Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TheCosmicKid" data-source="post: 6763539" data-attributes="member: 6683613">I repeat:&nbsp; such as?Sure, but this argument doesn't get you where you want to go unless you go further and say that Strider and other nonmagical woodsman characters are not an influence at all.&nbsp; Because strapping spells to the ranger class excludes those characters from the class.&nbsp; But having the base ranger be nonmagical with optional spellcasting includes everybody.They were devout Christians who prayed to God to give them strength in battle because of their purity and faith.&nbsp; That's explicitly supernatural power.&nbsp; Not analogous to the ranger archetype.It's starting to sound like you've had some bad experiences in this regard.&nbsp; I'm sorry you had them, but please understand that in pushing for explicitly supernatural abilities to be the default you are attempting to impose your preferred playstyle on other groups just as much as whoever soured you so much on &quot;realism&quot; did to you.&nbsp; People who want &quot;realistic&quot; non-magical classes are not having badwrongfun.&nbsp; They have just as much right to play the game their way as you have to play yours.&nbsp; And the way everybody gets what they want is if spells are optional, like they are for the fighter and the rogue.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOqyK8BCD4U" target="_blank">Nope, definitely not a ranger!</a>&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Aragorn switched careers sometime around or after the Battle of Helm's Deep.&nbsp; &quot;Put aside the ranger.&nbsp; Become who you were born to be.&quot;&nbsp; Fortunately D&amp;D has rules for doing that too.Sure, but like I said, a class that outright excludes Aragorn is questionable.&nbsp; Conan is not the only barbarian character, but if the barbarian class had a feature which implied Conan wasn't a barbarian at all, that would be a problem, wouldn't it?I have to say, it really does.&nbsp; Would it be okay if wizards didn't get spells until level 8?&nbsp; Of course not, because spells are core to the wizard.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TheCosmicKid, post: 6763539, member: 6683613"] I repeat: such as? Sure, but this argument doesn't get you where you want to go unless you go further and say that Strider and other nonmagical woodsman characters are [I]not an influence at all[/I]. Because strapping spells to the ranger class excludes those characters from the class. But having the base ranger be nonmagical with optional spellcasting includes everybody. They were devout Christians who prayed to God to give them strength in battle because of their purity and faith. That's explicitly supernatural power. Not analogous to the ranger archetype. It's starting to sound like you've had some bad experiences in this regard. I'm sorry you had them, but please understand that in pushing for explicitly supernatural abilities to be the default you are attempting to impose [I]your[/I] preferred playstyle on other groups just as much as whoever soured you so much on "realism" did to you. People who want "realistic" non-magical classes are not having badwrongfun. They have just as much right to play the game their way as you have to play yours. And the way everybody gets what they want is if spells are optional, like they are for the fighter and the rogue. [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOqyK8BCD4U]Nope, definitely not a ranger![/url] :) Aragorn switched careers sometime around or after the Battle of Helm's Deep. "Put aside the ranger. Become who you were born to be." Fortunately D&D has rules for doing that too. Sure, but like I said, a class that outright [I]excludes[/I] Aragorn is questionable. Conan is not the only barbarian character, but if the barbarian class had a feature which implied Conan wasn't a barbarian at all, that would be a problem, wouldn't it? I have to say, it really does. Would it be okay if wizards didn't get spells until level 8? Of course not, [I]because spells are core to the wizard[/I]. [/QUOTE]

Verification