Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6768150" data-attributes="member: 92511">Is the class &quot;designed around it&quot;? Certainly not. None of 5e is. Everyone and their mother has &quot;spells&quot;...not jut magical abilities, spells. The only three &quot;martial&quot; classes each have a magical option and then the monk gets their magic-like &quot;ki&quot; powers...which, in my opinion should have been used/duplicated in reflavored form for the Paladin powers instead of actual spell-use. BUT they, apparently, wanted to set up the paladin and ranger as &quot;half-caster&quot; options...so, spells fer ev'rybody!But it is playable...and it is no more &quot;suboptimal&quot; in combat than playing a fighter. Sure, might lag behind in this or that...no action surge. Big woo. So the fighter fights better...as it is supposed to. The ranger will be comparable to the fighter against certain foes/combat situations and better than the fighter in outdoor/exploration situations...as the ranger is supposed to.There are choices to be made as a player. One of those, if I want a &quot;by the book martial ranger&quot; is to refrain from using spells...or only take/use &quot;spells&quot; that I can refluff into (and work out with the DM/table that they are, so we're all on the same imaginative page) non-magical ability/training/specialty. CCan I hit something for this long with enough extra training, expertise, and/or strength to deal a little more damage? Sure. Can I fire this arrow (or fire fast enough) and it turns into 20 arrows in midair and hits everyone in a 20' radius? No.Because the book doesn't spell everything out for everyone doesn't mean/make the book &quot;wrong&quot; or &quot;incomplete.&quot; Take what you have and work with it. That's something very much at the core of D&amp;D. It doesn't &quot;need&quot; arcane numbers formulae to make sure my guy can do anything your guy can do. It doesn't &quot;need&quot; word-for-word &quot;tell me how.&quot; It takes a little common sense and a communal agreement to the sensibilities and shared understandings at the table. Would I, personally, have preferred a spell-less base ranger with spell-variant subclass. Yes. We didn't get that...and it would appear are not going to get that in a style I find acceptable...because it doesn't mesh with WotC's designer's preferences/specifications...SO, I wrote up my own. But I don't/didn't HAVE to to get/play a martial ranger (if that's what I wanted). Everything I would need to do that is right there in the pages.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 6768150, member: 92511"] Is the class "designed around it"? Certainly not. None of 5e is. Everyone and their mother has "spells"...not jut magical abilities, spells. The only three "martial" classes each have a magical option and then the monk gets their magic-like "ki" powers...which, in my opinion should have been used/duplicated in reflavored form for the Paladin powers instead of actual spell-use. BUT they, apparently, wanted to set up the paladin and ranger as "half-caster" options...so, spells fer ev'rybody! But it is playable...and it is no more "suboptimal" in combat than playing a fighter. Sure, might lag behind in this or that...no action surge. Big woo. So the fighter fights better...as it is supposed to. The ranger will be comparable to the fighter against certain foes/combat situations and better than the fighter in outdoor/exploration situations...as the ranger is supposed to. There are choices to be made as a player. One of those, if I want a "by the book martial ranger" is to refrain from using spells...or only take/use "spells" that I can refluff into (and work out with the DM/table that they are, so we're all on the same imaginative page) non-magical ability/training/specialty. CCan I hit something for this long with enough extra training, expertise, and/or strength to deal a little more damage? Sure. Can I fire this arrow (or fire fast enough) and it turns into 20 arrows in midair and hits everyone in a 20' radius? No. Because the book doesn't spell everything out for everyone doesn't mean/make the book "wrong" or "incomplete." Take what you have and work with it. That's something very much at the core of D&D. It doesn't "need" arcane numbers formulae to make sure my guy can do anything your guy can do. It doesn't "need" word-for-word "tell me how." It takes a little common sense and a communal agreement to the sensibilities and shared understandings at the table. Would I, personally, have preferred a spell-less base ranger with spell-variant subclass. Yes. We didn't get that...and it would appear are not going to get that in a style I find acceptable...because it doesn't mesh with WotC's designer's preferences/specifications...SO, I wrote up my own. But I don't/didn't HAVE to to get/play a martial ranger (if that's what I wanted). Everything I would need to do that is right there in the pages. [/QUOTE]

Verification