Spell-less Ranger confirmed by Mearls

[The Ubbergeek]

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.

Miracles making, spiritual magic.

 

[Incenjucar]

Clerics could also be what ALLOWS deities to more directly interact with the world. There could be this divine "pressure" out there, willing to smite the wicked, but without a cleric to open the path, to break the surface tension or give it something to coalesce around, that energy is trapped unless a greater effort on the deity's part is made.

 

[Greylock]

I guess I'm in a minority here - I've played in a dozen or more 3.x campaigns that included Rangers. In only one of those games, did one said Ranger ever bother to cast a spell. And that one was always Entangle.

 

[Incenjucar]

I have absolutely no attachment to spell-casting rangers. I don't mind it being one of the optional skill sets they can adopt.

Also, Entangle is an awesome spell, so I'd expect anyone who can cast it to cast it when possible.

 

[Darth Cyric]

Ahh, Entangle, about the only non-Spell Compendium Ranger spell worth a damn in 3.5. Somehow, I think that spell could be picked up by a Cleric Training feat, and then you move on.

Also, I'd have to say that the Spell Compendium presents a bit of irony. It's the book that gave Rangers useful spells in 3.5, yes. But take a look at what all those SC Rangers spells were. Arrow Mind, Arrow Storm, Blade Storm, Hunter's Mercy, Find the Gap, etc., ... those certainly did not have a "nature-related" vibe about them.

In fact, those "spells" were MANEUVERS in every manner but name and the fact that they still used the Ranger's crappy default spellcasting mechanics instead of the far better Tome of Battle mechanics.

So, while the SC made the Ranger's spellcasting "useful," the martial nature (no pun intended) of his new spells at the same time sort of heralded the end of the whole "divine connection to nature" part of the Ranger.

 

[Traycor]

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.

Yeah well... half the things he does in the books, the rules could never give to him. He would have needed rogue levels for one. But regardless of what the campaign setting had as his stats, he has never cast one single spell. Ever.

 

[Greylock]

Ahh, Entangle, about the only non-Spell Compendium Ranger spell worth a damn in 3.5.

I think that's taking it too far. All the spells on the 3.5 Ranger list are all right, and very useful. But Entangle is the only battlefield management spell on there. Just like the only "Offensive" spells are Summonings. The 3.5 Ranger spell list DOES exude flavor, but the spells are handy if you aren't looking for something like a Meteor Strike.

 

[pukunui]

I have absolutely no attachment to spell-casting rangers. I don't mind it being one of the optional skill sets they can adopt.

Also, Entangle is an awesome spell, so I'd expect anyone who can cast it to cast it when possible.

Ha ha. Man ... my group recently suffered a TPK after being led into a trap and ambushed (RHoD's Marked For Death encounter). I have good reason to believe that the party could have survived, if not triumphed, if the guy playing the elf ranger had remembered he could cast entangle ...

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Yeah well... half the things he does in the books, the rules could never give to him. He would have needed rogue levels for one. But regardless of what the campaign setting had as his stats, he has never cast one single spell. Ever.

He summoned a demon, admitidly they way he did would not be allowed with in the rules of any version of D&D, though with rituals in 4e it was a kind of half assed ritual and depending on what the ritual rules are in D&D 4 I might as DM allow it.

So maybe that was a foreshadowing of the fourth edition rules

 

[MadBlue]

Most ppl, including me, want spellless rangers...AND PALADINS.

Paladins might very well be spell-less in 4e. Of course they'll still have a variety of smites and access to divine power, but that divine connection has always been part of what being a Paladin is about. I imagine one could make a non-supernatural "knight in shining armor" in 4e using the Fighter or Warlord class.