Spell-less Ranger confirmed by Mearls

[pukunui]

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

On a tangent: I always thought that Prayer and Miracle were dumb names for spells. All of a cleric's spells should be prayers and miracles. I'm glad that 4e will at least be calling some of them prayers (and rituals works too). Hopefully there won't be a prayer or ritual named Miracle ...

EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, having a prayer called Miracle wouldn't be so bad. Then clerics could "pray for a miracle".

 

[Darkwolf71]

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.

Only because the game mechanics basically require him to. The FRCS is not the authority on Drizzt. The novels are. In said novels he has never cast spell one. Uses his inate Drow powers, yes. Casts spells, no.

 

[pawsplay]

On a tangent: I always thought that Prayer and Miracle were dumb names for spells. All of a cleric's spells should be prayers and miracles. I'm glad that 4e will at least be calling some of them prayers (and rituals works too). Hopefully there won't be a prayer or ritual named Miracle ...

I don't think cleric's spells should be called miracles or prayers.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Heck, I want spell-less clerics.

Play a Warlord (or pretty much any class, really) with Knowledge (Religion) and Profession (Priest). Learn some Rituals. Done.

"Cleric" is a game role that you can include or not in your game. I don't have "Clerics" in my homebrew campaign, but I do have plenty of ordained Priests (of one class or another).

 

[pukunui]

I don't think cleric's spells should be called miracles or prayers.

Why not?


Besides, as I said, they already are calling some of them prayers in 4th edition. The others are going to be rituals, which works well too. If they went a step further and referred to high-level divine magic as miracles, that would be cool, too, IMO.

It's a little thing, I know, but it's often the little things that really matter.
At least, it's a little thing that makes me happy.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I love Rangers with no spellcasting. Love it, love it, love it!

Drizzt never had any ranger spells...

He cast animal friendship once.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

More to the point, it looks like the 4e multiclass system will allow those who want spellcasting rangers (even 1e-style arcane spell dabbling rangers) to play them. They just need to take levels in spellcasting classes. So yes, the "ranger" class doesn't provide spellcasting any more. However, there's nothing to stop a character from taking levels in another class that provides him with the abilities that he wants.

Yeah, the way it's going all you'll have to do is multiclass to fighter.

 

[pawsplay]

Why not?

Because I do not view clerical spells as the momentary, present attention of a deity. Clerics are a type of magician. If the gods are the ones doing that stuff, then clerics don't really have much in the way of clerical abilities, and it really brings to mind the question why Pelor doesn't just send in a 20th level flamestrike each time instead of piddling around.

 

[Amrynn Moonshadow]

the fundamental shift from 1e/2e/3e to 4e is really in nomenclature.

rangers will not have "spells" as they are defined in 4th edition. that does not mean that they will not have abilities which produce effects that are amazing -- if not technically magical.

look at the basics of D&D -- on any given round, you are either a) moving somewhere, b) swinging / shooting at something, or c) doing something else (healing an ally, drinking a potion, casting a spell, using a wand, etc).

in the first 2 editions the classes that did a lot of B were not so great at C. The classes that were great at C were not so hot at B.

Then in 3rd edition this continued, however more C was added accross the board. (backstab became sneak attack, rangers had more rules, and so forth). eventually everyone got more stuff to do in column C . . . except the winners of the column B -- the fighters.

in 3.5 we got an amazing book, which gave a lot of C to martial characters (book of nine swords). as that's a preview for 4e I think we can agree that now all classes have an option to do A, B, and C each round.

a fighter move (martial power) that hits someone for 3d6 damage, on the spreadsheet level, seems to be a lot like a wizard casting lightning bolt.

so all classes will have 'spells' as they were known in the first few editions, but since 3.5 things have changed, and now 4e is trying to equalize the power on every level, and as a result, everyone may have abilities that are amazing, but not technically 'spells' . . .

personally I didn't hate rangers with spells, but instead of some of the more clericy ones, this 4e ranger appears to have a different spell list. (more woodsy stuff, less clericy ones -- and they aren't called spells anymore)

that's my impression. what do you guys and gals think?

 

[pukunui]

Because I do not view clerical spells as the momentary, present attention of a deity. Clerics are a type of magician. If the gods are the ones doing that stuff, then clerics don't really have much in the way of clerical abilities, and it really brings to mind the question why Pelor doesn't just send in a 20th level flamestrike each time instead of piddling around.

Fair enough.