Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9586314" data-attributes="member: 6877472">I understand what you're saying, the problem being that few people seem to know what a "non-magic buff" looks like.  I mean look at all the "let's make a Ranger non-magical" threads.  You see an awful lot of suggestions that make the class less powerful in their zeal to avoid making the Ranger seem magical in any way.I recently had a discussion like this with my friend who prefers AD&D.H = Him, M = Me.H: I don't like 5e Rangers, they're too magical.M: but AD&D Rangers have magic.H: Their magic doesn't really do anything.  In 5e, it's like the Ranger's only ability.M: Ok, well, what would you replace magic with?  Powerful effects that are limited use, maybe?H: No that's stupid.  Only magic is limited-use.  Non-magic characters should be able to do things whenever they want.M: Limited-use doesn't mean magic.  Remember those Kits in Complete Fighters?  Samurai and Savage had powers that were usable only a few times per day but weren't magic.H: Savage abilities were just spells though.  Just because they aren't magic doesn't mean they aren't spells.M: Well what about the Samurai then?  They could boost their strength to 18/00 for one round a number of times each day equal to their level.H: Yeah, that's not what I want.M: Ok, so what would you give Rangers then?  Better skill checks?  The ability to auto succeed at wilderness checks?  Climbing and swimming speeds?  Maybe camouflage so they're invisible in natural terrain.H: No, that either breaks the game or is just stuff magic does.M: Ok, I'm at a loss.  What is a non-magic buff for the Ranger then?H: Well, like, maybe Rangers can always forage for food in the wilderness.M: So other characters couldn't do that?H: No, just like how only Rangers could track.M: Actually (2e) Rangers weren't the only ones who could track.  Granted, non-Rangers did take a -5 penalty though so I guess that's basically the same.  So not starving.  Like say, Goodberry or Create Food and Drink?H: Huh, you're right, that is too magical.I managed to change the subject at this point.  Now again, I'm not saying "all people who are pro non-magic" have this opinion, but I've encountered enough of them that it's hard to think of it as anecdotal evidence anymore (I know it still is, lol).  A notable number of these people have strong feelings about wanting non-magic buffed and magic stripped from certain classes, but don't seem to know what that would even look like, beyond "Ranger is a Fighter in a Ghillie suit".And, bizarrely, some of these same people, if you talk about nerfing magic to bring it down to the same level as Fighters, Rogues, and Barbarians, give you strange looks.  "Why would you do that?  Of course magic is powerful.  It's magic!".</blockquote>

Verification