Spell-less Ranger confirmed by Mearls

[mach1.9pants]

Here's an excerpt from a debate we had on this very topic a few years back:

IMO pretty much all those could be high skill checks, a bit of wisdom and intelligence and powers. No flashy, ala Gandalf, type spells. Nothing mentioned in the History of Middle Earth really says 'spells' powers (3E supernatural abilities?) yes but DnD styley somatic, verbal and material component spells.
Still the argument will never end until some one uses 'speak with the dead' on JRR himself!

Oh, and this

[tangent]I fine with rangers without spells because Aragorn didn't have any spell for being a ranger, but probably just had some "magical ability" due to his bloodline.[/tangent]

Edit: especially since, IIRC, all rangers were Numenorians/Dunedain/High Men (spelling?)

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

...AND PALADINS.

Spell-less paladins are called fighters.

Seriously... a non-divine-powered paladin doesn't really make sense to me. Sure, they shouldn't be standing there waving their arms around to cast spells, but it looks like the 4e paladin will primarily be using smites and stuff to activate his magic anyway, so no problem there.

 

[pukunui]

It is good news.

Still I hope there is a magical paragon path for Rangers. I must admit to a shameful appreciation for mildly magical rangers at higher levels.

I just like the idea that being pretty aware of your environment and eminently practical has a high likelihood of giving you magical abilities at some point.

To me it sort of explains where (demi-)human talents for magic come from in the first place.

There was something about rangers using magic in the last FR Countdown article. It was probably referring to multiclassing of some sort, though.

 

[Cadfan]

Even if Paladin are spell-less, they still smite using divine (ie, magical) energy. I mean, that's like their most defining trait.

"Low magic" doesn't mean "low spells but lots of other magic stuff."

 

[Derren]

"Spell less" ranger doesn't have to mean much considering that the Warlord is also said to be spell less. Its more like the "spells" of the ranger are just being called something else (see Bo9S).
Remember the UA nonmagical ranger variant?

 

[Fallen Seraph]

"Spell less" ranger doesn't have to mean much considering that the Warlock is also said to be spell less. Its more like the "spells" of the ranger are just being called something else (see Bo9S).

Well I think the fact that Mearls said you could use a ranger in "no-magic" world constitutes, well no-magic with the ranger. If it was simply "no-spells" by your thought the warlock should have been on the list along with rogue, ranger, fighter and warlock.

 

[pukunui]

Well I think the fact that Mearls said you could use a ranger in "no-magic" world constitutes, well no-magic with the ranger. If it was simply "no-spells" by your thought the warlock should have been on the list along with rogue, ranger, fighter and warlock.

I'm sure I read somewhere that even the Martial power source is considered "magical" ... however, even if that's the case, the Martial classes and their powers are the ones that are, at the very least, most likely to look non-magical and are thus the best candidates for a no-magic campaign, whereas the other classes all have overtly magical powers that would be harder, if not impossible, to describe in a non-magical way.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I think these abilities though won't come into practise till later levels where to stay balanced they HAVE to be beyond normal limits to keep up with magic-users.

 

[pukunui]

I think these abilities though won't come into practise till later levels where to stay balanced they HAVE to be beyond normal limits to keep up with magic-users.

I assume you're referring to "magical Martial powers" ... if so, I agree.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

*Nods* Yup I am.


Don't ask me why, but whenever I talk about powers I always end up saying ability... confuses myself at times