Spell-less Ranger confirmed by Mearls

[Diamondeye]

Well, I guess I'm in the minority here, but this is terrible.

I do not want to hear about spelless rangers, about how I can play a ranger with spells by multiclassing, about how all modular, customizable, or adaptable the classes or the game are.

Then again, they are mangling the magic system so badly that maybe this is better.

 

[Doug McCrae]

And another knife has been thrust into my childhood memories. I weep for all that has been lost.

Tolkienesque.

 

[delericho]

Drizzt never had any ranger spells...

Actually, according to the 3e FRCS, he does. And that's one more reason this change is good - it lets the game model its iconic Ranger without saddling him with extraneous powers.

 

[pawsplay]

Hi everyone,

In a different thread, Mike Mearls commented that it would be entirely possible to run a no-magic campaign with only the fighter, rogue, warlord and ranger classes. That says to me that the ranger isn't going to have access to any kind of magic, and I know that will make some people happy.

His original post is here.

Cheers,
Jonathan

Actually, all that tells is that those classes have non-magical options, not that they lack magical options.

 

[kennew142]

And another knife has been thrust into my childhood memories. I weep for all that has been lost.

This seems pretty melodramatic. Multiclassing (or the cleric/wizard training feat) seems to be the way to build a 1/2/3e ranger.

Most of the folks I know who've been playing rangers have begged the GM to allow them to use variant rangers without spells. IMO this new ranger tightens up its class concept without detracting from the ability of players to play the concept they want. I don't see a down side.

 

[pawsplay]

I like the UA prestige ranger, actually.

 

[pukunui]

Actually, all that tells is that those classes have non-magical options, not that they lack magical options.

If they had magical options, you wouldn't be able to use them in a no-magic game ... not without tweaking them, at least, anyway, and Mearls' comment seemed to suggest that you wouldn't need to do any tweaking to play a no-magic game with just the Martial classes.

That being said, however, I'm sure I read somewhere that the Martial power source is supposed to be "magical" as well. Can't remember where I read it, though.

 

[pawsplay]

If they had magical options, you wouldn't be able to use them in a no-magic game ... not without tweaking them, at least, anyway, and Mearls' comment seemed to suggest that you wouldn't need to do any tweaking to play a no-magic game with just the Martial classes.

All you would have to do is declare certain class abilities off limits. As long as there are other options, you haven't changed the class.

 

[pukunui]

I suppose ... but I can hope, can't I? It would be nice to see some classes that have no dependency on magic and yet can hold their own next to those who do have magc.

FWIW, Mearls took the time to clarify his comments about classless d&d. He hasn't said anything about the ranger. I realize absence of proof is no proof at all but still ... it makes you wonder. The ranger, rogue, warlord and fighter could very well all be completely magic-free.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

I concur. Clercis should either be non-spellcasting or be renamed 'healers' and be good at healing only and defending themselves and others. none of this bless, flametrike, deahknell, etc crap.

I want clerics holding the power of the real powers of universe, of faith! Great and mighty miracles and weaves magic!