Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9486588" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Rangers, like Paladins, should not be using magic spells.This does not mean they should not be supernatural. They just should use other tools.Really, there'd be a spectrum here, rather than two points (&quot;spellcaster&quot; or &quot;not spellcaster&quot;). Wizards would lie at one extreme end, being mostly spell-driven with minimal class features. As you move along the spectrum, you see more supernatural class features and fewer spells, e.g. Bard, Cleric, Druid, Warlock, until finally none at all (e.g. Artificer would probably lie just on the &quot;has spells&quot; side of that line). Then you have Paladin, Ranger, Monk, Assassin, etc., which are clearly supernatural, but not in a way that makes sense as &quot;casting spells&quot; natively, though I 100% support subclasses that cast spells for all of these classes! And finally you have Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Warlord, &quot;Machinist&quot; (still shopping for a name I like better), etc. which aren't really supernatural, but are beyond the limits of pure mundanity, aka what I like to call the &quot;transmundane&quot; by analogy to Cantor's &quot;transfinite&quot; concept--beyond the finite, but not necessarily infinite per se.When coupled with a spectrum of different expected mechanical engagement (what is often loosely called &quot;complexity&quot;) in every general region along this spectrum, you get something that is approachable, supports a wide variety of tastes and preferences, and doesn't pigeonhole particular thematics. Coupled with boundary-breaking subclasses, like Blade Warlocks that focus heavily on Fighter-like gameplay, an &quot;Oath of the Quill&quot; Paladin that learns spells, and Eldritch Knight Fighters, we'd actually be leveraging the design power behind subclasses and offering a better spectrum of options for players.It would, of course, require somewhere between a slight and significant expansion of the number of classes, but I genuinely can't justify more than 12 additional classes beyond the 13 present in 5.0. Even that 12 required me to stretch my brain a little bit, so this is emphatically not a &quot;oh, so now we're going to have 100+ classes?!!?!&quot; kind of thing. Now I'm really digressing though, so I'll leave it there.Edit: I will also note, although I voted only for &quot;Rangers should not have magic spells...&quot;, some of your ideas are very thematic and cool [USER=63508]@Minigiant[/USER]. I would not at all be upset with seeing these things as bespoke supernatural Ranger actions that weren't spells.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9486588, member: 6790260"] Rangers, like Paladins, should not be using magic spells. This does not mean they should not be supernatural. They just should use other tools. Really, there'd be a spectrum here, rather than two points ("spellcaster" or "not spellcaster"). Wizards would lie at one extreme end, being mostly spell-driven with minimal class features. As you move along the spectrum, you see more supernatural class features and fewer spells, e.g. Bard, Cleric, Druid, Warlock, until finally none at all (e.g. Artificer would probably lie [I]just[/I] on the "has spells" side of that line). Then you have Paladin, Ranger, Monk, Assassin, etc., which are clearly supernatural, but not in a way that makes sense as "casting spells" natively, though I 100% support subclasses that cast spells for all of these classes! And finally you have Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Warlord, "Machinist" (still shopping for a name I like better), etc. which aren't really [I]supernatural[/I], but are beyond the limits of pure mundanity, aka what I like to call the "transmundane" by analogy to Cantor's "transfinite" concept--beyond the finite, but not necessarily infinite [I]per se[/I]. When coupled with a spectrum of different expected mechanical engagement (what is often loosely called "complexity") in every general region along this spectrum, you get something that is approachable, supports a wide variety of tastes and preferences, and doesn't pigeonhole particular thematics. Coupled with boundary-breaking subclasses, like Blade Warlocks that focus heavily on Fighter-like gameplay, an "Oath of the Quill" Paladin that learns spells, and Eldritch Knight Fighters, we'd actually be leveraging the design power behind subclasses [I]and[/I] offering a better spectrum of options for players. It would, of course, require somewhere between a slight and significant expansion of the number of classes, but I genuinely can't justify more than 12 additional classes beyond the 13 present in 5.0. Even that 12 required me to stretch my brain a little bit, so this is emphatically not a "oh, so now we're going to have 100+ classes?!!?!" kind of thing. Now I'm [I]really[/I] digressing though, so I'll leave it there. Edit: I will also note, although I voted only for "Rangers should not have magic spells...", some of your ideas are very thematic and cool [USER=63508]@Minigiant[/USER]. I would not [I]at all[/I] be upset with seeing these things as bespoke supernatural Ranger actions that weren't spells. [/QUOTE]

Verification