D&D (2024) What type of ranger would your prefer for 2024?

[Incenjucar]

When did actions become spells?

Am I casting Post to Forum?

 

[Minigiant]

And yet the solution was to scrap it instead of verifying if not having limits actually negatively affected the game in any way. (It doesn't)

To be fair they tried 2 times in 5e before giving up.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So. The no-magic Ranger is ... mechanically ... a spell caster who focuses on the material component, rather than the verbal and somatic ones?

More like the cunnning folk; the historical people who were skilled in medicine and rudimentary chemistry that eventually gave rise to the folkloric concept of witchcraft.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I appreciate your idea, but I will not be privy to letting the spell prep 'homework for playing' mechanic spread beyond the gangrenous limb that is the wizard.

it was less spell prep and more 'create X number of any combination of potions, +1 arrows and poison vial over the course of a long rest, you now have these'

 

[WanderingMystic]

So. The no-magic Ranger is ... mechanically ... a spell caster who focuses on the material component, rather than the verbal and somatic ones?

That is how I end up refluffing my rangers for the games I am in. To me if you are a ranger then you need something a bit more than just what a fighter or a rogue can give you. If they gave them discipline points and unique manuvers, special equipment that could be used a few times per day or even a short rest recovery then they would still have the power and abilities that spells grant them without them being tied to concept of casting a spell. Some people are hating on the idea of divine smite being a spell for the exact same reason because it changed the narrative in your mind.

But yeah I loved the concept they were working with back when they tried the ua of a spell-less ranger. Give my ranger herbal potions, give them unique poisons, (also this is how they work in shadow darkness it is so much fun)

 

[Vaalingrade]

it was less spell prep and more 'create X number of any combination of potions, +1 arrows and poison vial over the course of a long rest, you now have these'

My issue is with the mechanic itself where you have to prep a list each day and anticipate the DM. In that it is pretty identical to wizard spell prep and I personally have a dislike for how it rolls.

This is more like what I'm thinking of; something I've previously created only geared toward woodcraft. Specifcaally, the Achemist's Tool Chest' ability: Chemical Soldier.

 

[Shardstone]

If god is weak to being hit with a big honking piece of steel and the only non-Earth human thing the fighter is doing is being strong enough to lift and swing that big, honking bit of steel, what '=chronically online derogatory term= skill' is going on here? If it's dependent on whether or not it's something someone from Earth can do, what if the person doing the swinging is a Klingon? Is Star Trek magic? Is everything involving spec-Fic magic? What about urban fantasy stuff that does take place on Earth? Is bigfoot magic? What about 'magic' that's earthbound?

Again, there is a difference, even if decades of murdering media literacy has trained us to believe otherwise.

Magical is not fantastical, is not supernatural, is not preternatural. Like not every rectangle is not a square, but they are all polygons and all polygons are shapes without being polygons. This is like when people on Twitter say humans aren't mammals.

Alright, let's have some fun.

Media literacy.

In Lord of the Rings, Galadriel tells Samwise that what's magical isn't really magical, it's just a skill and knowledge gap, and sometimes a bloodline gap, between doing superhuman naughty word or being a nobody.

In Elric, drugs give you supernatural fighting power, or attunement to cursed items, or pacts with elemental things.

In Conan, literally being on the cusp of backwards evolution, living a wild life, and being a hedonist empowers you to be strong enough to slay demons, survive hundreds of sword wounds (see the story with the dreaming city), kill uncuttable people, and so on.

In Game of Thrones, the people that are "superhuman" either have ancient lineage that crosses over to other species of being OR study a bunch of weird stuff (see Asshai, the Red God too) and use their "knowledge skill" to make impossible things happen. See Melisandre's PoV chapter in Dance of Dragons too where it turns out most of her """"magic""" is literally just smoke and mirrors....literal smoke and mirrors.

Now let's turn to your examples.

Star Trek? Magic. Do I need to drop the quote about sophisticated technology = magic? Speculative fiction? Yeah man, that's literally all magic, they just don't call it that.

Wait, what? They don't call it that? Because the problem is aesthetics, not underlying principle.

Magic is anything that isn't possible. Up until D&D decided to arbitrarily redefine magic into being just "spells" and everything else is just """""fantastical""""" but in reality, is just magic. Because magic just means an impossible thing suddenly being possible, with a number of conditions to how possible and how exploitable said thing is.

You're trying to argue with me what we call "Impossible Things" and taking an intellectual superior tone while complaining that I used the word weaboo. This entire exchange is like a bad joke.

"Hey man, don't you dare call the fact that my barbarian can get so mad that he becomes immune to weapons 'magical.' It's clearly just normal, mundane stuff!"

You missed my entire point just to argue semantics too. The point being, D&D is a game whose FANTASTICAL ELEMENTS are watered down narratively to be able to fit a vast range of aesthetics. The only reason Magic isn't called magic in Star Trek is for aesthetics — and I do admit that aesthetic concerns are important enough to call magical concepts different words in different worlds. However, it isn't a lack of media literacy (like, am I supposed to bust out my English Master's degree or something? weird to assume its just media illiteracy, man) that leads me to making this argument. I make this argument because you people get so wound up over semantics that you refuse to actually create a tangible solution to the problem OR to progress the conversation at all.

Like, seriously? You expect me to sit here and argue even more about what we call our FANTASTICAL ELEMENTS? How much of the thesaurus do I have to consult before I'm allowed to talk about made up naughty word?

 

[Emberashh]

It is interesting to acknowledge that the fiction matters and yet at the same time reject its importance as mere "semantics".

1984 called that doublespeak.

 

[Incenjucar]

"Magic" being used as a dysphemism is not constructive.

 

[Shardstone]

It is interesting to acknowledge that the fiction matters and yet at the same time reject its importance as mere "semantics".

1984 called that doublespeak.

When you ignore my point and boil it down to something I'm not saying, then yeah, I guess it is doublespeak.

What you call magic is important specifically in your world or setting. How you dress it up, what symbols you use, what elements you bring in — all very important.

But when we're talking about mechanical game effects for something meant to fit a varierty of aesthetics, we should speak clearly.

Cmon man. Are you a troll?