Search results

Well, typically in 5E, it's just Divine and Arcane. I like Primal as a third in that equation. Gives the relevant classes a bit more legitimacy, I think. Druid, Ranger and sometimes Barbarian. I'm sure some folks would rather Wild Magic Barbarian not be inextricably tied to Primal magic. Totem...

Perhaps, though even if they were correct (which I don't think they are because those reasons I said), surely they'd agree that it'd be better if the two were distinct? That's what I'm advocating for (in part). When you're pitching a class to a new player, you shouldn't have to explain them in...

Can depend I reckon! You can have a Ranger that prowls like a Wolf or savages like a Bear! I know those are just Barbarian totems but for the sake of example! I think you're probably right, though I dislike it. Doing things to get more tools, get more power, that's Warlocks and Wizards. I...

Just for the sake of clarity, I don't necessarily mean the literal magic. Like, the spell lists and what-not. I meant more in-context. Cleric and Paladin are both fuelled by belief, Clerics are empowered by a deity they have faith in, and Paladins are walking embodiments of ideology that turn...

I think those are generally good readings of the classes, though they don't much tie into their magic. Which is what I'm hoping and praying for some inspiration in. I've said it a handful of times I feel like, but; Everyone can say what the actual difference is between a Cleric's and Paladin's...

Yeah, that's closer to where I'd place the Ranger. They're a contradiction, kinda. They're both of their halves, civil and primal. Which is why I think the "protecting civilization" thing is just kinda not great. Feels symptomatic of WOTC also struggling to get a bead on the Ranger, and going...

I think that's getting warmer to something I can fully get behind. Like, I think you mentioned in one of the other topics that the main pop culture guy for Barbarians (besides Guts) is the Hulk. That kinda reminds me of that thing in The Immortal Hulk, where he's regularly discussed as something...

That's part of my thinking though, as I say I know it's what the D&D books say, but I'm not sure the "protecting civilization" thing is necessarily the whole thing for Ranger. Or at least it shouldn't be to me. I'd argue being a free spirit and all that sits closer to the heart of being a Ranger...

I personally really dislike this as a direction to lead Ranger. At least as a blanket standard for all Rangers to work from. I just don't think most people who give a damn about Rangers want to be opposed to or duplicitous towards nature. I feel most Ranger players would agree with that...

I think that's generally fair to say, though I'm maybe a little cynical about the Barbarian's defining. That, as you say, does sound more like a Sorcerer thing than anything else. I'm trying to pin down what lets them stand on their own, and it sucks to have to constantly say "like the druid" or...

I'd disagree that Rangers and Barbarians aren't fundamentally a part of nature. Most mundane things are. You don't have to live in the woods or talk to the trees to be a part of nature! I guess it depends on the definition of "a part of nature" you're working from. But yeah, it feels like that...

This has been driving me nuts for some time. I discussed it in another thread a little while ago about whether Rangers should have spellcasting at all. I strongly feel they should, but I hate that they have no unique identity as a spellcaster. Their magic just exists as an extension of the...

Ugh, don't get me started about the prevailing design of the Mark/Favoured Enemy/whatever ability. They're never that interesting, but they're never even that strong either. It may just be that I don't have the mind for balance, but. I hate when any of the main Ranger abilities that we've had...

Oh for sure, the mechanical failures are the no. 1 killer. And yeah, Rangers can be cool of course, I don't mean to say they're an inevitable strike-out whenever they appear in a game, even the more underwhelming versions/revisions. Just, yeah. I feel like it can take a more conceited effort...

Hmm. Something like that could work I guess? Maybe a bit less generous? Is that feasible? I definitely don't think reducing the other class features in the name of spellcasting is a good idea. As much as I think Rangers should have it, I don't want to see their class features subservient to it.

Trying to think if some kind of middle ground is theoretically possible. That lets 1st and 2nd be more general use, while gaining access to 3rd and up at the appropriate levels but just on a shorter leash early on. Rangers getting Ritual casting as standard may help some? I mean I think they...

Don't get me wrong, I understand the logic. I just dislike it. Feels like you end up with a similar problem, where the early spells ought to be your bread and butter, but you've got to be unreasonably precious with your spell slots.

That's an interesting proposal! Though, I dislike the rate at which the spell slots are staggered. Seems silly to not get Four 1st level slots till 17th level when it barely matters. Even not getting Three 2nd and 3rd level slots till levels 13 and 14 is a little rough.

Like even if those are too crunchy (hah, y'know, like Snow?) for their tastes, it wouldn't take a ridiculous amount of work to condense a few of those down to more applicable spells. Like rolling Ice Skate and Snow Walk into one, lets you navigate difficult or treacherous terrain with greater...

Yeeaah. Even with supplements like Icewind Dale, you'd think surely that could prompt something new for the nature classes. It being set in an extreme natural environment is the whole point. But nah only two new spells and they're both for Wizard.