Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 9066354" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Thematic, but not essential. Should frankly be something anyone can do with a bell and some string, the fact that it’s a spell speaks to deep fundamental flaws in D&D’s design.I’d agree that this is a pretty iconic ranger ability. Again, no reason this needs to be magical, but I do think this kind of effect warrants a feature that specifies its function rather than relying solely on DM fiat to do without magic. This could also probably be a subclass ability, as not all rangers are going to want to focus on taming animals.Not a ranger ability in my opinion, at least not as expressed by the spell. Granted, Aragorn could heal, but he did so via herblore, not channeling positive energy or whatever. Herbalism Kit proficiency already allows crafting potions of healing and antitoxins; perhaps give the ranger a feature to do so in less time, and maybe create greater potions of healing, etc. at higher levels.Doesn’t seem necessary for rangers IMO.Makes sense for a ranger, but could probably be relegated to Medicine proficiency.This is exactly the kind of thing I don’t want rangers doing.This is another potentially thematic but far from essential ability for rangers in my opinion. This one is a great fit, and ties in with the idea of healing via herblore. This and the cure wounds stand-in could easily be rolled into the same feature.Nope, not something I want rangers doing.This is a pretty essential ranger ability, but there’s absolutely no reason it needs to be a spell.Entirely unnecessaryFits with rangers but shouldn’t be a spell.Same deal as Animal Friendship. Makes sense as a non-spell feature, and could potentially go into a subclass. Though, honestly I think this should be considered a ribbon, no different from Druidic or Thieves’ Cant, and could easily be a 1st level feature for all rangers.</blockquote>

Verification