Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 9066418" data-attributes="member: 6779196">It’s simply not true that rangers have never been nonmagical. Up until 3e, they were nonmagical for the majority of their adventuring careers, only gaining a few low-level spells at the very end of their class progression, and well after such low level spells were likely to still be useful. Spellcasting on the pre-WotC ranger was practically a ribbon, there to express the Ranger’s connection to nature crossing the threshold of the mundane into truly supernatural territory, not as a real power boost. And in 4e they had no magic at all, until Essentials came around and gave them a subclass with a secondary primal power source, mostly granting utility and a little bit of battlefield control. Spellcasting as a significant part of the Ranger’s kit has really only been a thing in 3e and 5e. And as a staunch advocate for the non-casting ranger, I would actually be fine with going back to a small amount of mostly utility spellcasting. Making half the class’s power come from spellcasting is not true to the class’s design roots, any more than it is to the literary archetype. Give me a 1/3 casting ranger, with at least one subclass that gains no spellcasting at all, and I’ll be a very happy camper.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 9066418, member: 6779196"] It’s simply not true that rangers have never been nonmagical. Up until 3e, they were nonmagical for the majority of their adventuring careers, only gaining a few low-level spells at the very end of their class progression, and well after such low level spells were likely to still be useful. Spellcasting on the pre-WotC ranger was practically a ribbon, there to express the Ranger’s connection to nature crossing the threshold of the mundane into truly supernatural territory, not as a real power boost. And in 4e they had no magic at all, until Essentials came around and gave them a subclass with a secondary primal power source, mostly granting utility and a little bit of battlefield control. Spellcasting as a significant part of the Ranger’s kit has really only been a thing in 3e and 5e. And as a staunch advocate for the non-casting ranger, I would actually be fine with going back to a [I]small[/I] amount of [I]mostly utility[/I] spellcasting. Making [I]half[/I] the class’s power come from spellcasting is not true to the class’s design roots, any more than it is to the literary archetype. Give me a 1/3 casting ranger, with at least one subclass that gains no spellcasting at all, and I’ll be a very happy camper. [/QUOTE]

Verification