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="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8420480" data-attributes="member: 6704184">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.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.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 damageOkay 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.Sure, I have repeatedly proposed rangers get "bane" poisons that are specially made to counter certain types of creatures.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.</blockquote>

Verification