Spell-less Ranger confirmed by Mearls

[Darkwolf71]

Here's an excerpt from a debate we had on this very topic a few years back: <snip>

Why do people think that shoehorning Tolkien into the confines of a rule-set that didn't even exist at the time is somehow a valid argument?

Square peg, round hole. You may get it to fit, but that certainly doesn't mean it belongs there.

 

[delericho]

Why do people think that shoehorning Tolkien into the confines of a rule-set that didn't even exist at the time is somehow a valid argument?

Because huge numbers of people went to see the hugely popular trilogy of films that were released in recent years. They enjoyed them, and came away with a renewed interest in fantasy. If the game wants to take advantage of that (and, really, it should), then it would be useful if the rules were such that it at least kinda-sorta fits.

Additionally, amongst the original inspirations of the ranger class was Aragorn, and although the game has morphed considerably since then (such that the iconic D&D ranger is now Drizzt), it's no bad thing to keep in mind the original inspirations when designing for a new edition.

Square peg, round hole. You may get it to fit, but that certainly doesn't mean it belongs there.

You've obviously not been watching the various 4e geometry threads...

 

[hong]

Arguing that rangers get to cast spells because of Aragorn is like arguing that rogues don't get to wear shoes because of Frodo.

 

[FireLance]

You've obviously not been watching the various 4e geometry threads...

Best reason yet!

1-2-1-2: Because square pegs shouldn't fit round holes.

 

[Darkwolf71]

Because huge numbers of people went to see the hugely popular trilogy of films that were released in recent years. They enjoyed them, and came away with a renewed interest in fantasy. If the game wants to take advantage of that (and, really, it should), then it would be useful if the rules were such that it at least kinda-sorta fits.

Additionally, amongst the original inspirations of the ranger class was Aragorn, and although the game has morphed considerably since then (such that the iconic D&D ranger is now Drizzt), it's no bad thing to keep in mind the original inspirations when designing for a new edition.

My point was, as has been stated, the listed 'spells' are actually far easier to explain as skill checks or natural abiliteis than as spells.

 

[delericho]

My point was, as has been stated, the listed 'spells' are actually far easier to explain as skill checks or natural abiliteis than as spells.

Ah, I must have missed that. I agree.

 

[WayneLigon]

The classless thing is pure noodling/theorizing/game tinkering on my part. It isn't something that the core game comes out and tells you how to do.

I would hope that such a means is nailed down and presented in the first first supplement we get, or in a web enhancement.

 

[Cadfan]

I've always felt that the reason ranger spellcasting feels so tacked-on is because 3e magic is very flavorless.

If this weren't the case, it might have made sense. The ranger has a strong survivalist bent to him. It makes sense in a high magic world that a person who goes out into the wilderness and survives on his own would know some amount of magical lore. He'd know some basic charms to heal injuries, or relieve toxins, or alert him to danger, or preserve food, or assist in hunting. Stuff like that.

But since magic in 3e doesn't feel like something you can do by learning natural lore, this doesn't work.

Imagine if the ranger cast spells spontaneously, and with a lengthy list of natural components, like ground up plant roots or burned leaves or animal bone. His spellcasting would feel a lot more appropriate.

 

[Traycor]

I love Rangers with no spellcasting. Love it, love it, love it!

Poor Drizzt. Is there any aspect of his character that hasn't been changed?

Ranger spellcasting? Gone.

Drizzt never had any ranger spells...

 

[Dwelian]

And another knife has been thrust into my childhood memories. I weep for all that has been lost.