D&D 5E The Annotated PHB

[Oofta]

yeah, some kinda skill fighter with greater complexity on offer would solve it.

More complexity without spells is why we have the battlemaster. More complexity with spells is why we have eldritch knight, paladins, rangers and a handful of other builds that are more spell focused.

More complexity isn't inherently good or bad but the extra overhead and difficulty balancing it with other options and multi-classing needs to be justified.

 

[Oofta]

Not to get too far afield, but LotR wasn't a "low magic" world. It was a "rare magic" world. Aragon wasn't just a skilled healer, his hands were literal magic. Sting wasn't a +1 dagger, it was a weapon of the First Age that could cow the last of Ungoliant's brood. D&D uses different language and SFX for these things, but it doesn't mean parallels can't be drawn.

Were his hands magic? I always interpreted it as 5E's equivalent of having proficiency with a healer's kit.

In any case we agree, LOTR magic wasn't D&D magic. It was different and it's comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Reynard]

Were his hands magic? I always interpreted it as 5E's equivalent of having proficiency with a healer's kit.

It's clear in RotK in the House of Healing that his ability was supernatural based on the fact he was the True King.

In any case we agree, LOTR magic wasn't D&D magic. It was different and it's comparing apples and oranges.

Sure. My only point was, well, pedantry.

 

[Mind of tempest]

More complexity without spells is why we have the battlemaster. More complexity with spells is why we have eldritch knight, paladins, rangers and a handful of other builds that are more spell focused.

More complexity isn't inherently good or bad but the extra overhead and difficulty balancing it with other options and multi-classing needs to be justified.

the complexity is half baked and most of it depends on magic not skill and abilities, plus Aragorn's hand thing is derived from the belief the king is magic.

 

[Faolyn]

That... uhhh.. proves my point.

Uh, no?

What people want class to look:
The 1e ranger doesn't have spells are level 7! Why does the 5e one get magic at level 2! BOOOO!

What people want class to play:
The 1e ranger gets spells at level 8 because players want rangers to be self sufficient trackers and thus need healing, divination, and nature magic to do so in a simple package.

I have literally never met anyone who thinks like this. You are really assuming that people want the ranger exactly as-is with no spells, and that's not the case at all.

You don't need magic to be self-sufficient trackers. What you need are decent skills and non-spell abilities. You don't need healing magic if you can make poultices and healing draughts. You don't need divination or nature magic if you can actually understand nature, animals, animals, plants, and monsters. If some of these abilities are magical in nature without being spells, in the way that some monk abilities or warlock invocations are magical in nature but aren't spells, that's fine. Because nobody is saying that they want a 100% nonmagical ranger; they want a ranger who doesn't cast spells.

What D&D needs is a much better built-in exploration system built in, because them rangers could be built to use that. That is what people want. Not something that has magic because of legacy purposes, when that magic was given as a shortcut to creating actual ranger-y abilities.

 

[Oofta]

It's clear in RotK in the House of Healing that his ability was supernatural based on the fact he was the True King.


Sure. My only point was, well, pedantry.

I assume that was in supporting documents? Not in The Hobbit or the trilogy?

Because I may be a nerd, but I'm not a super Tolkien nerd. Not saying you are but ... in any case magic in D&D is different than in the LOTR and most other books that aren't based on D&D in my experience.

Oh, and Gandalf was a charlatan who had a good publicist, a fast horse, a faster mouth and access to a fireworks dealer.

 

[billd91]

It's clear in RotK in the House of Healing that his ability was supernatural based on the fact he was the True King.

Or the fact that he was a healer marked him as being truly the right person to be the king. The LOTR text itself doesn’t indicate which one causes the other. In any event, Aragorn was a skilled healer because he learned to be one in Elrond’s house, and it’s a question of art not truth how to model that - with skill checks or spells. Either can work in RPGs.

 

[Faolyn]

Aragon wasn't just a skilled healer, his hands were literal magic.

Are we sure he wasn't a nature-oriented paladin?

 

[Minigiant]

Uh, no?

Uh yes.

I have literally never met anyone who thinks like this. You are really assuming that people want the ranger exactly as-is with no spells, and that's not the case at all.

Consider yourself lucky. People who what non-spell casting rangers but with all the abilities of rangers but not all complex the class features are exacctly why WOTC gave up on the spell-less ranger. They can't agree on how the healing ability works, the animl/plant talking workd , or anything else. They want the impossible an are vocal about it.

So if you add the "Spellcasting is a simple way to emulate the iconic abilities of fantasy rangers" in an annotation, those people will flip. Because they want the iconic ranger but without the spells but simple. It's irrational.

There are many who want as yousaid. But there is a noticeable vocal percentage who want the impossible

 

[Faolyn]

Consider yourself lucky. People who what non-spell casting rangers but with all the abilities of rangers but not all complex the class features are exacctly why WOTC gave up on the spell-less ranger. They can't agree on how the healing ability works, the animl/plant talking workd , or anything else. They want the impossible an are vocal about it.

I think I'm going to need to see some evidence for this because this is literally the opposite of everything I saw on reddit when the spellless ranger came out.