Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Ranger playtest discussion
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8786945" data-attributes="member: 87792"><p><em>Some people</em> hate Known Spells - and others hate <em>too few</em> known spells but are more than fine if there are <em>enough</em> known spells. The Sorcerer was literally invented to be a Known Spells class because some people really wanted it to exist. But the implementation of Known Spells at the launch of 5e was obviously terrible because the known spells casters knew fewer spells than the prepared casters could have prepared at any one time. So people wanted it changed - and these calls to have it changed have almost vanished since Tasha's put in good sorcerer subclasses and brought the ranger up to four rather than two spells per spell level known.</p><p></p><p>So what you are saying here is that because some people like crunchy peanut butter and others like smooth peanut butter we should listen only to the people who like crunchy and erase smooth from existence based on there having been a few jars of rancid smooth peanut butter. Rather than have some classes (e.g. the Paladin) having prepared casting and others (e.g. the Ranger) having known spells.</p><p></p><p>No it isn't. Or more accurately <em>for people who don't care and think that all magic is fine</em> they are the same thing. For those who don't like Everything Is A Spell then they mostly aren't.</p><p></p><p>You can have a mystical connection without being loaded down with spells. <em>All editions before 5e managed to have very few ranger spells per day.</em></p><p></p><p>That's because you're inventing something I didn't say.</p><p></p><p>If we look at e.g. WoW or Final Fantasy the clerical healer, whether White Robe or Priest wears cloth armour. That's the archetype that needs covering - either by adapting the cleric to an unarmoured variant or taking the Divine Soul sorcerer that's already unarmoured (and is already a Spells Known class so it covers things the cleric doesn't).</p><p></p><p>It would also divorce the Cleric from literally every previous D&D edition. Before 4e all clerics in all basic books (there were some specialty exceptions in splatbooks) were proficient with all armour. Meanwhile for weapon proficiency the cleric only gets simple weapons by default - which is only a slightly larger list than the wizard. This also goes back throughout the history of D&D.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 8786945, member: 87792"] [I]Some people[/I] hate Known Spells - and others hate [I]too few[/I] known spells but are more than fine if there are [I]enough[/I] known spells. The Sorcerer was literally invented to be a Known Spells class because some people really wanted it to exist. But the implementation of Known Spells at the launch of 5e was obviously terrible because the known spells casters knew fewer spells than the prepared casters could have prepared at any one time. So people wanted it changed - and these calls to have it changed have almost vanished since Tasha's put in good sorcerer subclasses and brought the ranger up to four rather than two spells per spell level known. So what you are saying here is that because some people like crunchy peanut butter and others like smooth peanut butter we should listen only to the people who like crunchy and erase smooth from existence based on there having been a few jars of rancid smooth peanut butter. Rather than have some classes (e.g. the Paladin) having prepared casting and others (e.g. the Ranger) having known spells. No it isn't. Or more accurately [I]for people who don't care and think that all magic is fine[/I] they are the same thing. For those who don't like Everything Is A Spell then they mostly aren't. You can have a mystical connection without being loaded down with spells. [I]All editions before 5e managed to have very few ranger spells per day.[/I] That's because you're inventing something I didn't say. If we look at e.g. WoW or Final Fantasy the clerical healer, whether White Robe or Priest wears cloth armour. That's the archetype that needs covering - either by adapting the cleric to an unarmoured variant or taking the Divine Soul sorcerer that's already unarmoured (and is already a Spells Known class so it covers things the cleric doesn't). It would also divorce the Cleric from literally every previous D&D edition. Before 4e all clerics in all basic books (there were some specialty exceptions in splatbooks) were proficient with all armour. Meanwhile for weapon proficiency the cleric only gets simple weapons by default - which is only a slightly larger list than the wizard. This also goes back throughout the history of D&D. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Ranger playtest discussion
Top