Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9077005" data-attributes="member: 6801228">That's because everything they want to call a ranger... isn't. Katniss Everdeen isn't a ranger. She is a girl with a bow that knows how to hunt. Lovely story, great character, but she just has basic survival skills. Also, she doesn't live in a world with giants, dragons, and sentient psychic slimes.Robin Hood? Other than "lives in the forest" he's just a rogue/fighter. And, heck, are all bandits rangers? Because most of them live in forests too. Also, again, non-magical world.And these two examples highlight more of the issue that I run into when people deny magic as part of the ranger identity. Why is Robin Hood a ranger? Because he lives in the woods and uses a bow. Well, outdoorsman background fighter and use a bow... what's the difference? Robin Hood wasn't a phenomenal tracker, he didn't befriend the beasts of the forest, he didn't even know the seven secret herbs. He just hid in the forest so he wouldn't be attacked. It is JUST the bow. Katniss? Same thing. 90% of the reason she's "a ranger" is because she uses a bow. If Katniss was a swordswoman, she wouldn't have gotten that same reputation. And again, her skill with hunting and survival? It is just the survival skill. Like, it blows my mind how people don't want proficiency in Survival to BE proficiency in surviving in the outdoors. I will guarantee there is not a single thing KAtniss Everdeen does that a trained survivalist couldn't do... and that's what proficiency MEANS. We expect people proficient in religion to have an encyclopedic knowledge of hundreds of religions, monsters and mystic rituals. We expect people proficient in history to know EVERYTHING about the history of the entire world. People proficienct in Performance can sing, dance, paint, play instruments and use puppets. But make it survival and suddenly we are shocked at the idea that tracking, finding food, and not getting lost are all just... in the skill.Sure, should be. Isn't. In fact, Forest Gnomes no longer even get it as a language. Its a spell there too. Consistency of mechanics. We can demand it all get turned into a language, but even if it isn't... well, it being a spell is fine too.Right... so why SHOULD it be the case for Druids but NOT the case for Rangers? I asked that question before, and you said Druids didn't need the poultices because they have magic... but so do rangers. So, if it isn't good for the goose, why are you stuffing it down the gander's throat? And this isn't to say I don't think the herbalism kit can't make healing items. I think it absolutely should. But that is a function of the crafting and the materials, not because of the ranger's special not!magic.I mean, everyone should be able to craft better than the Xanathar's rules. That's just a fact. But I don't see why the ranger can't have spells and the herbalism kit, just like the druid.So, a ranger would be better.... because of expertise? That's what being an expert means. And they currently have that. And Spells. Making them actually WAY better at tracking than the druid. So... accomplished. But the Druid should still be better at tracking things through the desert than the wizard or the cleric.No, it isn't. You keep claiming it is, because you cite people from non-magical worlds and settings and say "SEE! This non-magical person in a non-magical world used a bow and has survival skills, therefore the ranger shouldn't have magic! Rangers in magical worlds, like the Primal Hunter series, tend to be... magical. Because you having a deep and abiding connection with nature is the same as having a deep and abiding connection to the gods. It comes with magic.Yet both are primal casters. Have been for a long time. Even back in the ye olden days, Rangers eventually got Druidic magic. Yes, the Ranger is presented as closer to civilization than the druid, they are half-druids after all. They are the bridge between nature and civilization. But I wouldn't exactly get shocked faces of surprise if I statted wood elves protecting their forest home as rangers. Also, the "threats" many rangers fight? Orcs. Goblins. Giants. Ogres. And WHY do they fight them... because traditionally, those people despoil nature AND are threats to the "normal" civilizations. Or they go and hunt mutated beasts that are... destroying nature and are a threat to society. A ranger almost NEVER is depicted as killing a "king of the forest" type, unless it has been driven mad, or otherwise corrupted.</blockquote>

Verification