Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Emberashh" data-source="post: 9064835" data-attributes="member: 7040941">The issue is though is that that implies magic is merely a learned skill rather than a specific thing only the few are capable of. And thats before you get into how much more interesting being able to survive in a potentially magical wilderness is if you're not magical yourself. In Jumanji, Alan Parish isn't interesting because he just used jungle magic to survive for 30 years in the game. Hes interesting because he was just a regular, sheltered rich kid who managed to survive and become Robin Williams the Wildman after 30 years, no magic required. That was already explained.You have that backwards.Because the mechanics didn't exist otherwise. The original codified Ranger was a kitbashed homebrew made official with zero attempt to give it its own mechanics. The terrain mechanics in 5e were the closest DND has ever gotten to actually doing this. Those characters are, in fact, actually encompassed by the Rogue archtype, so no its not an equivalent situation. Beastmasters and Monster Hunters are literally unique literary tropes completely independent of Rangers. Your Van Helsings and Dars have nothing to do with Aragorn, Robin Hood, Will Treaty, etc. And the Monster Hunter incidentally is the only archtype among these that has a literary precedence to be a spellcaster. Beastmasters should actually be psionicists if anything, and obviously the Rangers are still martials.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Emberashh, post: 9064835, member: 7040941"] The issue is though is that that implies magic is merely a learned skill rather than a specific thing only the few are capable of. And thats before you get into how much more interesting being able to survive in a potentially magical wilderness is if you're not magical yourself. In Jumanji, Alan Parish isn't interesting because he just used jungle magic to survive for 30 years in the game. Hes interesting because he was just a regular, sheltered rich kid who managed to survive and become Robin Williams the Wildman after 30 years, no magic required. That was already explained. You have that backwards. Because the mechanics didn't exist otherwise. The original codified Ranger was a kitbashed homebrew made official with [I]zero[/I] attempt to give it its own mechanics. The terrain mechanics in 5e were the closest DND has ever gotten to actually doing this. Those characters are, in fact, actually encompassed by the Rogue archtype, so no its not an equivalent situation. Beastmasters and Monster Hunters are literally unique literary tropes completely independent of Rangers. Your Van Helsings and Dars have [I]nothing[/I] to do with Aragorn, Robin Hood, Will Treaty, etc. And the Monster Hunter incidentally is the only archtype among these that has a literary precedence to be a spellcaster. Beastmasters should actually be psionicists if anything, and obviously the Rangers are still martials. [/QUOTE]

Verification