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

[Whiteagle]

...because I want to play an outdoorsman and a tracker?

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

Spear I could see, perhaps as a specialty of the Huntsmen Path, but a HUGE Sword?

[Perseus]

Other people have already explained why that's nonsense. And the point is that despite WotC's claims to the contrary, Rangers are once again pigeon-holed into those two fighting styles, for no good reason.



Right. See also: wasting class features. If I choose to be a Ranger who fights with a greatsword or a spear, a part of my class abilities is useless to me.

The whole discussion and your frantic justifications for WotC's inability to let go of a legacy mechanic that never had any point in the first place reinforces my belief that DDN is doomed to failure not just because of the designers' lack of skill, but because it's got too much baggage and legacy. Years and years of bad design choices that people have taken for granted and are unwilling to let go of in favour of something better. The same goes for people who would rather have a fighter class that's a wonderful cure for insomnia than have it stray too much from the 'I hit it again' model.

So people are crying because wotc is giving rangers limited options in a playtest. Both tracks are good options. Both tracks give you a specialization in something BUT doesn't cause you to completely suck when outside of that specialization...

And this is bad?

Well game over man game over! This final product doesn't give unlimited options! /blue

I'm starting to think all the crying over the ranger is just so people have something to cry about.

Maybe, just maybe for the playtest they wanted a class that used archery or two weapon fighting to further test those two systems. These two fighting styles have always had their problems. They focused on sword and board for a while and now they moved on. Perhaps in the next playtest they will have options for a class to cover reach weapons (not sure why they would since those rules tend to be simple).

Back when archery had no support in the playtest and when twf suuuucked, I heard nothing bit complaints. So the first two specializations to come for a ranger keeps with their (wotc's) iconic image of a ranger... Was people complaining when a mage was pigeonholed into having only the school specialization of illusion enchantment or evocation in the playtest?

Instead of worrying about options or fluff (maybe a little on fluff) we should be looking at the mechanics of what is in the play test and from what I've seen... The Ranger is pretty mechanically sound even my group has reservations about two weapon fighting. During the survey make sure you say "we want more ranger weapon options". But complaining about options in a playtest is not going to get people anywhere since the playtest is a small sampling of the game.

Actually didn't the last packet have a spear ranger option? I feel as if it did but I might be remembering a home brewed option for a player'S ranger.

[Morty]

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

Spear I could see, perhaps as a specialty of the Huntsmen Path, but a HUGE Sword?

I see you're a fan of needlessly narrowing down what's allowed for a given class... for no good reason. Why can't a wilderness survivor and tracker use a big sword? And if a ranger using a two-handed blade really offends your sensibilities so much, what about a longsword, Aragorn-style? Or an axe, which is very much in theme with a forest-dweller? Welp, looks like I'm wasting a class feature again.

So people are crying because wotc is giving rangers limited options in a playtest. Both tracks are good options. Both tracks give you a specialization in something BUT doesn't cause you to completely suck when outside of that specialization...

And this is bad?

Well game over man game over! This final product doesn't give unlimited options! /blue

I'm starting to think all the crying over the ranger is just so people have something to cry about.

Maybe, just maybe for the playtest they wanted a class that used archery or two weapon fighting to further test those two systems. These two fighting styles have always had their problems. They focused on sword and board for a while and now they moved on. Perhaps in the next playtest they will have options for a class to cover reach weapons (not sure why they would since those rules tend to be simple).

Back when archery had no support in the playtest and when twf suuuucked, I heard nothing bit complaints. So the first two specializations to come for a ranger keeps with their (wotc's) iconic image of a ranger... Was people complaining when a mage was pigeonholed into having only the school specialization of illusion enchantment or evocation in the playtest?

Instead of worrying about options or fluff (maybe a little on fluff) we should be looking at the mechanics of what is in the play test and from what I've seen... The Ranger is pretty mechanically sound even my group has reservations about two weapon fighting. During the survey make sure you say "we want more ranger weapon options". But complaining about options in a playtest is not going to get people anywhere since the playtest is a small sampling of the game.

Actually didn't the last packet have a spear ranger option? I feel as if it did but I might be remembering a home brewed option for a player'S ranger.

You're shifting the goalposts. Again, there's no good reason whatsoever for rangers to have to pick between archery and two-weapon fighting. They admitted as much, and dropped it. But now it's back. Why?

[lesser_minion]

To quote myself:

You're still over-specialising.

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

Actually, their twin shticks are tracking and survival, regardless of the environment. 3e even explicitly noted that there are rangers who spend most of their time underground.

[Whiteagle]

I see you're a fan of needlessly narrowing down what's allowed for a given class... for no good reason. Why can't a wilderness survivor and tracker use a big sword?

Umm... Because it's a huge blade that's only useful for fighting and otherwise unwieldly to carry?

And if a ranger using a two-handed blade really offends your sensibilities so much, what about a longsword, Aragorn-style? Or an axe, which is very much in theme with a forest-dweller? Welp, looks like I'm wasting a class feature again.

I'd allow a Long-Sword, only because of Aragorn and Robin Hood grandfathering it in...
A Great Ax has the same issues as a Great Sword, but why not take the Duel Wielding feat and combo a one-handed Battle Ax with a Handax?
+1 to AC, and you can throw the smaller ax for a Ranged Attack!

You're still over-specialising.

How is this over-specializing?
You do realise how many Large+ Size creatures their are, right?

[Turalisj]

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

Spear I could see, perhaps as a specialty of the Huntsmen Path, but a HUGE Sword?

Needlessly limiting a character's options is bad. If I want to have a ranger who uses Wind-Fire Wheels (google them) to fight, why shouldn't I be able to? Why should I be shoehorned into using a longsword and shortsword? Is there ANY reason, besides tying fluff into mechanics, which half the time is a bad idea?

I'd allow a Long-Sword, only because of Aragorn and Robin Hood grandfathering it in...
A Great Ax has the same issues as a Great Sword, but why not take the Duel Wielding feat and combo a one-handed Battle Ax with a Handax?
+1 to AC, and you can throw the smaller ax for a Ranged Attack!

Pretend Lord of the Rings was never written. Pretend Robin Hood was never written. What weapons would you give a ranger?

[Morty]

Umm... Because it's a huge blade that's only useful for fighting and otherwise unwieldly to carry?

It would be a little more relevant in a realistic game, which D&D isn't.

I'd allow a Long-Sword, only because of Aragorn and Robin Hood grandfathering it in...

Too bad WotC hasn't allowed Rangers to be Aragorn ever since 3.0 hit the shelves.

A Great Ax has the same issues as a Great Sword, but why not take the Duel Wielding feat and combo a one-handed Battle Ax with a Handax?
+1 to AC, and you can throw the smaller ax for a Ranged Attack!

Because I don't want to dual-wield as a melee-fighting ranger. And I'm still waiting for a good reason why it shouldn't be allowed.

[Whiteagle]

Pretend Lord of the Rings was never written. Pretend Robin Hood was never written. What weapons would you give a ranger?

Dual Hand Axes, versatile tools AND weapons, perfect for your survivor on the go!

[Turalisj]

Dual Hand Axes, versatile tools AND weapons, perfect for your survivor on the go!

So, a single pair of weapons. That's it. Out of ALL the weapons, only a single specific pair.

I can see this line of argument going nowhere.

[Perseus]

I see you're a fan of needlessly narrowing down what's allowed for a given class... for no good reason. Why can't a wilderness survivor and tracker use a big sword? And if a ranger using a two-handed blade really offends your sensibilities so much, what about a longsword, Aragorn-style? Or an axe, which is very much in theme with a forest-dweller? Welp, looks like I'm wasting a class feature again.



You're shifting the goalposts. Again, there's no good reason whatsoever for rangers to have to pick between archery and two-weapon fighting. They admitted as much, and dropped it. But now it's back. Why?

Are you mad that during this playtest WoTC has pigeonholed the Wizard into being a Enchanter, Illusionist, or Evoker?

Key word there would be playtest.

If you are mad about the Ranger than why not the Wizard or hell the Paladin gets ONE option we should really be mad about that...

Your argument isn't that the options mechanically suck or thematically suck. Your argument and complaint is that the Ranger has two options and that during this playtest WoTC hasn't given the ranger more options. Your complaint about this playtest ranger is the same complaint I heard about when 4e first came out "omg I don't have a bazillion options even if those options make no sense!". (Seriously a great sword ranger? What the hell?)

So I've had the pleasure to hear people complain about options as soon as an edition was released and now complain about options before the edition was released. I need to make a threat titled "D&D 6th Edition "Where are my options!" just so I can get a leg up on everyone else and complain about options before the edition is even mentioned by the company.

[Morty]

Are you mad that during this playtest WoTC has pigeonholed the Wizard into being a Enchanter, Illusionist, or Evoker?

Key word there would be playtest.

If you are mad about the Ranger than why not the Wizard or hell the Paladin gets ONE option we should really be mad about that...

The mage's specialities are not the same thing at all. They simply make some of the great selection of spells more effective.

And I'm not sure why you mention the paladin. As far as I can see, nothing prevents the paladin from using any combat style they want, including archery.

Your argument isn't that the options mechanically suck or thematically suck. Your argument and complaint is that the Ranger has two options and that during this playtest WoTC hasn't given the ranger more options. Your complaint about this playtest ranger is the same complaint I heard about when 4e first came out "omg I don't have a bazillion options even if those options make no sense!". (Seriously a great sword ranger? What the hell?)

Actually, my argument is precisely that the options given suck thematically, so you've actually made my point in your attempt to turn it into a strawman. Because there's no reason why those options should be there. The two favoured enemy options should give you abilities related to fighting big, scary enemies and hordes of weak enemies, respectively, and leave weapon styles out of it. Simple. The archery/two weapon fighting division is only there because it always has been, which is stupid.

[Whiteagle]

Because I don't want to dual-wield as a melee-fighting ranger. And I'm still waiting for a good reason why it shouldn't be allowed.

So you want to wield an awkward, impractically-sized weapon for the class that is ALL ABOUT practicality?

Because that's all I'm hearing, "Wah wah wah, I can't fight with a Great Sword even though I want to be a RANGER that fights like a Fighter or a Paladin!"

Are you mad that during this playtest WoTC has pigeonholed the Wizard into being a Enchanter, Illusionist, or Evoker?

Key word there would be playtest.

If you are mad about the Ranger than why not the Wizard or hell the Paladin gets ONE option we should really be mad about that...

Your argument isn't that the options mechanically suck or thematically suck. Your argument and complaint is that the Ranger has two options and that during this playtest WoTC hasn't given the ranger more options. Your complaint about this playtest ranger is the same complaint I heard about when 4e first came out "omg I don't have a bazillion options even if those options make no sense!". (Seriously a great sword ranger? What the hell?)

Indeed, as I said before Spears would be a great idea for a "Huntsman Path" and there's nothing saying that they're ONLY going to have these two Paths, but speciazation is kind of the point of having Classes in the FIRST PLACE!

So, a single pair of weapons. That's it. Out of ALL the weapons, only a single specific pair.

I can see this line of argument going nowhere.

Well yes, like I said they are practical and versatile tools in addition to weapons!
Plus they are presumably small enough to be easily stored considering they can be used as throwing weapons.

Like to see you do that with a Long Sword...

[lesser_minion]

How is this over-specializing?
You do realise how many Large+ Size creatures their are, right?

You do realise how many Medium- size creatures there are, right?

So you want to wield an awkward, impractically-sized weapon for the class that is ALL ABOUT practicality?

A two-handed sword is not clumsy or hard to use in a fight, and is not appreciably larger or harder to carry than a bow. So how is it awkward or impractically-sized? Or in any other way inappropriate?

[Whiteagle]

You do realise how many Medium- size creatures there are, right?

Yes, I wonder if they are less susceptible to "Death by Arrow to the Heart" then a Dragon...

[Morty]

So you want to wield an awkward, impractically-sized weapon for the class that is ALL ABOUT practicality?

Because that's all I'm hearing, "Wah wah wah, I can't fight with a Great Sword even though I want to be a RANGER that fights like a Fighter or a Paladin!"

Then it's obvious that you do not understand my argument at all and are instead turning it into an easily-rebuked strawman. If there was ever a point in arguing with you, it's now gone.

[Turalisj]

D&D 5th Edition XIII: It's Realistic!

[Morty]

I suppose that deciding to randomly apply realism to an otherwise thoroughly unrealistic game is a sort of D&D tradition.

[Whiteagle]

Then it's obvious that you do not understand my argument at all and are instead turning it into an easily-rebuked strawman. If there was ever a point in arguing with you, it's now gone.

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!

[Turalisj]

Arguing for it's inclusion in spite of any sort of mechanical balance is also a tradition.

I mean, why isn't the Paladin limited to only being effective while riding a horse and wielding a lance or using a longsword and kite shield on the ground, and only while wearing full plate armor? Why isn't the Mage limited to only being able to cast spells while having a book in hand and not required to have a long beard and wearing a pointed hat? The Cleric should be required to be celibate, because REALISM.

[Morty]

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!

You also have no idea how weapons work, otherwise you wouldn't be claiming that two-handed swords and axes are 'huge' or 'impractical'.

[Perseus]

Yes, I wonder if they are less susceptible to "Death by Arrow to the Heart" then a Dragon...

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.

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.

I would like to see the styles broken up into the following.

Lore: choose a type of monster lore. These will be general categories like "Colossian" "Dominative" "Horde" or whatever.

Ranged: Archery, Crossbow, Thrown Weaponry
Melee: Two weapon fighting, one handed weaponry, staff fighting, spear weaponry, and animal husbandry.

You get one choice of Lore and one choice of a ranged or melee style. Oh and a limited weapon selection, you aren't a fighter after all.

But is the play test packet bad the way it is now? No because I get style choices that doesn't stop me from playing a ranger.

[Whiteagle]

You also have no idea how weapons work, otherwise you wouldn't be claiming that two-handed swords and axes are 'huge' or 'impractical'.

Again, which kind of Swords and Axes are we talking here?
Because you used the "Great" prefix, which indicates two-handed heavy weapons that are TOO LARGE TO BE USED BY SMALL CREATURES!
Battle Axes and Long Swords I'm fine with, you need a Feat to make them full compatible with a Melee-Ranger's Dual-wielding centric Path, but nothing STOPPING you from using them...

It's just not super optimal is all!

[Perseus]

You also have no idea how weapons work, otherwise you wouldn't be claiming that two-handed swords and axes are 'huge' or 'impractical'.

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...

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!

[lesser_minion]

Yes, I wonder if they are less susceptible to "Death by Arrow to the Heart" then a Dragon...

That's irrelevant. The question is whether or not a character who specialises only in the bow is overspecialised, and it has already been shown that they are, because a major part of the game is adventuring in environments where a bow is nearly worthless.

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..

A sword that weighs 10 lbs would get its wielder killed (ogres and the like excepted, of course).

"Indeed, the majority of specimens, from arming swords to two-handers to rapiers, weigh much less than three pounds."

[Perseus]

That's irrelevant. The question is whether or not a character who specialises only in the bow is overspecialised, and it has already been shown that they are, because a major part of the game is adventuring in environments where a bow is nearly worthless.

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!

You realize that every class makes choices like this (except maybe druid) and that not every class is a contingency 3.5 mage...

[Morty]

It's just not super optimal is all!

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

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...

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!

Look here, if you please. About halfway down the page is a table with various two-hander lengths and weighs. See how only a few of the swords listed reach ten pounds? And those are the really big ones. There were plenty of swords that were wielded in two hands, but were smaller and lighter.

Now, to cut this over-long argument short - there's absolutely nothing stopping you from declaring that you consider two-handed swords and axes ill-fitting for a ranger. But there's absolutely no reason for that assumption of yours to be enshrined in the rules either. If a ranger can use any weapon they please, you can decide that you prefer them with lighter weapons and use them... and I can make a ranger who uses a two-handed weapon. Because weapon selection doesn't define the class.

[Raineh Daze]

Yet somehow attacking with two weapons is not impractical despite the far greater mental demands and the extra dexterity required?

Greatswords are not like this. This is impractical. Greatswords would be comparatively light and well-balanced. WotC just sucks with weights.

I haven't seen an argument yet for why the rangers' weapon abilities are tied so neatly to enemies (that doesn't really fit thematically) and are once again TWF or archery. Why TWF and archery? Why not longsword or spear?

Look here, if you please. About halfway down the page is a table with various two-hander lengths and weighs. See how only a few of the swords listed reach ten pounds? And those are the really big ones. There were plenty of swords that were wielded in two hands, but were smaller and lighter.

It looks like most of those are also ceremonial weapons, which makes them heavier than anything people would actually wield.

[mig el pig]

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...

Non-ceremonial 15th-16th century Great Swords had a weight between 5 and 7lbs. Practice versions or small ones (50") had a weight of around 3lbs.

The size is what makes it impractical but the same could be said of a longbow or the heavy hunting spear

[Perseus]

Yet somehow attacking with two weapons is not impractical despite the far greater mental demands and the extra dexterity required?

Greatswords are not like this. This is impractical. Greatswords would be comparatively light and well-balanced. WotC just sucks with weights.

I haven't seen an argument yet for why the rangers' weapon abilities are tied so neatly to enemies (that doesn't really fit thematically) and are once again TWF or archery. Why TWF and archery? Why not longsword or spear?



It looks like most of those are also ceremonial weapons, which makes them heavier than anything people would actually wield.

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?

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.

Archery versus Dragons make sense. Rangers AC should be less than a paladin or fighter so let them stay up front while you the ranger stays away from the dude/dudette that can crank out high melee damage. The Ranger should be able to make any Dex saving throw the Dragon dishes out from a breath weapon.

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).

[Perseus]

Non-ceremonial 15th-16th century Great Swords had a weight between 5 and 7lbs. Practice versions or small ones (50") had a weight of around 3lbs.

The size is what makes it impractical but the same could be said of a longbow or the heavy hunting spear

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.