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

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
Hey, @Faolyn and @doctorbadwolf - Do either of you think your exchange is going to get you anywhere useful? Because at the moment you look like two people dug in deeply, with no intention of moving, but unwilling to let the other have the last word.

I recommend you either change the nature of your exchange, or drop it, before someone has to end it for you, which I don't expect you'll like at all.

 

[Faolyn]

Mod Note:
Hey, @Faolyn and @doctorbadwolf - Do either of you think your exchange is going to get you anywhere useful? Because at the moment you look like two people dug in deeply, with no intention of moving, but unwilling to let the other have the last word.

I recommend you either change the nature of your exchange, or drop it, before someone has to end it for you, which I don't expect you'll like at all.

Apologies.

 

[ECMO3]

The concept ran with an idea that rangers were either parts of cells within a larger organization or that rangers had a ton of wilderness and civilized contacts and some one or group would teach them stuff or another ranger who pass down knowledge from other folk.

I am not sure I buy this. If I remember correctly there was a limit on how many 1E Rangers were allowed to work together.

 

[niklinna]

I am not sure I buy this. If I remember correctly there was a limit on how many 1E Rangers were allowed to work together.

From the horse's mouth (second part): TSR - Q&A with Gary Gygax

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Paladin are "holy warriors," but in DnD "holy" is a kind of magic, so paladins are obviously

"Holy" absolutely does not need to be a kind of magic, for exactly the same reason that Wilderness is not inherently magical but Druids tap into the magic of nature. It's literally identical.

"Supernatural" is bigger than just "magic." "Magic" is a very specific structure and approach. It has slots and levels and specific types of components (somatic, verbal, and material), and there's a whole bunch of rules for all of those things. Channel Divinity, by comparison, is not "magic"--and thus certainly not spellcasting--but still clearly supernatural. Warlock Invocations are another example where many of them are NOT magic, but ARE clearly supernatural.

I want Paladins (and Rangers) that can do useful, powerful, and (potentially) supernatural things. I do not want those things to be spells. It is an ongoing flaw of D&D design logic that, if something is a supernatural power, it must be a spell. 5e has examples where it deviates from this, but they're rare. I would very much rather they were common.

 

[Minigiant]

I am not sure I buy this. If I remember correctly there was a limit on how many 1E Rangers were allowed to work together.

From the horse's mouth (second part): TSR - Q&A with Gary Gygax

I said cells. I was thinking 1-3 rangers. A ranger veteran and his 2 apprentices or vice versa. If they aren't mentoring, they are alone in the wilds.

Also the ranger PC is one who is not stationed anywhere nor attached to a force. This further emphasizes that the Ranger class is anomaly in society. Some weird dude in the wilds who defends towns he doesn't live in, has connections to cultures and groups he doesn't belong to, just get to hunt their enemies and ocassionally take inayouth to pass down his skills.

 

[niklinna]

"Holy" absolutely does not need to be a kind of magic, for exactly the same reason that Wilderness is not inherently magical but Druids tap into the magic of nature. It's literally identical.

"Supernatural" is bigger than just "magic." "Magic" is a very specific structure and approach. It has slots and levels and specific types of components (somatic, verbal, and material), and there's a whole bunch of rules for all of those things. Channel Divinity, by comparison, is not "magic"--and thus certainly not spellcasting--but still clearly supernatural. Warlock Invocations are another example where many of them are NOT magic, but ARE clearly supernatural.

I want Paladins (and Rangers) that can do useful, powerful, and (potentially) supernatural things. I do not want those things to be spells. It is an ongoing flaw of D&D design logic that, if something is a supernatural power, it must be a spell. 5e has examples where it deviates from this, but they're rare. I would very much rather they were common.

Hm! I've always defined this differently. Supernatural stuff wouldn't be affected by dispel magic, for example. Magic effects—even if not spells—would be. And spells are what have components and cast times and levels and (usually) slots, and can be counterspelled.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Hm! I've always defined this differently. Supernatural stuff wouldn't be affected by dispel magic, for example. Magic effects—even if not spells—would be. And spells are what have components and cast times and levels and (usually) slots, and can be counterspelled.

Sure, that's basically the 3e way, but being fast and loose with the line between (Su) and (Sp). But you're still bringing in a ton of spell baggage here: things subject to the spell dispel magic, or to the spell antimagic field, etc.

I'm using the term "supernatural" in its ordinary sense: that which is beyond the limits of the natural. I include in this category things I call "transmundane": stuff that isn't magic or spells or any of that faffery, stuff that theoretically arises from superlative mundane skill, but which exceeds the limits of what "ordinary" things should be able to achieve.

The transmundane and non-magic supernatural power are horrifically neglected in 5e as it currently stands. I mean, for God's sake, it is an outright spell, a third-level spell, to be able to shoot lots of arrows at once (conjure barrage, or its FIFTH-level counterpart, conjure volley). I want a world where a blacksmith does not also need to graduate from a magic academy or have a dragon (and/or deity) in the family tree in order to make weapons with supernatural properties. I want a world where encouraging words, if spoken persuasively enough, truly can draw out the inner reserves a person never knew they had. Where a rogue whose skill grows from excellent to world-renowned to legendary can start doing things that shouldn't be physically possible, but somehow, still happen, like stealing the color of a maiden's eyes or a memory of an important event. Where the unyielding faith, stalwart and true, of a single person can be more than just a metaphorical light in the darkness, but actually turn back the night.

Because a world where those things happen is one that still feels "magical," even though none of those actions is Magic, the official D&D game mechanic by that name.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Channel Divinity, by comparison, is not "magic"--

Wait yes it is. It isn’t Spellcasting, but magic =\= Spellcasting. The Swarmkeeper Ranger’s abilities are magic. The Paladin’s Lay on Hands is magic.

Magic isn’t just spells.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Wait yes it is. It isn’t Spellcasting, but magic =\= Spellcasting. The Swarmkeeper Ranger’s abilities are magic. The Paladin’s Lay on Hands is magic.

Magic isn’t just spells.

Except that 99% of the time, when people say "magic," they mean spells-and-only-spells. Even if CD is explicitly "magic" (and I'd need to see the rules reference that says it is), my fundamental point still stands. Whatever words you want to call it, D&D is addicted to making ALMOST EVERYTHING out-of-the-ordinary into explicitly and specifically a spell. And then most D&D fans use the term "magic" for that thing. E.g., they don't speak of "psionics" as a form of "magic," they explicitly use terms like "psionic/magic transparency," NOT "psionic/spellcasting transparency."

As people actually use the words, D&D reduces almost all of the supernatural to magic and treats "magic" as synonymous with the spellcasting mechanic unless explicitly specified otherwise. This is a serious problem.