Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7027480" data-attributes="member: 7006">On the "spell-less ranger" point, my expectation is that there will not be one in the forthcoming Big Book O' Mechanics.  Instead, that is what the playtest version of the Fighter Scout and Rogue Scout subclasses were for.The reason why I think this is really quite simple-- they cannot mechanically justify it.I suspect the issue is this:  You choose your Ranger Conclave at 3rd level.  But you receive spellcasting at 2nd level.  Thus you can't justify a Ranger Conclave that doesn't use spells unless you accept the wonky narrative that the Ranger had spells at one point (during 2nd level) and they just "disappeared" when they took the spell-less Ranger Conclave.  And I'm willing to bet they were not willing to make that wonky narrative leap.  So long as they kept the Ranger as a half-caster like the paladin (rather than a third caster like the EK and AT where spells appear at the same time the subclass is chosen), they'd never be able to justify the swapping out of spells for a different mechanical system because a level with spells just "disappears".And that's why they offered up the two versions of Scout.  To get towards what a spell-less Ranger might look like, without needing to completely rework the Ranger's subclass level system.  Granted of course this justification won't be acceptable to some players... but that's really WotC's call at the end of the day.  Some people might find it BS, but oh well.  Nothing they really can do about it except buy/find/make their own if it matters that much to them.</blockquote>

Verification