D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?

[mig el pig]

Medieval great swords were 6 to 10 lbs usually on the higher side of things.

So why can't someone who wants to play a 'ranger' use a 6lbs version?

[Raineh Daze]

Great swords were big, though not that big. They were 60 to 70 inches long though and with that much metal... They start to weigh 10 lbs. A buster sword like that would weigh.. Omg 40 to 50 lbs minimum?

The Dragonslayer there is about seven feet long, an inch thick, and basically a chunk of iron with an edge rather than a steel blade.

But we weren't talking about just any old swords. It was brought up as a great sword.

Scimitars and long swords would work well with a ranger (robin hood or whatever) but there are some weapons that make no sense at all... Like the great sword.

They make perfect sense if the Ranger has knightly training and mostly concerns himself with marshes, plains, or anywhere else with plenty of space and few obstructions, like low hills. There is nothing about a greatsword that 'doesn't work' with a ranger, except for pigeonholing the class into one environment.

TWF hordes remind me of the Asian movies where Jet Li or whoever wades into the middle of a battlefield and takes out a ton of enemies with two weapons... Not really in the style of western twf but then again wotc never made their twf modeled after western fighting but more so eastern styles (there is a few that are brutally offensive).

My first thought for dealing with a horde using a sword is Guts there. Two handed sword, even before he got that monstrosity tended to be bad news for armies. Did take out an entire military company.

I see no issue with 'horde fighting' being 'USE A BIG SWORD'. TWF for dealing with hordes honestly seems like a monk thing, or single combat (hi, Musashi).

Medieval great swords were 6 to 10 lbs usually on the higher side of things.

D&D always has medieval roots so I went with the information for medieval times from my college history classes. The professor being a nerd ranted on how RPG makers such as wotc are idiots when dealing with weapons.

Hilariously, no such thing as a greatsword has ever existed. Zweihander? Claymore? An actual longsword? Estoc? Sure, there's plenty of two handed swords, but almost everything we have left is ceremonial--they look amazing, but they're badly balanced and heavier than something you'd actually use.

Do you think he was actually ranting about the butchering of real sword types, not the weight?

[Dienekes]

Again, the only weapon you have suggested that I disagree with are the huge impractical ones a Ranger wouldn't weigh themselves down with in the first place, IE a Great Sword and Ax!

Hell, I'd accept an argument for a Halbert Ranger, because a Halbert is useful for more then just rolling a d12 for damage!

First off, a zweihander, the largest sword, is about 4 to 7 lbs. It's not that heavy. Actually wielding two weapons (normal 1 handed weapons tend to be 2-4 lbs) can be just as heavy if not heavier. Secondly, the claymore, another large sword was regularly used by the highland Scots regardless of if they were scouts or front-line soldiers. Thirdly, a real longsword is a two-handed weapon. I honestly don't know why D&D made it a one-handed weapon. Should have called the one-handed sword an arming sword or something. Anyway, Aragorn's longsword, the weapon of the most famous fictional ranger of them all, was a pure two-handed weapon.

[Raineh Daze]

Anyway, Aragorn's longsword, the weapon of the most famous fictional ranger of them all, was a pure two-handed weapon.

Anduril is a longsword? Huh, never knew that. All I knew was that it was a sword. Haven't read anything to do with Middle-earth for years, though.

[Perseus]

The Dragonslayer there is about seven feet long, an inch thick, and basically a chunk of iron with an edge rather than a steel blade.



They make perfect sense if the Ranger has knightly training and mostly concerns himself with marshes, plains, or anywhere else with plenty of space and few obstructions, like low hills. There is nothing about a greatsword that 'doesn't work' with a ranger, except for pigeonholing the class into one environment.



My first thought for dealing with a horde using a sword is Guts there. Two handed sword, even before he got that monstrosity tended to be bad news for armies. Did take out an entire military company.

I see no issue with 'horde fighting' beyond 'USE A BIG SWORD'. TWF for dealing with hordes honestly seems like a monk thing, or single combat (hi, Musashi).

And the Mage right now is Pigeonheld err Pigeonholded err what would be the right tense for that... Anyways right now the Mage is being forced to pick Illusion, Enchatnment, Evocation... And right now int he process of things there is nothing wrong with having limited choices.

Maybe WoTC is trying to stay away from the "to anime" buster sword type for the ranger?

Well one could say that a Ranger is a nature based Monk *shrug*.

This is just a playtest and I see people getting up in arms about being pigeonheld (past tense?). It isn't a big deal that you get two choices (who you will prey on) and those choices leading to a fighting style that is different than if you made a different choice in prey.

And it isn't like choosing one choice makes you completely useless against everything else. They have improved the ranger so much since 3.5.

[lesser_minion]

Omg if I choose A over B or B over A then I might not do so great at everything! Oh the humanity of having choices that might negatively effect my character!

What you're advocating here is screwing players over completely through no fault of their own by almost completely locking them out of whole adventures on end. That is in a completely different league to "choices that might negatively effect [sic] my character".

[Raineh Daze]

Maybe WoTC is trying to stay away from the "to anime" buster sword type for the ranger?

His previous sword was actually quite reasonable. Long, yes, but it was most definitely not the slab of iron there. That was when the one guy killed a hundred men, by the way.

Well one could say that a Ranger is a nature based Monk *shrug*.

One would also be very much wrong.

This is just a playtest and I see people getting up in arms about being pigeonheld (past tense?). It isn't a big deal that you get two choices (who you will prey on) and those choices leading to a fighting style that is different than if you made a different choice in prey.

And it isn't like choosing one choice makes you completely useless against everything else. They have improved the ranger so much since 3.5.

No, people aren't complaining about limited choices. The limited choices aren't the issue. The issue is partly that the way Ranger choices are fluffed makes less than no sense, and this:

Two-Weapon Fighting and Archery. Again. For no reason, when they said they'd dropped the blasted things.

[BayardSPSR]

Let's be honest here: there's exactly one reason it's a "tradition" for rangers to fight with two weapons, and we all know what it is. There is no reason to have a whole class dedicated to mimicking Drizzt, which is what we have.

Can we move on?

[Dienekes]

Anduril is a longsword? Huh, never knew that. All I knew was that it was a sword. Haven't read anything to do with Middle-earth for years, though.

In the movie? Yes it was. In the book it's size was never given. However, whenever Aragorn wielded it he is not described as having any other weapon in his off-hand, or a shield, or anything.

Hilariously, no such thing as a greatsword has ever existed. Zweihander? Claymore? An actual longsword? Estoc? Sure, there's plenty of two handed swords, but almost everything we have left is ceremonial--they look amazing, but they're badly balanced and heavier than something you'd actually use.

Do you think he was actually ranting about the butchering of real sword types, not the weight?

Well, technically claymore translates to "great sword." Which includes both it's one-handed and two-handed iterations of the weapon. The current use of great sword in academia is generally a catch-all terminology for weapons around the sizes of the two types of Scottish claymores.

And we do have some surviving battle-ready zweihanders, that's where I got my 4-7 lbs numbers.

Also, wielding a very well made replica of one of those beauties was amazing. It was around 6 lbs, moved fluidly, and cut through anything I was willing to try it on. Man I am jealous of my wealthier friend who can drop a couple thousand on something like that without hesitation.

[Perseus]

His previous sword was actually quite reasonable. Long, yes, but it was most definitely not the slab of iron there. That was when the one guy killed a hundred men, by the way.



One would also be very much wrong.



No, people aren't complaining about limited choices. The limited choices aren't the issue. The issue is partly that the way Ranger choices are fluffed makes less than no sense, and this:

Two-Weapon Fighting and Archery. Again. For no reason, when they said they'd dropped the blasted things.

Complaining about fluff of choices and number of choices in a playtest... A playtest... Do you not see why that is weird?

[BayardSPSR]

Complaining about fluff of choices and number of choices in a playtest... A playtest... Do you not see why that is weird?

That's kind of the point of testing it.

[Dienekes]

Complaining about fluff of choices and number of choices in a playtest... A playtest... Do you not see why that is weird?

I think it's more about them going back on their word. They said the Rangers= dual wielding and archery would be completely dropped. Then they said that the bonuses from favored enemy would be wide ranging abilities. Both of these are fantastic ideas to me.

So it's just weird to see them putting the weapon specializations back in.

[Raineh Daze]

Complaining about fluff of choices and number of choices in a playtest... A playtest... Do you not see why that is weird?

A) It's the whole point of the playtest.
B) Their choices are suspicious in this case. Very much so.

[Kurald Galain]

I think it's more about them going back on their word. They said the Rangers= dual wielding and archery would be completely dropped. Then they said that the bonuses from favored enemy would be wide ranging abilities. Both of these are fantastic ideas to me.

I suppose they did precisely that, and as a result a horde of outraged fans clamored to have their archery-and-dual-wielding back, because "everybody knows" that's what rangers do

[BayardSPSR]

I suppose they did precisely that, and as a result a horde of outraged fans clamored to have their archery-and-dual-wielding back, because "everybody knows" that's what rangers do

Just like how everybody knows that Wizards are overpowered, so they call them Mages now?

[Morty]

I suppose they did precisely that, and as a result a horde of outraged fans clamored to have their archery-and-dual-wielding back, because "everybody knows" that's what rangers do

See also my earlier point about D&D Next being burdened by tons of baggage.

[Perseus]

A) It's the whole point of the playtest.
B) Their choices are suspicious in this case. Very much so.

That's kind of the point of testing it.

No the point is about the mechanics of the game. Not what choices are given in the playtest. You don't play test their ability to make a playtest you playtest the mechanics of what is presented in the playtest.

I think it's more about them going back on their word. They said the Rangers= dual wielding and archery would be completely dropped. Then they said that the bonuses from favored enemy would be wide ranging abilities. Both of these are fantastic ideas to me.

So it's just weird to see them putting the weapon specializations back in.

I can get behind hating a company for straight up lying to their customers. I can't stand Paizo for that reason. However until the game comes out you can't say they lied.

We don't know their reasons behind their choices on what goes in the playtest. We can only work with the mechanics they give us and see if they work or not.

Perhaps the ranger will be able to chose a lore, weapon, and fighting style in the actual game... But they want to see how the mechanics of two fighting styles work specifically because archery and twf have always been wacky under wotc.

But anyways did anyone notice that the monster Succubus (I think) still has the parry ability but the fighter did not?

Something I felt was odd was the Warrior's critical progression. I like that the warrior getting higher crits ranges but I don't think they would happen all that often to be worth the class feature slots.

I do like that weapons don't determine your luckiness for crits. Haha.

I absolutely love the gladiator's "roll specialty and compare it to a stat modifier to do something cool... Or add it to damage"... It gives options to the fighter determined on who the fighter is attacking without making it to overpowered.

[Stray]

One of the minor changes in this packet is weight of weapons: greatsword weights now 7 pounds, and longsword weights 4 pounds. Everything is closer to real historical weights, if still on the heavy side. If longsword+shortsword combo wasn't too heavy for a ranger earlier, greatsword shouldn't be too heavy now.

[BayardSPSR]

No the point is about the mechanics of the game and the game itself. Not what choices are given in the playtest. You don't play test their ability to make a playtest you playtest the mechanics of what is presented in the playtest.

Just to be sure I'm not misinterpreting, you're saying that we should concern ourselves only with the mechanics that are included in the playtest, and not the options that are included in the playtest?

[Kurald Galain]

See also my earlier point about D&D Next being burdened by tons of baggage.

It's an intentional design feature that it's burdened by tons of baggage

[BayardSPSR]

It's an intentional design feature that it's burdened by tons of baggage

They refer to it as "uniting the editions", right?

[Perseus]

Just to be sure I'm not misinterpreting, you're saying that we should concern ourselves only with the mechanics that are included in the playtest, and not the options that are included in the playtest?

They options in the playtest are just mechanics they want to make sure we are happy with. Giving us 2 choices to pick from doesn't mean there aren't more choices, just that they gave up 2 to work out the mechanics of.

Saying "hey we want more choices" is fine. But saying "the Ranger sucks and wotc lied" is stupid because it is only a playtest packet and not the entire game.

[Morty]

It's an intentional design feature that it's burdened by tons of baggage

Which is what makes it so great, yes. They really did take all the wrong lessons from 4e.

[Angel Bob]

Casual player speaking here. Should be interesting to have a voice that's not purely concerned about higher-tier mechanics.

Anyway, so about this latest playtest. With the exception of the Fighter's and Barbarian's new tricks, and the removal of Specialties, I don't approve. The Paladin is the most grievous example. All that diversity and flavour from the last packet is entirely gone, which deeply saddens me. Clerics having domains over deities? I suppose this makes them a little more flexible, but I'm of mixed opinions about it thematically. Rangers losing the Giant Slayer option has me bummed, because I definitely wrote up a dwarf giantslayer who was pretty awesome. I haven't paid any heed to Druids, Monks, or Rogues in months, so I don't have anything to say about them.

In short, my point is that a casual (typically low-level) player such as me was fond of the previous playtest packet, but I'm not really liking this new one.

[Raineh Daze]

Casual player speaking here. Should be interesting to have a voice that's not purely concerned about higher-tier mechanics.

I really do think we spend more time here arguing about mechanics in general and whether the choices made even make sense than high-end stuff.

[1337 b4k4]

So 3 pages of arguing and I'm still not sure why you can't have a dual wielding ranger that hunts dragons. I mean seriously, if the worst part about the final rule set is that you have to house rule a class ability from one sub path to another, I think I could survive.

[Whiteagle]

And there's no good reason why it shouldn't be optimal. All you're doing is rationalizing a pointless design decision.

YES!
Because a SINGLE Favored Enemy Feature that allows you to add your Ability Modifier to your second Attack's Damage Roll with another Weapon if you choose a different Target makes two-handers COMPLETELY UNFEASIBLE!!!
TOTALLY SHOEHORNED CLASS GUYS!!!

...I mean, it's not like even a Dragon Slayer could get away with using a Great Sword, because HIS Favored Enemy Weapon Feature allow him to make a second shot with a BOW!

Because weapon selection doesn't define the class.

...Except that part where certain classes can only use certain weapons and armor.

I think it's more about them going back on their word. They said the Rangers= dual wielding and archery would be completely dropped. Then they said that the bonuses from favored enemy would be wide ranging abilities. Both of these are fantastic ideas to me.

So it's just weird to see them putting the weapon specializations back in.

Except it's not even specialization, just one feature that allows you to do a tiny bit more damage on one or the other...

Anyway, so about this latest playtest. With the exception of the Fighter's and Barbarian's new tricks, and the removal of Specialties, I don't approve. The Paladin is the most grievous example. All that diversity and flavour from the last packet is entirely gone, which deeply saddens me. Clerics having domains over deities? I suppose this makes them a little more flexible, but I'm of mixed opinions about it thematically. Rangers losing the Giant Slayer option has me bummed, because I definitely wrote up a dwarf giantslayer who was pretty awesome. I haven't paid any heed to Druids, Monks, or Rogues in months, so I don't have anything to say about them.

In short, my point is that a casual (typically low-level) player such as me was fond of the previous playtest packet, but I'm not really liking this new one.

Yeah, the change in specialties was a bit of a let down, but I think the change to Paladin Oaths was BECAUSE the other two felt forced.

I see the current Dragon Slayer Ranger Path as a combination of the previous Giant Killer and Dragon Slayer Paths, hence why I think it should be renamed "Colossi Slayer" and the Favored Enemy Lore Feature expanded to include Giants and such like the Hoard Breaker Path.

The Cleric Domain change isn't that bad, they name five Domains (Life, Light, War, Nature, and Knowledge) in comparison to the 8 given in the last packet, and considering three of those dealt with Arcane Spells they might just be trying to inch the Druid away from the Mage and Druid.

All in all though, I think this was a great packet for Martial Classes considering they finally started leveling a Paladin’s Mount up, broaden the usefulness of Rangers, and gave the Fighter and Barbarian each something to call their own.

So 3 pages of arguing and I'm still not sure why you can't have a dual wielding ranger that hunts dragons. I mean seriously, if the worst part about the final rule set is that you have to house rule a class ability from one sub path to another, I think I could survive.

Honestly there isn't anything preventing a Dragon Slayer Ranger from Melee, he just has the ONE feature that allows him an extra Ranged Attack without adding his Ability Modifier to Damage if the target is below Large Size.

[Morty]

So 3 pages of arguing and I'm still not sure why you can't have a dual wielding ranger that hunts dragons. I mean seriously, if the worst part about the final rule set is that you have to house rule a class ability from one sub path to another, I think I could survive.

Well, it all started when I expressed my amusement about how WotC apparently can't resist sneaking the archery/TWF division into the ranger class even after they said they wouldn't do it. Then people started insisting it makes perfect sense.

It's not like I'm terribly impressed with the rest of the playtest, mind you. It all seems to be very much 'one step forward, two steps back'. The combat style thing just happened to catch my eye.

[DeltaEmil]

D&D and realism... How cute...

[SiuiS]

To be fair, the Ranger's whole shtick is "I'm the guy specialising in everything OUTSIDE!"

The ranger's whole shtick for the lay thirteen years has been being a mediocre fighter with an outdoor focus and some Druid slapped on. That's 13 years. That all.

25% of the ranger's lifetime has been merely the Outdoor Melee Guy (as opposed to fighters and paladins and barbarians –the ORIGINAL outdoor melee guys!– who all politely step into buildings to do their combat, I suppose?) still leaves 75% of the time where the ranger was actually a class instead of a fighter flavor.

The ranger's Shtick is being the first and hopefully last line of defense against the mundane enemies of the civilized races. Paladins deal with demons and evils. Rangers dealt with giants and trolls and goblin hordes. They were rovers with divinely granted merit, able to wield sword and spell (both arcane and divine, at one point) and lead men by example.

That makes a lot more sense for a hero that some dipstick warrior who went camping and gained magical powers when he decided not to come back from camping... Especially since this should be the Barbarian's thing.

Then what the frack is your "outdoorsman" doing with a Greatsword?

I'm sorry, does this not look ranger-y enough for you?



I'll have to tell the outdoorsman who wears a blanket/cloak and prides himself on his wilderness prowess and cunning he can't be a ranger because he chose the wrong weapon proficiency.

Or wait, no, he must be a barbarian right? Because they don't have coordinated civilized structure or academia?

Spoiler

Show

Hell, I'd accept an argument for a Halbert Ranger, because a Halbert is useful for more then just rolling a d12 for damage!

What's a halbert?

Could a ranger use a lochaber axe?

Ha!

Also in a game I like having realistic concepts in regard to the world in which the game is played. There is a word for this but at the moment it is escaping me.

Verisimilitude. Although realism makes sense as well, no matter how pedantic some folks get.

The Practical Man (Ranger) shouldn't really cover every weapon since that is the Fighter's deal. Should there be more options? Yes but this is a playtest soooo... I'll make due with what they are asking to be tested and wait for the game to come out, using a wait and see method may be a bit old school but hey it isn't like I've ever been hip or cool.[/quote]

What's this practical man bull crap? You know what's practical? Using tools fashioned for use with your human hands. Rangers don't eschew civilization because of some bass-ackwards notion about the better way of living, they do it because it's their job. They go out to far flung places so other people don't have to and because other people can't do it.

But then we should re-institute alignment restrictions, behavioral conditions and minimum attributes, so they really are the cream of the crop.

Any weapon that weighs 10 lbs (in real life, I haven't check the next chart on it yet) is super impractical for a outdoors character...

Any weapon that weighs ten pounds is gonna get you hurt.

Great swords are huge compared to normal weapons. Coming in at about 60 to 70 inches long should give disadvantage on stealth checks. Heck that sword is 5 ft 10 inches... The average height for a white guy here in north america!

A 5'8" man in reasonable condition can one-hand an eight foot spear and defend himself admirably with a shield over two feet in diameter. Eight feet is about the upper limit for a universal spear; a man who trains for strength and joint support (i.e. a fighting man) could probably get up to ten or eleven feet but that I admittedly niche even for spear fighters.

First off, a zweihander, the largest sword, is about 4 to 7 lbs. It's not that heavy. Actually wielding two weapons (normal 1 handed weapons tend to be 2-4 lbs) can be just as heavy if not heavier. Secondly, the claymore, another large sword was regularly used by the highland Scots regardless of if they were scouts or front-line soldiers. Thirdly, a real longsword is a two-handed weapon. I honestly don't know why D&D made it a one-handed weapon. Should have called the one-handed sword an arming sword or something. Anyway, Aragorn's longsword, the weapon of the most famous fictional ranger of them all, was a pure two-handed weapon.

The D&D long sword is based on Viking swords, what is often called a broad sword. But historical weapon names are just as arbitrary; sure the Germans called their sword a long sword, but so did the Japanese. We don't think log sword when we hear katana, do we?

It's worth laughing at, but not really making a Thing of.

And the Mage right now is Pigeonheld err Pigeonholded err what would be the right tense for that... Anyways right now the Mage is being forced to pick Illusion, Enchatnment, Evocation... And right now int he process of things there is nothing wrong with having limited choices.

This is irrelevant, because a Mage isn't told he can only use daggers if he picks evocation and can only use staves if he's an illusionist unless he wants to Burn a feat because its just a play test.

They options in the playtest are just mechanics they want to make sure we are happy with. Giving us 2 choices to pick from doesn't mean there aren't more choices, just that they gave up 2 to work out the mechanics of.

Saying "hey we want more choices" is fine. But saying "the Ranger sucks and wotc lied" is stupid because it is only a playtest packet and not the entire game.

That's almost true. But it's showing that they are including something which they said would not be included. Your point woul work if the packets lacked something they promised, but not the other way around.

Casual player speaking here. Should be interesting to have a voice that's not purely concerned about higher-tier mechanics.

In short, my point is that a casual (typically low-level) player such as me was fond of the previous playtest packet, but I'm not really liking this new one.

That's been going around, I hear.

So 3 pages of arguing and I'm still not sure why you can't have a dual wielding ranger that hunts dragons. I mean seriously, if the worst part about the final rule set is that you have to house rule a class ability from one sub path to another, I think I could survive.

"Being able to house rule a system doesn't mean the system isn't broken still" is the usual chestnut.