Here are my questions.
How do the orders of high sorcery handle a renegade hunter who is a ranger high enough to have access to Divine spells?
What is the official policy for renegade hunters wielding weapons other than quarterstaff and dagger?
How do the orders of high sorcery handle a renegade hunter who is a ranger high enough to have access to Divine spells?
They wouldn't be that high of level as a ranger. Rangers would have to have a deity from which they get their spells, while wizards gain their spells from the moon gods. You can only have one patron deity in Dragonlance, so you can't be too high of a level as a ranger.
What is the official policy for renegade hunters wielding weapons other than quarterstaff and dagger?
The WoHS can wield weapons other than dagger and staff. It is tradition, though, that the WoHS limit themselves, in honor of Magius.
As far as renegade hunters specifically, I would say that the WoHS might be more lax, as a renegade hunter would have to use every means at their disposal to bring a renegade in.
They wouldn't be that high of level as a ranger. Rangers would have to have a deity from which they get their spells, while wizards gain their spells from the moon gods. You can only have one patron deity in Dragonlance, so you can't be too high of a level as a ranger.
You'd simply have no spellcasting from your ranger levels, whatever level ranger you ended up being. There are non-spellcasting ranger variants in several products, both by WOTC and by independent publishers; I would suggest any potential renegade hunter that also wanted ranger abilities take up one of these variants, rather than the standard class.
There's no specific mention of renegade hunters bearing sickles like the one in the illustration - that's a little bit of artistic license. However, I agree with Trampas in that it'd be very appropriate for the renegade hunters to gain special dispensation for their use.
Cheers,
Cam
In Dragonlance, I feel that the spells a Ranger gets work in the same way as mysticism, except they arent done on the fly. They still have to be selected at the beginning of each day. I really dont see the problem with it. You can go with varient rangers, but I dont see the need to change anything. So what if they prepare instead of just bringing it out of thin air, it can still be from within.
There's no specific mention of renegade hunters bearing sickles like the one in the illustration - that's a little bit of artistic license. However, I agree with Trampas in that it'd be very appropriate for the renegade hunters to gain special dispensation for their use.
The nice thing about sickles for renegade hunters is their crescent shape. Imagine if a renegade hunter was hunting down a dangerous renegade who refused to join the orders, and the last thing he saw was a moon-shaped weapon coming at him.
Personally, I think I would have sickle be a "badge of office" for renegade hunters.
Personally I would just allow the ranger to have the spells. They only get up to like 3rd level spells anyways, not anything earth shaking or powerful. Ranger is one of those classes where the magic would just be better if it was considered to have come from nature or from within.
It's not about the power of the spell, it's about the dedication to High Sorcery. The cardinal rule with Dragonlance spellcasters is that you can only have one patron deity. You can multiclass between spellcasting classes so long as it is the same patron deity. A ranger/druid of Habbakuk or a druid/cleric of Chislev are good examples. One can't be a ranger/WoHS because that would require two different patron deities.
As for rangers using mysticism, mechanically that doesn't work since rangers prepare their spells and ambient spellcasters don't. You could make an exception to this rule if that's the flavor you're going for. Rangers and druids typically gain their spells from one of the nature deities, so having Habbakuk, Chislev, or Zeboim as a patron deity works the best.
As I've said in a different thread, I don't look at ambient magic and wizardry as different because how they are done so much, but where they come from. Thats why I never have a problem with a sorceror taking Arcane Preperation. While I believe that most ambient magic should be "done on the fly" and the other magic done mainly by preperation, a little bit of overlapping bothers me not at all. Its just not a big enough deal.
Unfortunately, the Gods is where I get annoyed with Dragonlance. It seems everytime someone wants to multi-class there are huge restrictions why its not possible with the Gods. No Cleric/Wizards, Druid/Wizards, (higher than 4th or whatever) Ranger/Wizard, etc. I just find it highly annoying. It seems to really limit more than help. While yes, each world has some limitations and such, this rule could easily be changed without changing anything about the flavor of the world, while opening up all these possibilities. One patron god? Eh.. its just not needed. Also it would have made things like Arakias not even an issue, because he *could* have been a wizard in the army of Takhisis just fine, while honring Nuitari, but following Takhisis. Personally, I see more problems that "need to be gotten around" more than anything when it comes to stuff like this.
I dont even personally like druids having to have a patron god and never made the druid in my group have one. She wanted to worship nature and do things to help out nature, not anything dealing with a God. While some people may argue "but the God is nature..".. yea yea you might be right, but this way she does whats right for nature, animals, etc and doesnt worry about pleasing a god, worrying about their wants, etc. And..she was evil. So she would do bad things to people who messed with nature.
When it comes down to it, a Ranger/Wizard who has a few spells from their Ranger side really isnt messing up anything. If you are multiclassing, you probably wont get higher than 2nd level spells anyways. What do you get like maybe 4 spells or something? I guess I just see it as a small thing, its basically justs omething I'd overlook. A Cleric/Wizard who had two gods and was trying to please both.. eh..I could maybe see how that was problematic. But then again it could be done. For people who say that the person would be divided between their two loyalties, I say look over the Solamnic Auxiliary. That person is split between the Knights of Solamnia and the Wizards of High Sorcery. I guess I just dont see the difference. Real people can be divided in their devotion, and thats the struggle of life to try to resolve this struggle.
When it comes down to it, a Ranger/Wizard who has a few spells from their Ranger side really isnt messing up anything.
Of course it isn't messing up anything. Core D&D works on the idea that any class can multiclass with another and there's usually plenty of checks and balances in place that make it work. There's no problem playing a ranger/wizard or druid/wizard or cleric/sorcerer in other settings, and I don't think that's the issue here. This isn't at all about game balance.
Krynn is very special in that it treats commitment, faith, devotion, and ambition very seriously. Moreso, in fact, than any other D&D world. It matters that your deity grants you power. It matters that after you pass the Test and demonstrate your talent to the Orders of High Sorcery, that you profess your alignment with one of the gods of magic. These have little to no game effect, on occasion, although dodging the issue often leads to not being able to enjoy some game effects (like prestige classes). But they make the setting come alive more than it would if you just used the core rules and faked it.
It's all optional, of course, and I'm not going to repeat the words many people have grown to hate us saying here about your own campaigns, but I do hope that you see why these rules were put together to begin with. All of the people who write Dragonlance material do it out of appreciation for the themes and philosophies of the setting and how this works in play. I think I can speak for all involved when I say that.
I've also come to expect that you're not happy with a lot of that, True Blue (including much of what I personally have writen!) but you're at least a willing participant in discussions and can voice an honest expression of why you aren't, so I continue to appreciate your posts.
Cheers,
Cam