Dennis da Ogre |
For everyone who hates ranger spellcasting, would their "spells" be more palatable if they were described as "optional class features"? For example, instead of being able to cast cure light wounds, tell yourself you have the class ability to heal 1d8 + 1/2 level hp 1/day (to use the healing example given). You don't cast pass without trace; instead, your "trackless step" ability improves, allowing you to apply it to others with whom you are travelling. Etc.
In this manner, "spells" actually become "ranger talents" (just like rogue talents, but 1/day each). The mechanics are the same as they were, and they take up no extra space in the rulebook, but the flavor is a lot better.
I think the real interest in a Spell free Ranger has less to do with flavor and more to do with the fact that people want to treat Wisdom as a dump stat.
Kirth Gersen |
I think the real interest in a Spell free Ranger has less to do with flavor and more to do with the fact that people want to treat Wisdom as a dump stat.
Wisdom controls Perception and Survival, your two primary skills. From that perspective, dump-statting Wis would seem rather like shooting yourself in the arm.
@Abraham - It seems like the ranger's spells weren't originally meant to be a powerful addition so much as a grab-bag of minor tricks. That said, some of the Complete and other non-core books ramped up their usefulness dramatically (hunter's mercy, etc.), so preserving some of that utility in Pathfinder is not at all unreasonable.
Dennis da Ogre |
Dennis da Ogre wrote:I think the real interest in a Spell free Ranger has less to do with flavor and more to do with the fact that people want to treat Wisdom as a dump stat.Wisdom controls Perception and Survival, your two primary skills. From that perspective, dump-statting Wis would seem rather like shooting yourself in the arm.
Wasn't a suggestion, just my silly supposition about why this idea keeps coming up.
Dennis da Ogre |
Well I don't need something to replace the spells that makes me go "OMG I'M ONLY PLAYING RANGER FROM NOW ON!" Maybe simply a d6 sneak attack at level 5, 10, 15, 20, possibly even making it only usable against favored enemies or in favored environments.
The ranger already has his own signature attack, let the rogue hang on to his.
MerrikCale |
I would do away with spells. Or make a second type of decision around level 6 or so, go into spellcasting or get a series of special abilities.
Another alternative is to make a new base class (my choice) of a non-spell casting ranger type. Much like the 3.5 Scout class which I would love to see get Paizo-fied
Kirth Gersen |
Conceptually, I like that fact that, in a highly magical world, some warriors (paladins, rangers) get magical abilities.
Mechanically, I like spells because their power scales. Feats don't. That's why wizards and clerics, at high levels, are better than fighters. At low levels, fighters get to use their tricks "at will," whereas the casters get some at will (cantrips) and the rest 1/day -- it works out OK. At higher levels, more feats (essentially cantrips: minor "at will" abilities) are totally overshadowed by higher-level spells, and the casters have enough 1/day spells that they don't really have to be stingy with them anymore.
For the ranger and paladin to be viable combatants, an easy fix is to make sure they have a list of spells that scale meaningfully with their class level, and with the spells of other classes.