The spell-less Ranger in 1e and 2e was great! (We almost never played at the levels where Rangers got their token number of low-level spells).
D&D (2024) What type of ranger would your prefer for 2024?
- Thread starter Horwath
- Start date
The spell-less Ranger in 1e and 2e was great! (We almost never played at the levels where Rangers got their token number of low-level spells).
Shardstone
Hero
Who is doing that? Dysphemism has negative context. I'm not using it as a negative context.
Tell me, what term should I use to describe something that is clearly impossible except when enabled by fantastical logic?
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
1: "Would you prefer a Ranger that uses magic, or one that doesn't?"
2: "I'd prefer to argue about the definition of magic."
1. "Ah." (checks wrist) "Woah, look at the time. Gotta run, have a nice day, etc."
2: "I'd prefer to argue about the definition of magic."
1. "Ah." (checks wrist) "Woah, look at the time. Gotta run, have a nice day, etc."
Incenjucar
Legend
Fantastical.
Reef
Hero
Oh, I acknowledge you’ve made that claim. You’ve been quite explicit about dismissing my concerns. That doesn’t mean I need to agree that this concerns are so easily dealt with.
Look, I’m glad you’re writing a game system that you think will work for you. And that you’ve got all the possible kinks worked out. But stating unequivocally that if 5e would just adopt your ideas, it would all work out fine is a bridge too far.
It works for you (and I assume your play-testers). Can you not accept that there are 5e players who do like the skill system the way it is? And that your system (no matter how well you thought it out) would be seen as a negative? Without assuming we aren’t reading your posts or understanding your ideas?
Shardstone
Hero
Sorry, this is a non-starter too.
When you design your Ranger that uses magic vs one that doesn't, you have to eventually make mechanical designs. If your mechanical designs are literally just spells with the serial numbers filed off, then we come to a problem of definition and what we're really doing.
What difference does it matter between Conjure Volley being MAGIC vs being an impossible display of skill? If there is a difference, then we need to discuss it, and that discussion will be rooted in what we both consider to be "magic." Thus, the definition actually matters.
Shardstone
Hero
Ok. I'm in on the joke now.
So, essentially, it's ok to call something Fantastical, but if you call something Magical, you're breaking a taboo and taking things too far. It's ok for something to be Fantastical, but if you dare say it seems magical, which, I mean, there's not much difference between Fantastically cutting down a Hydra and Magically cutting down a Hydra, you've crossed a line.
Is Star Trek also Fantastical? If not, what do we call supernatural things that happen there? And what does that mean for ye olde quote about sophisticated technologly = magic?
That would be great! As long as it’s in the PHB, I don’t care what you call it.
It needs to be a (nature) skill monkey, just a little less so than a rogue scout.
CreamCloud0
Hero
i shouldn't be unable to use my trained skill to fire lots of arrows because of a counterspell or antimagic zone
Shardstone
Hero
To talk more about being Fantastical.
So it's not ok for the Ranger to cast spells, because that's Magic, but if the Ranger is really Fantastical and can do supernatural things identical to magic, that's too far? I'm afraid I've lost the plot again.
So it's not ok for the Ranger to cast spells, because that's Magic, but if the Ranger is really Fantastical and can do supernatural things identical to magic, that's too far? I'm afraid I've lost the plot again.
This is the best argument so far. But what if there's a School of Magic called "Big Strongman Abilities" that's immune to antimagic and counterspell? Or maybe we'll call it "Fantastical."
