We have the thread about whether paladins should be spell-casters.. We need to have the same discussion about rangers.
Paladins were not originally spell-casters, nor could they turn undead. In OD&D Greyhawk, they were fighters first and foremost. They did have the ability to heal via Laying on Hands, to Detect and Dispel Evil, to remove a curse, and to summon a warhorse; and they had a perpetual Protection from Evil aura and were immune to disease. Spells and turning undead didn't come along until 1e. In BD&D, they were Definitely a spell-casting and undead-turning class, as a cleric of 1/3 of their level. With all the other abilities that have been tacked-on over the years, an argument can be made that one can be an effective paladin without true "spellcasting".
Rangers, on the other hand, have gone the other direction. The original ranger, from Strategic Review, was also a fighter, but also had limited arcane and cleric spells at higher levels. Tracking has been a part of the class all along, as has the "favored enemy" feature (originally "giant class") but not 2-weapon fighting Or archery. In 1e, the cleric spells were changed to druidic. BD&D did not have a true "ranger" class; there were 2 classes from the Gazetteers and Princess Ark series, the Forester and the Druidic Knight. Foresters were straight-up fighter/mages, while druidic knights acted like BD&D paladins with druidic spells. By 3.x, arcane spells were dropped for the ranger and the archery/2-weapon builds were added, and the ranger gained more rogue-ish abilities; and by 4.0 (and C&C), the ranger had become virtually a purely-martial rogue/fighter hybrid.
The debate on the paladin applies equally to the ranger. Should rangers have spellcasting? Should they be purely "martial"? If so, what special abilities should they have? Are they really glorified fighter/thieves who do their thieving outside?
Paladins were not originally spell-casters, nor could they turn undead. In OD&D Greyhawk, they were fighters first and foremost. They did have the ability to heal via Laying on Hands, to Detect and Dispel Evil, to remove a curse, and to summon a warhorse; and they had a perpetual Protection from Evil aura and were immune to disease. Spells and turning undead didn't come along until 1e. In BD&D, they were Definitely a spell-casting and undead-turning class, as a cleric of 1/3 of their level. With all the other abilities that have been tacked-on over the years, an argument can be made that one can be an effective paladin without true "spellcasting".
Rangers, on the other hand, have gone the other direction. The original ranger, from Strategic Review, was also a fighter, but also had limited arcane and cleric spells at higher levels. Tracking has been a part of the class all along, as has the "favored enemy" feature (originally "giant class") but not 2-weapon fighting Or archery. In 1e, the cleric spells were changed to druidic. BD&D did not have a true "ranger" class; there were 2 classes from the Gazetteers and Princess Ark series, the Forester and the Druidic Knight. Foresters were straight-up fighter/mages, while druidic knights acted like BD&D paladins with druidic spells. By 3.x, arcane spells were dropped for the ranger and the archery/2-weapon builds were added, and the ranger gained more rogue-ish abilities; and by 4.0 (and C&C), the ranger had become virtually a purely-martial rogue/fighter hybrid.
The debate on the paladin applies equally to the ranger. Should rangers have spellcasting? Should they be purely "martial"? If so, what special abilities should they have? Are they really glorified fighter/thieves who do their thieving outside?
