Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
It’s actually a small number of people with a lot of problems.
I may have a new .sig
It’s actually a small number of people with a lot of problems.
It's because of a self fulfilling issue.I like this breakdown and find it interesting the counterpoint to it.
1. Hard to say what 1D&D will do, but in 5e, there are at least a few ranger-only spells. The amount of design work to produce those is effectively identical to producing non-magical options.
2. This is one of those things that is probably true but doesn't have to be. Scaling is pure mechanics, the same is true of...
3. Nonmagical features don't need to have noncompetitive mechanics.
For myself, I'm ok with a Ranger that can cast. It's just strange to me that there is this near total unwillingness to explore any non-garbage power budget options outside of spellcasting.
This is true and to break out of it would require adventure design where there are specific guidance on exploration stuff.It's because of a self fulfilling issue.
Many groups are PURE COMBAT or barely do exploration. Especially post level 5 exploration.
So few know how to run it except for the groups who do.
So when people ask all you get is "I wanna craft potions and hide in grass".
Except that we're only orthogonally discussing exploration. There could be more nonmagical Combat solutions too, and the counterpoints would all still apply.It's because of a self fulfilling issue.
Many groups are PURE COMBAT or barely do exploration. Especially post level 5 exploration.
So few know how to run it except for the groups who do.
So when people ask all you get is "I wanna craft potions and hide in grass".
The exploration pillar plus healing IS why rangers have magic.Except that we're only orthogonally discussing exploration. There could be more nonmagical Combat solutions too, and the counterpoints would all still apply.
It'd be nice if more was done with exploration, but it's not like that's the only way to figure out a nonmagical Ranger.
Is this a 1D&D opinion? A thematic opinion? Something else?The exploration pillar plus healing IS why rangers have magic.
Perhaps that's the issue, then? Not that Rangers have magic, but that their magic lacks identity?Is this a 1D&D opinion? A thematic opinion? Something else?
Because it is not an opinion well supported by the existing 5e Ranger spell list which includes a bunch of summons, aoe damage, damage mitigation spells, and the (now) definitive ranger spell hunter's mark a (mostly) damage rider spell.
The ranger had spells to get healing, scrying, speaking to animals, speaking to plants, communing with nature, curing poisons, ESP, etc to copy Aragorn and the Rangers of LOTR.Is this a 1D&D opinion? A thematic opinion? Something else?
Because it is not an opinion well supported by the existing 5e Ranger spell list which includes a bunch of summons, aoe damage, damage mitigation spells, and the (now) definitive ranger spell hunter's mark a (mostly) damage rider spell.
Perhaps that's the issue, then? Not that Rangers have magic, but that their magic lacks identity?
The 3 biggest hindrances with a nonmagical Ranger are
- those who want it can't agree on what it gets
- it will likely scale bad
- It won't be as good as the half caster