Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 7680608" data-attributes="member: 92511">While I agree with this sentiment, like 95%, I would draw the line at not having any magic in the class at all. 5e's subclass structure is the perfect way to institute these sorts of archetype/preference disagreements and a magic-using ranger is not at all out of the ordinary or expectations of many players.Whole-heatedly, I agree the edition is sorely imbalanced with caster-over-noncaster class options and that should have been more carefully considered. Whole-heartedly, the ranger should be a non-magical base with multiple non-magical options. But a subclass, or even two of three (but no more than &quot;half&quot;, I'd say), with some kind of spell-ability or other magical &quot;powers&quot; would not be so terrible. But, as with Rogue, Fighter and, alright I'll throw in Barbarian (though they are at 50/50), the ranger's class structure should not have included more than one [or no more than half] of its subclasses with magical ability...and definitely none of them reliant on magic from level 1.&nbsp;Given what statements have recently been made re: &quot;Rangers are the Paladins of Nature&quot;...which I think is a crock, but regardless, it gives us the mind-frame/-space (with which I disagree and think a completely &quot;wrong&quot; jumping off point) from which the designers were working. And so, if you want to make Rangers the Paladin's &quot;naturey/wild[erness] kid [or twin] brother&quot;, then they would be throwing in magic powers and spells from very early on. I GET why they keep doing it...I just don't like it/think they are working off of a flawed premise. So they can do another dozen versions...if they don't alter their premise, they will continue to miss the mark for...it seems...many if not most ranger-lovers.[Aside: How/why they didn't feel the Bard should have been the obvious &quot;Arcane half-caster kind/twin brother&quot; to the Paladin is equally beyond me.]&nbsp;And I'll disagree right back atcha <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />. There are plenty of class mechanics and other system elements (e.g., backgrounds, feats, etc...), that let characters &quot;do things&quot; with no need for spells/that aren't magical. The ranger, in particular, is a class/archetype [that should be] RIFE with skills and abilities that need not require spell-working whatsoever.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 7680608, member: 92511"] While I agree with this sentiment, like 95%, I would draw the line at not having any magic in the class at all. 5e's subclass structure is the perfect way to institute these sorts of archetype/preference disagreements and a magic-using ranger is not at all out of the ordinary or expectations of many players. Whole-heatedly, I agree the edition is sorely imbalanced with caster-over-noncaster class options and that should have been more carefully considered. Whole-heartedly, the ranger should be a non-magical [I]base[/I] with multiple non-magical options. But a subclass, or even two of three (but no more than "half", I'd say), with some kind of spell-ability or other magical "powers" would not be so terrible. But, as with Rogue, Fighter and, alright I'll throw in Barbarian (though they are at 50/50), the ranger's class structure should not have included more than one [or no more than half] of its subclasses with magical ability...and definitely none of them reliant on magic from level 1. Given what statements have recently been made re: "Rangers are the Paladins of Nature"...which I think is a crock, but regardless, it gives us the mind-frame/-space (with which I disagree and think a completely "wrong" jumping off point) from which the designers were working. And so, if you want to make Rangers the Paladin's "naturey/wild[erness] kid [or twin] brother", then they would be throwing in magic powers and spells from very early on. I GET why they keep doing it...I just don't like it/think they are working off of a flawed premise. So they can do another dozen versions...if they don't alter their premise, they will continue to miss the mark for...it seems...many if not most ranger-lovers. [Aside: How/why they didn't feel the Bard should have been the obvious "Arcane half-caster kind/twin brother" to the Paladin is equally beyond me.] And I'll disagree right back atcha :D. There are plenty of class mechanics and other system elements (e.g., backgrounds, feats, etc...), that let characters "do things" with no need for spells/that aren't magical. The ranger, in particular, is a class/archetype [that should be] RIFE with skills and abilities that need not require spell-working whatsoever. [/QUOTE]

Verification