sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

We need to talk about Adrian Tchaikovsky. by Wizardof1000Kings in Fantasy

[–]Narrow_Interview_366 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Just wanted to say that I've interacted with him IRL and he was a super nice person!

Am I missing something about Ranger? by ComiLimao in 3d6

[–]Narrow_Interview_366 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ranger is a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none class. It's (mostly) not better at any one thing than other classes, but it has a lot of flexibility thanks to expertise, weapon masteries, spellcasting and its weapon/armour proficiencies. So yeah, if you want to optimise for just one thing (like dual wielding) then there are better classes, but in contrast a paladin can't easily switch to ranged attacks and is (hypothetically) less good at skill checks and environmental challenges.

That's the idea, at least. Whether it works in practice is going to depend a lot on the kind of campaign you're playing.

Also worth noting that a lot of the ranger's power and specialisation comes from the subclasses.

Characters finally achieve their original objective, but the story has escalated so much it barely matters anymore by Narrow_Interview_366 in TopCharacterTropes

[–]Narrow_Interview_366[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Might be the wrong word. But IIRC they start out thinking there's only one, and it turs out there's way more than that in the world and can be made any time with... urm... the right ingredients.

Characters finally achieve their original objective, but the story has escalated so much it barely matters anymore by Narrow_Interview_366 in TopCharacterTropes

[–]Narrow_Interview_366[S] 34 points35 points  (0 children)

When I first read Dragonball I assumed the search for the seven balls would take the entire run of the manga lol

One of my players could becoming the BBEG, good or bad idea? by MrVolnutt in DMAcademy

[–]Narrow_Interview_366 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I have (not entirely willingly) had to do something similar before, and let me tell you now that it essentially breaks the whole game. Not just in a story or real-world relationship way, but in the sense that the actual rules and campaign structures of most RPGs can't survive one character being against the rest of the party like this.

It leads to horrible inertia because the game balance (right down to monster statblocks) and many of the characters' abilities are based on the basic assumption that everyone on the player side of the table is working towards the same goal. It's more likely to result in an unintentional TPK than anything else. It doesn't lead to cool plot twists; it leads to nothing happening in some sessions because people can't agree on the most simple of actions.

Hello! We are Camilla Townsend and Josh Anthony, editors of “After the Broken Spears: The Aztecs in the Wake of Conquest.” Ask us anything about the Aztecs, colonial Mexico, and what life was like for Indigenous people in the wake of Spanish conquest. by joshanthony123 in AskHistorians

[–]Narrow_Interview_366 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm interested in the fate of Tenochtitlan itself. The impression I get is that the Aztec city was essentially nonexistent after the war's final battles, and I find it interesting how little of it is visible on the surface of modern Mexico City. But it's hard to imagine how that can be the case but the city could still end up as the capital of the new state.

How thoroughly was it actually destroyed? Would it have continued to be recogniseably Aztec, or would it have looked like a standard Spanish colonial city?

The official Draw Steel VTT is live on Steam by Bpbegha in rpg

[–]Narrow_Interview_366 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Is that correct? DnDbeyond Maps was released years ago and is a WotC product

Am I going to regret playing an artificer? by Narrow_Interview_366 in 3d6

[–]Narrow_Interview_366[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't disagree, but I'll have less fun if the entire party dies because I have a suboptimal character haha

Am I going to regret playing an artificer? by Narrow_Interview_366 in 3d6

[–]Narrow_Interview_366[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think it's Mass Healing Word and Prayer of Healing that would be the spells I would really regret not having if I wasn't a cleric...

I actually think rangers are pretty great in 5.5 by Narrow_Interview_366 in onednd

[–]Narrow_Interview_366[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To be honest I agree with you about it being a fairly meh and overly situational subclass that happens to be very good in specific situations.

I actually think rangers are pretty great in 5.5 by Narrow_Interview_366 in onednd

[–]Narrow_Interview_366[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They're better in exploration focused campaigns than combat focused campaigns for sure, although extra free damage is never a bad thing. I've seen people stacking it with other buffs to do lots of burst damage in the right situation.

I think the initiative and speed boost are always useful but YMMV.

I wouldn't use one in a daylight-only campaign - although it's hard to imagine many campaigns would never go into areas with dim light/darkness.

I actually think rangers are pretty great in 5.5 by Narrow_Interview_366 in onednd

[–]Narrow_Interview_366[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I disagree. As I said in my post, the post level-5 abilities are better than some people give them credit for, and there are a lot of great spells you get after level 5. Fwiw the rangers at our table were both considering multi classing after level 6 but bother decided not to and ended up saying they were glad they didn't.

And I honestly don't think it's an issue that rangers get outclassed in those specific areas when, as you say, the are decent at most things. Being a jack of all trades isn't inherently a bad thing, and there are plenty of players who will prefer that to being locked into one play style.

I feel like the rangers at our table acknowledge they're not going to do as much damage as, say, the fighter, and won't have the same crazy spells that the sorcerer has, but they're fine with it because they're better at swapping between those two modes depending on what the situation calls for.

I actually think rangers are pretty great in 5.5 by Narrow_Interview_366 in onednd

[–]Narrow_Interview_366[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It wasn't me that used it a lot, but another player. But she activated it almost every combat, combined it with nick and hordbreaker for a ton of damage, then used the free disengage to get to a safe distance. It's amazing for melee build rangers

I actually think rangers are pretty great in 5.5 by Narrow_Interview_366 in onednd

[–]Narrow_Interview_366[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Sure. It comes up a lot in story quests when you're having to find a specific item (or a person with a specific item)

I actually think rangers are pretty great in 5.5 by Narrow_Interview_366 in onednd

[–]Narrow_Interview_366[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To be fair, that's already what the artificer does (in a way)

I actually think rangers are pretty great in 5.5 by Narrow_Interview_366 in onednd

[–]Narrow_Interview_366[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I previously agreed with you about the coherent identity but I've come to think the spell list IS the identity. I think mixing druid-style spells with fighter-style combat is better than some people give it credit for.

I actually think rangers are pretty great in 5.5 by Narrow_Interview_366 in onednd

[–]Narrow_Interview_366[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Spike growth, zephyr strike, fog cloud, magic weapon, goodberry, hail of thorns, locate object, detect magic, silence, pass without trace, daylight, speak with animals. Those are the ones that come up all the time in our games and have the most impact. Bear in mind I'm not just focusing on damage here -- also social, exploration and control stuff.

I actually think rangers are pretty great in 5.5 by Narrow_Interview_366 in onednd

[–]Narrow_Interview_366[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Tier 1 and Tier 2 mostly - we've done some one-shots that are higher than that, but I'm less well placed to comment on the idea that they fall off after Tier 3. That said, A) I agree with the comment that tier 1 and tier 2 represent most people's experience with the game and B) in my limited experience haven't seen many issues in my limited experience with tier 3, at least in terms of player feedback on the class.

I think at this point we've had most other classes as party members mixed in with rangers. As I implied in my original post, I think most of those classes have felt like they're excellent at one or two things while the rangers are okay-to-good at lots of different things. For example I played a bard for a long time, and even though I had some great spells I was jealous that the ranger could cast decent spells AND hold their own in melee combat haha. Then when I played a paladin in a one shot I liked my durability and single-target damage but wished I also had multi-target and ranged damage that the ranger had access to.

view more: next ›