Recent content by CreamCloud0

i don't get to play so what happens to me is entirely irrelevant, but i still care about the principle of it, there are different kinds of weirdness, and just because some kinds of weirdness are given a pass that doesn't mean all kinds should be, i want a fantasy game, but i want a fantasy game...

just so long as it is alongside an actual ranger class, not filling that role entirely by itself.

no, i did specify a Back*story* Event for a reason, rather than Back*ground* Feature, they are nowhere near equivilant in purpose or value.

IMO i don't think the animal companion is something that can be best explored while tied to the ranger concept, a 'companion' class could fit a specific ranger-like subclass inside it very nicely, though i admit that personally the companion aspect has never been the most important aspect of the...

Definitely a cool option that I’d love for the ranger but not exactly what I was personally thinking of. The Ranger is IMO, the class of a type of person (in-universe) who’ll learn anything they come across and will actually bother to remember it because it might be useful someday, and magic...

not saying you are doing this in your post it just provides a nice in into a point judging any game mechanic's worth purely on how old or new they are is a bad idea, be that if we're revering tradition or innovation or criticising clunky sacred cows or messy bleeding edge systems.

if people get into DnD explicitly for the reason 'it'll feel like LOTR' then how the ranger specifically plays is going to be one issue quite far down the list behind many many others.

Great! but that's if you're in barcelona, what about all the other 99% of times when the adventure doesn't lead you to barcelona? do you have a childhood friend stationed in every single town, city and village across the lands just so the feature works?

i'd disagree, the execution of the themes might differ to how they were originally represented and additional sources of influence to the idea of 'ranger' might've been added but the core concepts aragorn brought to the table are still recognisable and shine through strong.

i'd like rangers to have magic but not because they need magic to do their rangery things, magic to do extra stuff on top of a reliable skill system.

one of the big conceptual cornerstones of the ranger that i think people often overlook is how much of a survivalist they are, sure they're often recognised as 'explorers' but that's not quite the same thing, a rogue might be more skillful and a fighter tougher but drop a rogue or a fighter into...

oh boy another one of these threads. yes the ranger is necessary, a class exists for more reasons than just box-filling a battlefield role or embodying a certian literary character.

I don’t think it was settled people just found something else they wanted to argue about more right now.

i think 75 feats might be okay for DnD, but it wouldn't be these 75 feats, there's alot of things that would need be improved on a good few of them to make them more equally viable picks against ‘higher tier’ feats, some should be consolidated, some should be removed as feats and just turned...

art can emphasise traits that are merely conceptual and likewise narration isn't limited to describing just physical features, you can put a faceless cast all in identical uniforms and still convey alot of information about them through symbolism and framing and artistic depicition.