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="Faolyn" data-source="post: 8420546" data-attributes="member: 6915329">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.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.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.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.)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.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.</blockquote>

Verification