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

[CleverNickName]

Sorry, this is a non-starter too.

Absolutely, and that's why I'm leaving the thread. Happy gaming, y'all.

 

[Yaarel]

i shouldn't be unable to use my trained skill to fire lots of arrows because of a counterspell or antimagic zone

Psionics already tried to go this route, and failed.

Maybe antimagic itself is the problem?

 

[Incenjucar]

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?

Within the bounds of a setting, what is and is not magic is defined by that setting. Batman surviving being punched through a wall is not magic, even though it is impossible in the real world. Fiction has internal logic that can be ignored when speaking about it abstractly but which results in communication failure within context. You don't refer to psionics as magic in 2E for the same reason, even though magic spells and psionic powers, and for that matter 20' tall humanoids, are "magic" concepts.

That quote is not relevant to this conversation and you seem to be having a Princess Bride moment with it. The association between magic and technology is that anything that people do not grasp gets lumped in with magic.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Christ the numbers are a lot closer than I expected. That's close to 50/50. As someone who wants a spell-less Ranger, I expected it to be more like 30/70 or more in favour of spellcasting.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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?

This had to be on purpose. I can't see how it could not be.

 

[Reef]

Christ the numbers are a lot closer than I expected. That's close to 50/50. As someone who wants a spell-less Ranger, I expected it to be more like 30/70 or more in favour of spellcasting.

I have to admit, I'm quite surprised as well. Although maybe it's a function of those wanting change to be more likely to interact with the poll. It's interesting, nonetheless.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

Words have meanings.

Not everything that is fantastical is magical in the same way not all rectangles are squares. You're essentially getting mad at people for disagreeing after you come in saying 'Pi is exactly 3'.

Magical elements belong to a larger group of fantastical elements. Fireball: Magic and Fantastical. Griffin: Just Fantastical.

 

[Minigiant]

i shouldn't be unable to use my trained skill to fire lots of arrows because of a counterspell or antimagic zone

The issue is always the drawbacks.

It's like the Spell-less ranger WOTC did design. If your bear is not a fey spirit in the shape of a bear conjured magically for the Feywild, then your beast is in its natural terrain wherever the heck it is.
That's assuming there are even animals in the correct CR in the area.
But that's no fun. So let's be fantastical and say no matter what an animal of the correct CR can hear the call ad the ranger know every call of every animal.
It's still has to run to you. Through the wild. Past its enemies. Past the tribals. Past the dungeon traps. For who knows know long.
And when it gets to you. its friendly too?

But fans want it fast and with no terrain limits and no fail chances or mishaps.

Well that Conjure Animals. The spell. But free, uncounterable, and no concentration.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I want my rangers to be old school:

Talking racoons who run summer camps.

 

[Emberashh]

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

And when you start using the same mechanics to do everything, even if you call it something different, none of the choices actually feel different. That was a big criticism of 4e with its hyper symmetrical design.

The problem you're dismissing is that both the fiction and the mechanics are not being satisfied by taking the mechanics for spellcasting and calling it something else just because you don't want to think about it and want all of us that want something more than that to shut up.

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?

It is curious to be so vehemently against someone making an assertion and yet also make one just as all encompassing and assumptive, as though you're not doing the exact thing, except sans any supporting arguments or even evidence.

Ive elaborated on my ideas and why I think them, and what I believe the effects are and what I have observed the effects to be.

Ive come to this table with more than just an assertion that people "like" what they already have.

Anectdotally, I can honestly say Ive never met someone online or in real life that thinks 5e's Skill system is desirable over literally anything with more heft to it.