NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6552542" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Well, I was mostly thinking of 4e when I said that, where the default ranger has no magical abilities at all, and even the "Martial/Primal" subclass only had Primal-keyword (aka "magic") utilities.I also don't think "train an animal to fight" is, or even should be, a purely magical effect. Real-world cultures did it all the time--the forebears of the modern Rottweiler (probably) included the preferred breed of war dog in ancient Rome. In a setting where things that are physically impossible in our world are achievable by purely "mundane" characters like Fighters, I fail to see why Rangers HAVE to be magical in order to have a well-trained war animal. Or, in other words, I don't think it's a supernatural bond, and I think several of the class-specific "spells" the 5e ranger gets should just be abilities. This is almost surely a matter of taste.I'd say the Elf sits somewhere between Bard and Eldritch Knight, most likely--if you break the EK school limitations, that is. (I'd use "archetype" rather than "role" to describe this, but that's semantics.) That is, the Bard is a full caster in 5e. Even if you go for the Skald, you're still going to eventually have 9th-level spells among other things. I guess it depends on where you think the Elf falls on the "wizard<->fighter" spectrum; your description reads more like "mostly fighter, dash of Wizard," which is very much the EK. But if you were meaning to keep the standard Elf always a notch below the Fighter, and willing to accept 9th-level spells despite the original elf "halt[ing] their magic studies at 10th level while still increasing their combat ability," then yeah, I could see it.</blockquote>

Verification