doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Okay.That is your opinion, not fact
Okay.That is your opinion, not fact
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.Not trying to put words in your mouth, but are you implying that a Fighter or Rogue should be basically incapable of wilderness survival?
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.
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.And in every published DnD world, that job means dealing with hags and trolls and ettercaps and displacer beasts.
Okay.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.
What kind of magic is required?I chose my words correctly. Many creatures in the wild require magic to effectively combat.
So what about a party of adventurers?Especially on a reliable basis, and especially without access to a whole squad to other combatants to help you.
What do you mean by magic? Does a magic scimitar count?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 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.What kind of magic is required?
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?So what about a party of adventurers?
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.What do you mean by magic? Does a magic scimitar count?
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.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?
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’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?
Which ones require magic to defeat?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.
I have never played such a game - in most cases rangers are either in an adventuring party or some sort of conclave.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 genuinely do not understand what you're trying to say here.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 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.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.