log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Why are non-caster Ranger themes so popular?


log in or register to remove this ad

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Not trying to put words in your mouth, but are you implying that a Fighter or Rogue should be basically incapable of wilderness survival?
Wilderness survival isn't the Ranger's job, it's a thing they have to be good at in order to do their job. See another poster's post for the Ranger's job, more or less.

A druid may protect nature because she is a part of nature. A ranger is more likely to protect nature because of the problems that disturbing it causes, and to enforce the "laws" protecting the forest. Fire prevention because fires are bad. Trail maintenance to avoid injuries to either travelers or wildlife (because injured wildlife becomes bait for predators or monsters, and you don't want them near traveled trails). And numerous similar cause-and-effect problems where civilization can shoot itself in the foot in its ignorance of how nature works. Also, anti-poaching enforcement.

Rangers are more than survivalists, scouts, or people who live in the woods. Those are fighters and rogues and barbarians and such with the right skills. Rangers are guardians of the place where the wild and civilised worlds overlap and interact, who protect the natural parts of the wild from the unnatural, all of the wilds from clumsy or over-greedy civilization, and civilization from it's own blundering in relation to the wilds.

An individual PC doesn't need to care about any of that, but that is the basic fiction of the class. That is it's identity.

And in every published DnD world, that job means dealing with hags and trolls and ettercaps and displacer beasts.
 

Greg K

Hero
And in every published DnD world, that job means dealing with hags and trolls and ettercaps and displacer beasts.
I don't recall the 2e "Historical setting" supplements having most or for some (any of those). I also don't remember them all being in B/X (which had available to use, but did not require trolls and, maybe displacers beasts), the Gazetteers (if treating each as an individual setting), or the Hollow World settings.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I don't recall the 2e "Historical setting" supplements having most or for some (any of those). I also don't remember them all being in B/X (which had available to use, but did not require trolls and, maybe displacers beasts), the Gazetteers (if treating each as an individual setting), or the Hollow World settings.
Okay.

Edit: Look, I don’t care about old settings no one but the D&D history archivists remember or care about. edit: like you get that we are discussing 5e, yes? That none of those are likely to return in 5e?

I’m not particularly interested in this whole “no magic evar!!!!1! Mindset toward Rangers. You and I don’t have any common ground wrt the Ranger. Cool. Let’s move on and not intentionally badger eachother over it, shall we?
 

I chose my words correctly. Many creatures in the wild require magic to effectively combat.
What kind of magic is required?

Especially on a reliable basis, and especially without access to a whole squad to other combatants to help you.
So what about a party of adventurers?
Thus, the Ranger must be magic. It's absurd to imagine a Ranger in any published DnD world with no magic actually surviving the job.
What do you mean by magic? Does a magic scimitar count?
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
What kind of magic is required?
I don't understand why you think this questions matters or is relevant to the point. Like, you know that the wilds have a wide range of threats, right? Many of them require magic to defeat. Some require one thing, others something else, others some other thing, etc. 🤷‍♂️
So...yes. The answer is yes.

So what about a party of adventurers?
What about them? Do you imagine that all, or even most, Rangers in the worlds of DnD have a party of adventurers at their disposal? By party of adventurers do you mean people with PC classes?
What do you mean by magic? Does a magic scimitar count?
You're joking. I mean magic. If I was speaking to a more specific requirement than that, I'd have said so. I'm not especially clumsy with my words.
 

Greg K

Hero
Okay.

Edit: Look, I don’t care about old settings no one but the D&D history archivists remember or care about. edit: like you get that we are discussing 5e, yes? That none of those are likely to return in 5e?
And my point was that D&D in the past as supported a wider variety of settings. The only reason that the default level is as it is is i because of WOTC's insistance on pushing Forgotten Realms. The DMG, however, talks about a wider variety of setttings and the rules as a whole should support that variety.
 

Greg K

Hero
I’m not particularly interested in this whole “no magic evar!!!!1! Mindset toward Rangers. You and I don’t have any common ground wrt the Ranger. Cool. Let’s move on and not intentionally badger eachother over it, shall we?
Nice of you to misrepresent what I have written and put words in my mouth. I have said multiple times that I am not for "no magic evar". I have said that magic should be siloed as a choice to support a wider variety of concepts and settings.
 

I don't understand why you think this questions matters or is relevant to the point. Like, you know that the wilds have a wide range of threats, right? Many of them require magic to defeat. Some require one thing, others something else, others some other thing, etc. 🤷‍♂️
So...yes. The answer is yes.
Which ones require magic to defeat?
What about them? Do you imagine that all, or even most, Rangers in the worlds of DnD have a party of adventurers at their disposal? By party of adventurers do you mean people with PC classes?
I have never played such a game - in most cases rangers are either in an adventuring party or some sort of conclave.
You're joking. I mean magic. If I was speaking to a more specific requirement than that, I'd have said so. I'm not especially clumsy with my words.
I genuinely do not understand what you're trying to say here.

Ranger require the spellcasting feature because the wilderness cannot be navigated without spells? That seems to have been your original point, and you have resisted my requests for clarification, so I have to assume you think that without casting spells, people cannot navigate the woods?
 

Faolyn

Hero
I chose my words correctly. Many creatures in the wild require magic to effectively combat. Especially on a reliable basis, and especially without access to a whole squad to other combatants to help you.

Thus, the Ranger must be magic. It's absurd to imagine a Ranger in any published DnD world with no magic actually surviving the job.
I don't think this is the case, especially not in 5e where every creature can be hit with nonmagical weapons--even if a few require those weapons to be made of a special material like silver or adamantine to work. While it's not RAW in 5e, historically a lot of creatures like lycanthropes were vulnerable to wolfsbane or other substances. Bring that back and rangers get an edge.

There are a lot of creatures where attacking them without magic means the battle would be a long slog, but rangers are, or should, be good at skirmishing and hit-and-run attacks, as well as using poisons, traps, and the like. While a lot of creatures are resistant or immune to poison, I can easily see natural substances that can be used in the same way (to coat weapons) but inflict necrotic or even acid damage.

And if the threatening creature really does need magic to combat it, well, the ranger is a wilderness warrior, which means that they likely are in contact with druids. Or even has a few levels of druid themself.
 

Minigiant

Legend
It's less that you cannot navigate the woods without magic.

It's more that the way WOTC set up tiers if play, you cannot do Rangery things in modern D&D in Tiers 2-4 without magic.

Like tracking.

WOTC in multiple editions had this, IMHO, stupid idea to make low level magic that makes you not leave tracks and be invisible to scrying.

Therefore at higher levels, it is very very easy for a magical adversary to make their trail cold as ice. So you'll need spells to counter their spell. Supernatural senses to track be other means. Magical speech to question the only witnesses, plants and animals. Spells to reroll tracking attempts. Magic to make tracks reappear.

All because printing broken low level spells is fun.

Sure the DM could have the kidnapper or villain not buff themselves into obscurity but then you wouldn't be doing advanced tracking. And this is before you walk into the strict and hard rules WOTC places on wilderness survival that your DM must ignore when they do remember wilderness challenges exist.
 

It's less that you cannot navigate the woods without magic.

It's more that the way WOTC set up tiers if play, you cannot do Rangery things in modern D&D in Tiers 2-4 without magic.

Like tracking.

WOTC in multiple editions had this, IMHO, stupid idea to make low level magic that makes you not leave tracks and be invisible to scrying.

Therefore at higher levels, it is very very easy for a magical adversary to make their trail cold as ice. So you'll need spells to counter their spell. Supernatural senses to track be other means. Magical speech to question the only witnesses, plants and animals. Spells to reroll tracking attempts. Magic to make tracks reappear.

All because printing broken low level spells is fun.

Sure the DM could have the kidnapper or villain not buff themselves into obscurity but then you wouldn't be doing advanced tracking. And this is before you walk into the strict and hard rules WOTC places on wilderness survival that your DM must ignore when they do remember wilderness challenges exist.
The thing is: there's no reason they couldn't have set it up to make skills scale. They just chose not to.

"WotC didn't present that option" isn't really a response to OP's question. People want it because there's not reason why it shouldn't be available, and the concept is all over fantasy literature.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
And my point was that D&D in the past as supported a wider variety of settings. The only reason that the default level is as it is is i because of WOTC's insistance on pushing Forgotten Realms. The DMG, however, talks about a wider variety of setttings and the rules as a whole should support that variety.
If you're going to play in a setting that is very different from the normal range of settings in 5e, that is going to be supported by variant features. The norm doesn't get siloed into subclasses and variant features.
Nice of you to misrepresent what I have written and put words in my mouth. I have said multiple times that I am not for "no magic evar". I have said that magic should be siloed as a choice to support a wider variety of concepts and settings.
Same thing. You won't accept any proposal that includes anything remotely magical in the base class. That is not a position I'm interested in engaging with or compromising with. I'm all for figuring a solid ranger wherein the Spellcasting trait is optional. Trying to design one with "no magic of any kind can be a default part of the base class" as a requirement is a complete non-starter.

Hell, I even proposed multiple compromises wherein you could play your ranger without ever taking a spell, and they weren't good enough because they involved resources that could be spent on spells as well. No thanks.
Which ones require magic to defeat?
From a story perspective? A ton of them. Trolls, hags, displacer beasts, most fey, anything with resistence to non-magical damage, etc. A creature doesn't have to be literally untouchable with spells or magic weapons to be something that a single warrior will not defeat without some magical tools in their kit.
I have never played such a game - in most cases rangers are either in an adventuring party or some sort of conclave.
In most cases a ranger PC has a party of adventurers. The rest of their peers are in the wilds solo or in very small groups of other rangers.

The key thing is that the class should model it's fiction. The fact that the ranger will probably have a full caster around in a game of DND to do the magic stuff doesn't matter to how well the Ranger models it's fiction. The Paladin doesn't need holy magic they just need a cleric to be around. Okay, how does that help Paladin's feel and play like divine agents blessed with holy power? Exactly the same is the case with the Ranger. They need to feel like characters that don't need a cadre of other PCs to do their primary job. If they sought out the other PCs to help with something it's because it's something outside the normal competence of Rangers, or something too dangerous for a couple of Rangers by themselves, or something like that.

The idea of a Ranger needing a Druid or Wizard to take care of stuff that is not uncommon in the wilds is...bad. It poorly reflects what Rangers are.
I genuinely do not understand what you're trying to say here.

Ranger require the spellcasting feature because the wilderness cannot be navigated without spells? That seems to have been your original point, and you have resisted my requests for clarification, so I have to assume you think that without casting spells, people cannot navigate the woods?
I genuinely am struggling to imagine what is unclear. I haven't said that rangers require the spellcasting feature, nor made any mention of magic being required to navigate the wilderness. There are magical class features that aren't spellcasting. Perhaps you may have seen posts from me in this very thread proposing ways to give the ranger magic that don't involve that specific feature? If I had meant spellcasting, I'd have said that. I'd have used that term, specifically. If I'd meant navigation, I'd have said that.

Seriously, what is unclear?

Rangers "range" across the wild, singly or in very small groups, protecting the border between wild and civilization. That involves dealing with magical nature, things that aren't magical but prey upon the wilds, and other such things. The idea of orders of people dedicated to that task not learning any kind of magic is strange, and would require some hefty worldbuilding to justify. A Scout Rogue has very few tools to deal with angry dryads, or a family of werebears who while they aren't evil, don't want loggers coming into their woods, or tracking down and dealing with aberrations.

Spellcasting isone way to provide those tools (though 5e Ranger spellcastingwould need to be prepared and have a bit of a better list to really do a good job of that), but there are plenty of other magical abilities, defenses, etc, that Rangers could have.
I don't think this is the case, especially not in 5e where every creature can be hit with nonmagical weapons--even if a few require those weapons to be made of a special material like silver or adamantine to work. While it's not RAW in 5e, historically a lot of creatures like lycanthropes were vulnerable to wolfsbane or other substances. Bring that back and rangers get an edge.
A ranger of appropraite level compared to CR should be able to survive a hostile encounter with a hag, and win if they're smart about it, with minimal or no help. Or at least the class features should support the fiction that they could do so. This means not just being able to hit them and deal damage
There are a lot of creatures where attacking them without magic means the battle would be a long slog, but rangers are, or should, be good at skirmishing and hit-and-run attacks,
Okay come on, really? They're gonna...what, spend the entire day fighting to take a dangerous monstrosity down? That makes sense? Why would they do that when their entire order could, instead, practice a little useful magic that lets them bypass resistances and avoid some of the common magical attacks of the creature in question or magically shut down some of it's most dangerous features?

I just...why would Rangers ever choose not to learn magic? How can you possibly make sense of that in enough DND worlds that a non-magical ranger makes sense as a default?

Come on. Clearly, a non magical ranger is the realm of variant features. The idea that we need to limit the base class to making all magic siloed off into subclasses and variant features is just completely absurd.
as well as using poisons, traps, and the like. While a lot of creatures are resistant or immune to poison, I can easily see natural substances that can be used in the same way (to coat weapons) but inflict necrotic or even acid damage.
Sure, I have repeatedly proposed rangers get "bane" poisons that are specially made to counter certain types of creatures.
And if the threatening creature really does need magic to combat it, well, the ranger is a wilderness warrior, which means that they likely are in contact with druids. Or even has a few levels of druid themself.
If they have to call upon outside help for fairly normal threats, they aren't a ranger. That's...the point of the Ranger. And again...why wouldn't they learn from those druids? I mean you propose levels of druid. If it's common for Rangers to learn Druid skills...why would that not be represented by some nature magic in the Ranger class?

There is no rational reason for rangers to go intothe wilderness and try to protect nature and people from monsters, and just choose to stubbornly remain as mundane as possible. They're just out there...fighting bears unarmored, too? As a matter of pride?

Like lets be clear, here. The 5e Ranger's ability to bypass difficult terrain even if it's magical at high level is a magical ability. The Monk's ability to end a charm effect as an action is magical. If the Ranger had the ability to speak in spite of paralysis (potentially calling for allies or casting a verbal only spell) or an ability to try to escape magical paralysis, restainment, etc, even if they wouldn't normally get a save or if they failed the save, that would be an overtly magical ability no matter how you describe it. Hell, if they had resistance to magic or always add their proficiency to saves against magical effects, that is a very magical ability.

So, sure, lets come up with an alternate limited resource model for rangers, that allows them to spend it on non-spell-related stuff. I'm not going to make any effort to make it non-magical, though, and there is no reason for it to not include spells as options within that system.

TBH, I'm probably just going to work on a system that allows the use of spell slots for other stuff, and make it clear in description that you aren't casting spells when you use abilities within that system that aren't spells or spell-like effects.
 

Greg K

Hero
Come on. Clearly, a non magical ranger is the realm of variant features. The idea that we need to limit the base class to making all magic siloed off into subclasses and variant features is just completely absurd.
I am all for the non-magical ranger being a class variant (my response in a 5.5E-6E thread had exactly that). I would also be willing to support siloing off magic through either subclasses. However, better, imo, would be through the base class by siloing through players choosing at specific levels among options from terrain abilities, combat maneuvers, a beast companion or beast companion ability, spell-like abilities, and spell choices.. Siloing through class choices allows for mix and match unless the DM states otherwise (Btw, I am also not addressing this based on you creating a variant. For that do as you please).
 
Last edited:

You won't accept any proposal that includes anything remotely magical in the base class.
Actually I just think they don't need spellcasting. I'm not sure where you got the impression that I think think they should eschew any and all abilities that could be flavored as magic.

As for the rest: I don't see "being completely independent yet able to defeat anything they might run in to" as a core part of the ranger, largely because I can't think of a fictional example. Most rangers I can think of are human, and humans are generally social animals. If they find something they need assistance for, they go get that. So once that's removed, the idea of occasionally needing to ask for help no longer breaks the concept.

I knew there was an assumption you were making that I wasn't.
 
Last edited:

Greg K

Hero
If you're going to play in a setting that is very different from the normal range of settings in 5e, that is going to be supported by variant features. The norm doesn't get siloed into subclasses and variant features.

Same thing. You won't accept any proposal that includes anything remotely magical in the base class. That is not a position I'm interested in engaging with or compromising with. I'm all for figuring a solid ranger wherein the Spellcasting trait is optional. Trying to design one with "no magic of any kind can be a default part of the base class" as a requirement is a complete non-starter.

Hell, I even proposed multiple compromises wherein you could play your ranger without ever taking a spell, and they weren't good enough because they involved resources that could be spent on spells as well. No thanks.
Yes, I did not want spell slots powering non magical abilities. That is not the same thing as being uncompromising.
I don't even have to have the non-magical ranger as the default (as I mentioned in a response to prior to this). Nor do I support just having spellcaster rangers and non-caster rangers. I want the game to support both and a mixture.

I will am willing to support keeping the default ranger as a spellcaster, but including a non-spellcasting variant that replaces spells and spell slots with another mechanic (for a .5 or full new edition in the PHB)? I am more than willing to accept a mechanic like Warlock invocations or a Monk's ki points that recharge on a short or long rest to fuel player choice from among terrain abilities, traps (as long as there are plenty of non-magical options as well), herbcraft, or spell-like abilities (the last that the DM can remove in a given campaign) and also gaining combat maneuvers.
 
Last edited:

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I am all for the non-magical ranger being a class variant (my response in a 5.5E-6E thread had exactly that). I would also be willing to support siloing off magic through either subclasses. However, better, imo, would be through the base class by siloing through players choosing at specific levels among options from terrain abilities, combat maneuvers, a beast companion or beast companion ability, spell-like abilities, and spell choices.. Siloing through class choices allows for mix and match unless the DM states otherwise (Btw, I am also not addressing this based on you creating a variant. For that do as you please).
Okay, you replied to me previously very strongly refusing to entertain any sort of magic in the base class, without any clarification, so I came to the conclusions I came to.

This, I can work with.

You never replied to my suggestion of a point or dice pool that power abilities the ranger chooses as they level, some of which can be wholly mundane, some preternatural as @Charlaquin prefers, or more overtly magical, with enough choices at each choice point that you can build to your preference or mine.


Actually I just think they don't need spellcasting. I'm not sure where you got the impression that I think think they should eschew any and all abilities that could be flavored as magic.
If you check again you'll find that I said that in reply to another poster, not you.
As for the rest: I don't see "being completely independent yet able to defeat anything they might run in to" as a core part of the ranger,
Neither do I. If I did, I'd say so.
largely because I can't think of a fictional example. Most rangers I can think of are human, and humans are generally social animals. If they find something they need assistance for, they go get that. So once that's removed, the idea of occasionally needing to ask for help no longer breaks the concept.
Strider. Less magical world, so less magical folks, but dude holds off ringwraiths by himself.
You're also conflating what I said with "never needs to or is willing to ask for help" which is a thing I never said.

What I did say is that Rangers need to be able to survive and potentially just deal with the stuff that haunts the wilds, without having to leave the wilds in danger long enough to gather a platoon or a couple wizards every time a treant goes berserk or a hag wants to eat the frontier family that just moved to the edge of the woods.
 

Faolyn

Hero
From a story perspective? A ton of them. Trolls, hags, displacer beasts, most fey, anything with resistence to non-magical damage, etc. A creature doesn't have to be literally untouchable with spells or magic weapons to be something that a single warrior will not defeat without some magical tools in their kit.
Trolls can be killed with fire. Displacer beasts just need good aim. Fey have few or no physical resistances and while they are magical, they can be tricked with just wits.

In most cases a ranger PC has a party of adventurers. The rest of their peers are in the wilds solo or in very small groups of other rangers.

The key thing is that the class should model it's fiction. The fact that the ranger will probably have a full caster around in a game of DND to do the magic stuff doesn't matter to how well the Ranger models it's fiction. The Paladin doesn't need holy magic they just need a cleric to be around. Okay, how does that help Paladin's feel and play like divine agents blessed with holy power? Exactly the same is the case with the Ranger. They need to feel like characters that don't need a cadre of other PCs to do their primary job. If they sought out the other PCs to help with something it's because it's something outside the normal competence of Rangers, or something too dangerous for a couple of Rangers by themselves, or something like that.

The idea of a Ranger needing a Druid or Wizard to take care of stuff that is not uncommon in the wilds is...bad. It poorly reflects what Rangers are.

I genuinely am struggling to imagine what is unclear. I haven't said that rangers require the spellcasting feature, nor made any mention of magic being required to navigate the wilderness. There are magical class features that aren't spellcasting. Perhaps you may have seen posts from me in this very thread proposing ways to give the ranger magic that don't involve that specific feature? If I had meant spellcasting, I'd have said that. I'd have used that term, specifically. If I'd meant navigation, I'd have said that.

Seriously, what is unclear?

Rangers "range" across the wild, singly or in very small groups, protecting the border between wild and civilization. That involves dealing with magical nature, things that aren't magical but prey upon the wilds, and other such things. The idea of orders of people dedicated to that task not learning any kind of magic is strange, and would require some hefty worldbuilding to justify. A Scout Rogue has very few tools to deal with angry dryads, or a family of werebears who while they aren't evil, don't want loggers coming into their woods, or tracking down and dealing with aberrations.

Spellcasting isone way to provide those tools (though 5e Ranger spellcastingwould need to be prepared and have a bit of a better list to really do a good job of that), but there are plenty of other magical abilities, defenses, etc, that Rangers could have.

A ranger of appropraite level compared to CR should be able to survive a hostile encounter with a hag, and win if they're smart about it, with minimal or no help. Or at least the class features should support the fiction that they could do so. This means not just being able to hit them and deal damage

Okay come on, really? They're gonna...what, spend the entire day fighting to take a dangerous monstrosity down? That makes sense? Why would they do that when their entire order could, instead, practice a little useful magic that lets them bypass resistances and avoid some of the common magical attacks of the creature in question or magically shut down some of it's most dangerous features?
Why wouldn't they? Because you think that every combat should last for less than a minute? It literally makes more sense for a ranger--especially one who's working alone or in a small group--to inflict a bit of damage and then hide until they can get another good shot at the target. This is only a bad plan if the creature can fly/teleport away or heal itself.

Do you also think that every ranger is going to only fight CR-appropriate creatures? If they are working alone (as you say), then it would be suicide for them to go against a too-powerful creature in a 1v1 battle. But if the ranger has sworn to protect an area or to fight all monsters of a particular type, then they're less likely to just shrug and say "not my level." They'll either get help or use clever tactics. And 1v1 is not clever tactics.

I just...why would Rangers ever choose not to learn magic? How can you possibly make sense of that in enough DND worlds that a non-magical ranger makes sense as a default?
OK then: who (or what) would they learn magic from? If rangers are so solitary, then there's no reason why there would be ranger organizations. I'm not saying there can't be ranger organizations, but they don't need to be the default either. So do rangers spontaneously develop magical skills, like they're sorcerers? Then why is their magic all nature/hunting related instead of mostly blaster magic? Does the earth give them magic, like druids? If so, then why does it give the magic to "bounty hunter"-style rangers as well as wilderness protector rangers? Do they learn magical tricks from from each other? But then there's that thing about ranger organizations.

This is why I prefer ranger magic as a subclass thing, as a warlock-style invocations thing, or as magical traits rather than as being half-casters as default.

Out of curiosity, have you seen the Level Up ranger? Sadly, the playtest was removed now that the book's in kickstarter, but it's nonmagical yet still has lots of traits--some of which are pseudomagical--that make it worthy. An innate nonmagical hunter's mark (instead of relying on the spell), the ability to increase accuracy and damage with attacks, a nonmagical self-only pass without trace that defies nonmagical tracking, and more.

Sure, I have repeatedly proposed rangers get "bane" poisons that are specially made to counter certain types of creatures.
Things like that are great, and nonmagical to boot. All it should really require is proficiency in the Herbalism kit or the Poisoner's kit. (Or knowing someone who has those proficiencies.)

If they have to call upon outside help for fairly normal threats, they aren't a ranger. That's...the point of the Ranger. And again...why wouldn't they learn from those druids? I mean you propose levels of druid. If it's common for Rangers to learn Druid skills...why would that not be represented by some nature magic in the Ranger class?
So basically all PC rangers aren't really rangers, because they're relying on help?

And if a ranger is going to learn druid skills... that makes them multiclassed. Or means they took the Magic Initiate feat and grabbed druid skills that way.

Like lets be clear, here. The 5e Ranger's ability to bypass difficult terrain even if it's magical at high level is a magical ability. The Monk's ability to end a charm effect as an action is magical. If the Ranger had the ability to speak in spite of paralysis (potentially calling for allies or casting a verbal only spell) or an ability to try to escape magical paralysis, restainment, etc, even if they wouldn't normally get a save or if they failed the save, that would be an overtly magical ability no matter how you describe it. Hell, if they had resistance to magic or always add their proficiency to saves against magical effects, that is a very magical ability.
I'd disagree. Or rather, I'd say that it can be seen as magical, or it can be seen as being highly, but mundanely, skilled. A ranger can be just that good at bypassing difficult terrain that magical terrain isn't that much worse, and a monk can be well-trained at the meditations needed to break mind control.

I think one of the reasons why many people want the ranger to be primarily nonmagical is because magic is so omnipresent in D&D as to be kind of boring. Making the ranger be able to be able to do things because of their own training and talents makes them cooler, IMO.

Edit: Just FYI, I'm fine with rangers having magical or pseudomagical abilities. I'm not fond of them learning spells as a base ability. That should be an archetype thing.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Yes, I did not want spell slots powering non magical abilities. That is not the same thing as being uncompromising.
I don't even have to have the non-magical ranger as the default (as I mentioned in a response to prior to this). Nor do I support just having spellcaster rangers and non-caster rangers. I want the game to support both and a mixture.

I will am willing to support keeping the default ranger as a spellcaster, but including a non-spellcasting variant that replaces spells and spell slots with another mechanic (for a .5 or full new edition in the PHB)? I am more than willing to accept a mechanic like Warlock invocations or a Monk's ki points that recharge on a short or long rest to fuel player choice from among terrain abilities, traps (as long as there are plenty of non-magical options as well), herbcraft, or spell-like abilities (the last that the DM can remove in a given campaign) and also gaining combat maneuvers?
I'm fine with all of those ideas. I prefer the simplicity of using the existing structure of spell slots simply because it's already there and spell levels are very easy to balance for, but if the presence of spell slots is a problem, I'm fine with switching to a point system that has more neutral flavor.

The main thing I am not okay with is adding things like poultices and traps and poisons, and saying "if you want spells you can't have these".
 

Minigiant

Legend
The thing is: there's no reason they couldn't have set it up to make skills scale. They just chose not to.

"WotC didn't present that option" isn't really a response to OP's question. People want it because there's not reason why it shouldn't be available, and the concept is all over fantasy literature.
I'was not answering OP's question. I answered that one many times here.

I was answering the "why rangers need magic in official WOTC play" question.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top