Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8420575" data-attributes="member: 6704184">Did you just not read the rest of what you quoted, here, or are you just ignoring it?Ah yes. There is only a minute, and most of a day. Definitely nothing in between.Anything that is very dangerous needs to be taken down quickly, or at least hobbled so it can't follow you easily. Choosing not to learn how to do so would be blatant stupidity.Feel free to explain what on earth led you to this conclusion. Or better yet, why most of your post is just you asking rhetorical questions that attribute to me things I never said?did I say that? Nope.Okay?Magic is full of tools to use in clever tactics, though, and is available to them to learn. They aren't going to hunt boars with knives just because it sounds cooler or they prefer fighting with knives over spears, either.Druids, other rangers, dryads, hags who owe them a favor, wizards in exchange for keeping the area near their tower free of distactions and dangers, nature priests, bards in exchange for allowing them to join a pair of rangers while traversing a wilderness, etc. Like, if rangers are magical, then they learn their magic the same way as every other spellcaster. There are traditions of rangers, and their training includes magic. It's very simple.I have never said they're especially solitary, outside of when they are patrolling the wilds, and even then I've explicitly described them being solo or in very small groups, and have repeatedly mentioned ranger orders.There is no reason for them not to have organizations. This is a thing you're inventing of whole cloth and then acting like I said it.None of that works, because it only allows your preference. It does not allow everyone who prefers a spellcasting ranger to actually play that without making it their whole damn archetype. There are better solutions, several of which I've suggested in this thread.I don't especially like Level Up, from what I've read so far. Why should they be limited to defying nonmagical tracking? The wilds have spellcasting monsters in them. Why would the ranger never learn how to counter them?Okay. I didn't say they couldn't be? They make more sense being somewhat magical with some being overtly magical, but you can stretch the idea pretty far if you squint. Nothing that is a core ranger competency conceptually should ever rely on knowing someone with a proficiency, though. If they get banes, they need to be making them themselves.What. This is pretty blatantly a mischaracterization of what I said,seemingly  desinged to try to win internet points rather than have a discussion.If rangers tend to learn those skills, then they're part of ranger training.Oh? And the other examples I gave?I have no sympathy for the "magic is too common amongst PCs and so it's boring" mindset, when discussing game design. DnD has magic. There are options to playdnd without a lot of magic. If the scout rogue doesn't scratch the wilderness explorer itch for someone, I'm all for variant features that let them ditch thespellcasting trait and reflavor the magical class features beyond that.</blockquote>

Verification