteration of d&d.

Take 4e. A fine game in many regards. But it was too different to be successful enough as a D&D game.

Horwath · Thursday at 12:51 PM

UngeheuerLich said:
This seems to get some attention now.

took them only 10 years, hehe

UngeheuerLich said:
I would not call it bad. Far away from it. Just not perfect.

some parts are bad, some are very good.

UngeheuerLich said:
Yes. That is a completely different game. And you make it easier for yourself by reducing the number of options. Which is fine. But not if you build an iteration of d&d.

it's still D&D if we take every feature of every class, tweak it and make them into full feat or half feat power budget.

UngeheuerLich said:
Take 4e. A fine game in many regards. But it was too different to be successful enough as a D&D game.

IMHO, they went and made all classes really same-y.
everyone with same number of at-will, encounter, daily and utility powers.

you could just pick a class for flavor and 1st level specific class features and put all other powers into one bucket and pick from it. with consideration on how it will interact with you class 1st level abilities.

5th level fighter with fireball. in 4E?
No problem, not that the single target damage of that fireball was less than 5th level fighters.

UngeheuerLich · Thursday at 1:09 PM

Horwath said:
took them only 10 years, hehe

That was a decision they made on purpose. 4e used a different concept of balance updates. And this was getting ugly very fast. If they did it today, people would rightfully point out that you can manage all changes only with digital tools (lile in 4e).

Horwath said:
some parts are bad, some are very good.

Yes. I guesss we just disagree about the ratio between those two.

Horwath said:
it's still D&D if we take every feature of every class, tweak it and make them into full feat or half feat power budget.

No. That kind of rigid structure was tried im 4e and in pf2e and in my opinion it does not work.

Horwath said:
IMHO, they went and made all classes really same-y.
everyone with same number of at-will, encounter, daily and utility powers.

I think this is what logically follows from the principle you want to use.
Maybe with 4 base structures it will be better. But I am not sure of that.

Horwath said:
you could just pick a class for flavor and 1st level specific class features and put all other powers into one bucket and pick from it. with consideration on how it will interact with you class 1st level abilities.

Possible. But mathematically your chamces that you fail to balance each power woth each other is diminishingly small, as you need to look at each ineraction between each choosable feature. For n such features, you look at n*(n-1)/2 bilateral interactions. That does not even consider how 3 features interact with each other.

Horwath said:
5th level fighter with fireball. in 4E?
No problem, not that the single target damage of that fireball was less than 5th level fighters.

Yes. But if fireball is the same as each multitarget spell at that level, you only need a single one. I do agree, that such a game can work, but it has a distinctly different feel than D&D.
If that is good or bad is yours to decide.

I honestly can say, that I'd try that game. But it would not replace D&D.

Horwath · Thursday at 1:22 PM

UngeheuerLich said:
I think this is what logically follows from the principle you want to use.
Maybe with 4 base structures it will be better. But I am not sure of that.

key is not make every feature have same frequency of usage.
in 5E terms you can have:

1. Passive. always "on", extra HP, little extra damage on attacks, more saves, skills, expertise, bonus to AC

2. Once per turn or round. Sneak attack, smite, etc...

3. X per short rest

4. prof bonus per short rest

5. 2×prof bonus per short rest

6. X per long rest

7. prof bonus per long rest

8. 2×prof bonus per long rest

9. X per character level

that is a lot of difference in power to use.

UngeheuerLich said:
I honestly can say, that I'd try that game. But it would not replace D&D.

one day... it will be done...

D&D (2024) 2024 Player's Handbook reveal: "New Ranger"

FitzTheRuke

Legend

UngeheuerLich

Legend

FitzTheRuke

Legend

Horwath

Legend

UngeheuerLich

Legend

Horwath

Legend

UngeheuerLich

Legend

Horwath

Legend

UngeheuerLich

Legend

Horwath

Legend

Similar Threads

Voidrunner's Codex

Related Articles

Voidrunner's Codex