D&D 5E The Ranger: You got spellcasting in my peanut butter!

[Thaumaturge]

Don't forget tiefling. They make great darned ninjas.

Funny, but I figured gnomes as more likely to be the ones making their gear out of yarn.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Gargoyle]

That's what people are asking for here...

It's not exactly unreasonable!

Another approach would probably be to simply remove the spells and give a Ranger the class features of both Hunter AND Beastmaster (and, perhaps, an extra attack at 10). That'd probably work as a quick fix for the issue.
o

This is elegant, except then you have people complain that they don't want spells or a pet either, which is understandable, but the biggest reason I wouldn't do this is that it might boost a low level ranger too much, even encouraging people to dip a single level into ranger. At higher levels without the spells it might be ok. Even still, their spells are mostly for utility and flavor. Most do not add directly to their combat ability, which is why I think one or two feats might be enough to replace them. I hesitate to theorycraft further though without the PHB in hand.

But I agree, it's not unreasonable to want this in some form, and it's kind of strange with all the subclass options out there that it isn't in the PHB, so I would probably try to accommodate a player with some home brew variant if they wanted a non-spellcasting ranger.

 

[variant]

This is elegant, except then you have people complain that they don't want spells or a pet either, which is understandable, but the biggest reason I wouldn't do this is that it might boost a low level ranger too much, even encouraging people to dip a single level into ranger. At higher levels without the spells it might be ok. Even still, their spells are mostly for utility and flavor. Most do not add directly to their combat ability, which is why I think one or two feats might be enough to replace them. I hesitate to theorycraft further though without the PHB in hand.

But I agree, it's not unreasonable to want this in some form, and it's kind of strange with all the subclass options out there that it isn't in the PHB, so I would probably try to accommodate a player with some home brew variant if they wanted a non-spellcasting ranger.

They have a spell to enhance the damage to their range attacks, healing, and spells to control the battlefield. Their utility spells are also quite good such as a spell to that gives 10 feet movement speed bonus, a spell that gives +10 Stealth to everyone within 25 feet of them and a spell that gives darkvision. The spellcasting power they have is worth more than a couple of feats.

 

[Gargoyle]

They have a spell to enhance the damage to their range attacks, healing, and spells to control the battlefield. Their utility spells are also quite good such as a spell to that gives 10 feet movement speed bonus, a spell that gives +10 Stealth to everyone within 25 feet of them and a spell that gives darkvision. The spellcasting power they have is worth more than a couple of feats.

Good to know, thanks. Really looking forward to having the PHB in my grubby paws.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This is elegant, except then you have people complain that they don't want spells or a pet either, which is understandable, but the biggest reason I wouldn't do this is that it might boost a low level ranger too much, even encouraging people to dip a single level into ranger. At higher levels without the spells it might be ok. Even still, their spells are mostly for utility and flavor. Most do not add directly to their combat ability, which is why I think one or two feats might be enough to replace them. I hesitate to theorycraft further though without the PHB in hand.

But I agree, it's not unreasonable to want this in some form, and it's kind of strange with all the subclass options out there that it isn't in the PHB, so I would probably try to accommodate a player with some home brew variant if they wanted a non-spellcasting ranger.

I have to agree with variant - they have a lot of spells, and those spells are powerful.

You say "their spells are mostly for utility and flavour". Hmm, can't speak for the PHB, but in the Alpha certainly that's not true. They have AT LEAST 3 spells/level which are for DIRECT combat (i.e. damage, area denial, summons, combat protection - except level 5 - they only have 3 spells there, but still 2 are for direct combat), many of which are fairly-to-terrifyingly badass.

Whilst I agree that it might be OP at low levels to give them both sets of features because of MC'ing, just don't allow that, only let MC Rangers be the normal kinds. Not a hard fix. If anything, at higher levels, the spell-less Ranger is missing a lot of power, I feel.

Certainly Feats are not going to replace that. Indeed, if you go by the October Playtest, you couldn't even buy that amount of magic with Feats - You could get 2 cantrips, 1 1st, 1 2nd, 1 3rd and 1 4th level spell for a total of four feats. Even imagining that this went on to 5th, that'd be five feats and still nowhere near the casting power of a Ranger.

 

[Dausuul]

Until the PHB is out and we see the ranger spell list, we really can't know what a suitable replacement for ranger spellcasting would be. The only spellcasters in Basic are dedicated casters--wizard and cleric--not half casters like the ranger and paladin, so we don't get to see what half caster spells look like.

However, spell power level is pretty standardized in 5E. Once we do get the PHB, we should be able to compare a couple of ranger spells, get a rough idea of how much they add to the class, and come up with features to replace them. I would not be surprised if either the PHB or the DMG has such a variant already.

 

[Kinak]

But I agree, it's not unreasonable to want this in some form, and it's kind of strange with all the subclass options out there that it isn't in the PHB, so I would probably try to accommodate a player with some home brew variant if they wanted a non-spellcasting ranger.

They seem very leery to modify anything in the class charts. So subclasses only go in the designated subclass slots.

It keeps things cleaner, which is laudable, but means nobody gets to opt out of spellcasting.

I'd be inclined to ask why spellcasting isn't a subclass for rangers and paladins like it is for fighters and rogues. Should we really be assuming the player sitting down to play a wanderer or knight in shining armor wants spells?

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Until the PHB is out and we see the ranger spell list, we really can't know what a suitable replacement for ranger spellcasting would be. The only spellcasters in Basic are dedicated casters--wizard and cleric--not half casters like the ranger and paladin, so we don't get to see what half caster spells look like.

However, spell power level is pretty standardized in 5E. Once we do get the PHB, we should be able to compare a couple of ranger spells, get a rough idea of how much they add to the class, and come up with features to replace them. I would not be surprised if either the PHB or the DMG has such a variant already.

If that variant was in the PHB, I think it'd have been mentioned, so I think we can rule that out. I don't believe we'll see much in the way of optional rules at all in the PHB, just player choices and guidance, based on what has been said so far (and the contents page). The DMG is a possibility, though. If the spells look anything like those in the Alpha, they're a very serious amount of power, with some classic Ranger abilities made into spells (Quarry, for example). They would not be trivial to replace.

It's even tougher for Paladins, because spells are actually woven into some class features (with Rangers they can at least be divorced almost entirely from class features in the Alpha), but I think there's less demand for a zero-spells Paladin - probably worth doing another, separate base class, or a Fighter sub-class, called Cavalier in either case, with more party-buff/leadership-type non-magic abilities.

 

[evileeyore]

It is skill plus.

The Ranger (and to a greater extent the rogue) are classes that real on mechanically enforced skill rules.


Rangers don't just have high survival, stealth, and nature, it class class features that explain what it can do with survival , nature, and stealth skills.
The rogues just doesn't have high Stealth, Sleaight of hand, and deception, it has class features that
explain What it can do with stealth, sleight of hand, and deception.

The real issue is D&D is unusually afraid to have high level appropriate skill use without using spells.

The thing I find the most lolworthy about 5e's "mechanically enforced class skills" is the Ranger and Rogue don;t even have to be good at those skills and yet they can automagically be better at them in those narrow mechanically enforced ways...


A Ranger with no Survival, Athletics, or Stealth proficiency is yet better at moving in and hiding in wilderness than anyone else... I guess Animal Handling, Perception, and [Knowledge] Nature really pays off.

 

[Umbran]

If they aren't supernatural then why are they limited per day?

Game balance. That's a problem with skills - if the skill is too effective, allowing unlimited use becomes problematic in play. This especially goes for things like healing abilities, which can really screw up the hit point economy and adventure pacing if unlimited. It is an artifact of playing a game, such that "realistic simulation" has to take a back seat to the concerns of making the game work.

Why are there different levels of them?

"Levels" are an out-of-game concept to allow us real world humans to organize things. The character need not know of levels, unless the GM explicitly makes them an in-game concept. It can be simply, "As I learn more, I am able to do more".

Spells like Alarm, Animal Friendship, Cure Wounds, Detect Magic, Fog Cloud etc. are magical.

Perhaps. But let us also remember that the ranger has been a spellcaster since 1e. I don't get how, given that history, anyone *expects* a fully mundane ranger.

But, looking more closely - three of the five you list can be re-flavored to not be magical, if you need. Alarm is minor, sound-making traps set around the camp. Animal Friendship? Dude, I'm a ranger. Some animals just *like* me! No magic there. Cure wounds? Well, I have this herbal poultice that does a great job on minor cuts, burns, and strains...

The only times you'll run into issues is with other characters who muss with magic. Say someone tries to case Dispel Magic on your Alarm (as if that'd make any sense - using a 3rd level spell to cancel a 1st level spell, really?) - you can probably still find a way around that in the narrative. That spellcaster is bright enough to find your soundmaking traps, he doesn't *actually cast a spell, bot balance a power for a power, the spell-slot is used. Not that you have to worry about that, because if he's Dispelling your Alarm, the player probably never *sees* him cast the Dispel - all you know is the Alarm doesn't go off, and all the stuff about spells is just metagame bookkeeping.

Is it absolutely perfect? Nope. Is *any* game absolutely perfect? Nope. RPGs are an exercise in finding your fun, prioritizing, and picking your battles.