Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Levistus's_Leviathan" data-source="post: 8787016" data-attributes="member: 7023887">In 5e, different spellcasters have lore justifications for having magic. Clerics get it from worship, Druids have a magical bond with the spirits/gods of nature, Bards tap into the "Words of Creation", Paladins make a magical promise, Warlocks make a bargain with an eldritch entity, Sorcerers are Mutants, and Wizards study magic until they tap into the Weave. Rangers just have "IDK, they're like Druids". That's easily the weakest justification for magical powers in 5e. And don't get me wrong, I like Rangers being Half-Casters. I just think that the lore could be a bit better thought out and that this could be used to make a cohesive theme amongst the different subclasses. Like I said in an earlier post, they could have a mystical bond with a nature spirit that would make them the "Pet Class", where every subclass gets a different kind of monster companion (from beasts to dragons to elementals to fey). Or they could have got magical powers from killing so many magical creatures that it somehow gave them magic, which could make it so all of the subclasses has the features of different monsters and benefits for fighting against them. Or they could have a symbiotic relationship with incorporeal nature spirits tied to different locations/biomes, giving them supernatural abilities based on their subclass (extra movement speeds, supernatural senses, boosts in certain terrains, damage resistances/immunities, etc). Rangers don't have a good justification for their magic and don't have a cohesive theme between their subclasses. They have a mechanical niche, but not a thematic one. And subclasses thrive on theme.</blockquote>

Verification