D&D (2024) Ranger 2024 is a bigger joke than Ranger 2014:

[Minigiant]

No.

This is something that's not actually true in D&D. You want it to be true, but it's not canon, it's not fact, it's not established.

It would be better if D&D would make its mind up here, but it hasn't.

No that's what D&D magic under WOTC is.

You are announcing in garbled True Speech.

You can't be stealthily and say verbal components without special training.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Ranger spells are meant to be audible.

You are supposed to cast them WELL before you engage.

Why are people waiting until they are right next to enemies.

eh, i would say spells in general are meant to be noticeable but if there is a caster that should lack that property i would agree it is the ranger, their themes are almost as much stealth as the rogue even if their toolset is different, now i do agree that some spells like PWT should be cast before getting into close range but others aren't inherently designed to be 'stealth' spells but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be used in a situation where stealth is required.

 

[DEFCON 1]

How do follow from my statement that I don't care about other's feelings?

If it's never been in the game before and few if anyone is clamoring for it to be added... that's a good indication that most people either don't care or don't want it. But if you think the rule should be written out and added to the game anyway, that means you don't care about what most other people want. But don't get me wrong... there's nothing wrong with that. We are all selfish in that way. We want what we want. But there's no reason to gaslights ourselves over it... we can admit that we selfishly want the rules the way we'd prefer them, even if it's a detriment to someone else.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If it's never been in the game before and few if anyone is clamoring for it to be added... that's a good indication that most people either don't care or don't want it. But if you think the rule should be written out and added to the game anyway, that means you don't care about what most other people want. But don't get me wrong... there's nothing wrong with that. We are all selfish in that way.

Wow. Ok. So asking for a clarification that at least some people want and probably no one hurts is selfish?

We want what we want. But there's no reason to gaslights ourselves over it...

Yes... I won't come here complaining if it is not added. Was just a suggestion because I think it helps more than it hurts players. But if you want to spew buzzwords, go for it.

we can admit that we selfishly want the rules the way we'd prefer them, even if it's a detriment to someone else.

Yes. I would prefer it that way. As I said, I won't complain if it is not clarified.

But please tell me who are all those people who would be negatively affected by that clarification.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

No that's what D&D magic under WOTC is.

You are announcing in garbled True Speech.

No, it isn't, and you can't point to any official 5E lore which supports this position - you already essentially admitted this earlier in the thread.

You can't be stealthily and say verbal components without special training.

Again, what "special training" in 5E is this?

 

[Minigiant]

No, it isn't, and you can't point to any official 5E lore which supports this position - you already essentially admitted this earlier in the thread.

WOtC attempts to bring back True namers in UA.

WOTC believes magic is garbled up True Speak. They just stink at making it cool enough to print.

Again, what "special training" in 5E is this?

Subtle Spell.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This is true but I think his point is that battlefields are pretty loud places, by and large, and you shouldn't necessarily automatically be able to hear/understand that a spell is being cast.

I think we could consider that the sound of casting is magically amplified, just as there are visual FX involving light. Otherwise everyone would make tiny casters with squeaky little voices so that they are hard to counterspell.

I like the way BG1 did it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

WOtC attempts to bring back True namers in UA.

Which was roundly rejected as being too setting specific for a generic fantasy RPG.

WOTC believes magic is garbled up True Speak. They just stink at making it cool enough to print.

It's not lack of coolness that leads players to reject it, it's too specific an interpretation of how magic functions. It's like the weave. It's okay to say that the magic in a specific setting involves the weave, but it's not okay to say all magic everywhere involves it. Plenty of players do not want someone else's metaphysics imposed on their homebrew settings.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why would anyone be shouting at the top of their lungs when casting a spell?

A ranger is sneaky, so maybe he whispers. If he wanted, he could speak in a normal voice. Or go all bardic and do a song. Personally, I'd lean towards a Kevin Conroy Batman voice, but more as a whisper.

It's just flavor. If it doesn't work as written for you and your group, simply reflavor it.

If no one can hear you when you cast a spell with a verbal component, why have it at all on the spell? If it's just flavor as you say, why have a feat or class feature that removes it? Why in fact does the book not state that it's flavor and has no game function?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I would prefer the glossary to contain advice that is actually useful.

That's not what glossaries are for.