NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8415632" data-attributes="member: 6779196">I mean, if it suits the class’s narrative, then yes.Honestly, from the way you talk about this, I don’t think there’s a way to satisfy both sides here. One group doesn’t want to cast spells as a ranger, but they want to get something else cool in its place. The other group doesn’t want to have to give up spellcasting to get whatever other cool things the ranger can do. There’s just no way to satisfy both of those desires that isn’t going to be a compromise no one is truly happy with. And thus, we have the 5e ranger.If spellcasting as a subclass option is off the table, then I think modeling the ranger after the warlock is probably the least-bad way to go. Instead of invocations you could have wilderness knacks or whatever, and instead of spell slots you have… some sort of power point. It’s not my favorite solution, but like I said, it’s an ok compromise. At least with the warlock model it’s effectively an encounter resource instead of a daily one. And, you could make it feel less power point-y if you tied its default use to something (maybe a Hunter’s Mark type feature), and then your wilderness knacks could allow you to spend “uses of” that ability to do something else (which could include casting certain spells) instead, like how the UA wildfire druid could spend “uses of wildshape” to summon a pet. I don’t think it’s ideal for anyone, but under the parameters you’ve laid out, I think it’s the least bad option.I don’t think a rogue subclass is capable of satisfying the folks who want a non-spellcasting ranger, any more than a spellcasting subclass for the non-spellcasting ranger would be for the folks who want a spellcasting ranger. I don’t like the idea of two classes that are basically the same but one casts spells and the other doesn’t any better though.</blockquote>

Verification