I know they can.What magic sources would you like to see in D&D? They can be homebrewed, you know.
But you run into the Homebrewing Player problem
- Astral
- Arcane
- Blood
- Chaos
- Divine
- Eldritch
- Elemental
- Glamour
- High
- Primal
- Shadow
D&D General What is appropriate Ranger Magic
- Thread starter Minigiant
- Start date
But you run into the Homebrewing Player problem
Corinnguard
Hero
Well, if you want something official, PF2 has 5 sources of magic- Arcane, Divine, Elemental, Occult and Primal.
As for the 'But, I'm special', I know what you are, but what am I?
James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
It's interesting that a lot of people seem to be against arcane magic on a Ranger. The original 1e Ranger could cast M-U spells, 3e had the Sword of the Arcane Order, and I remember that 13th Age had options to play a "magic Ranger".
It occurs to me that the Ranger could easily become the "arcane half caster" I know a segment of the community has been wanting, and it needn't even be a violation of the Ranger's themes- for example, Elves are traditionally associated with nature in D&D, in some campaigns they were the first Wizards, passing along the tradition to humans, and their fey ancestry often gives them arcane abilities like teleportation, conjuring darkness, etc. etc..
Yet for some reason, most people want the Ranger to more "primal" in their use of supernatural abilities. They don't want Rangers wielding flaming swords or teleporting under their own power.
A lot of the spell options in the OP are perfectly cromulent for Rangers to have, but it seems the presentation is partly the problem. I'm reminded of the 3.5 Swordsage and how some were irked at the idea of a "martial" character conjuring sheets of flame or being carried aloft by the wind.
Interestingly, I can't see why a Ranger wouldn't be able to do such things- elemental magic is definitely primal in nature, and Druids have been evoking fire, lightning, cold, and the like for decades.
I do, however, understand the desire to have one more option for a mundane character if one doesn't want to have flashy supernatural abilities- even Fighters, Rogues, and Barbarians these days can do things that cannot be explained by "skill and training", and each of these classes has been given subclass options that veer into pure magic.
Indeed, it seems the Barbarian is the warrior class that has become the most tied into primal power and spiritual boons of late, putting the Ranger in a strange spot. And there's no particular reason why a Ranger should be better at surviving in the wild lands than a Barbarian- in fact, if you go back to the original Barbarian class in Unearthed Arcana, many of the abilities people desire for the Ranger were actually part of the Barbarian's kit originally!
The Ranger's niche has always been sort of dubious. Why couldn't Ranger be a subclass of Fighter, for example? Seems easy to do, doesn't it?
But the problem is, people want very different things for the Ranger. Since 2e, we've seen the Ranger as a more lightly armored class- making the Ranger a Fighter would have us seeing Rangers in full plate and using shields- and that definitely doesn't seem to fit most people's idea of a D&D Ranger.
To determine what the Ranger could be, it seems that we need to start with what they cannot be.
*They cannot be equal to the Fighter in melee combat, because then the question becomes "why Fighter?".
*They cannot be as tough and enduring as the Barbarian, again, because that would raise the question of "why Barbarian?".
*They cannot be equal to the Rogue in skills proficiency.
*They cannot be equal to any of the full casters.
*They cannot be equal to the Monk in mobility.
They cannot even be the best at survival, because Druid, Cleric, and Wizard all have better options to deal with this, and the current design of the game is that no one class is meant to be considered "necessary". Niche protection is no longer a factor in game design, for good or ill, and if the Ranger was somehow the best option in the Exploration tier, one could theoretically have a new variant of the old "who is going to play the Cleric?" question.
*Assuming, of course, that the Exploration tier matters in the game, which is a much larger topic of debate.
What they ought to be equal to is their "cousin", the Paladin, but because the Ranger's identity is far less defined, and the Paladin's abilities are explicitly supernatural, that is not even the case!
It seems to me that the best possible solution is to make Ranger a "build your own class", similar in some respects to the Warlock. In fact, I could totally see a hybrid martial/warlock with a Fey or Primal Pact powering their abilities, along with Pact Boons to let one select the abilities that they feel suit the Ranger best. Possibly even an option for Pact Magic for those who like the idea of Rangers slinging spells!
Because I don't think we'll ever see a true consensus on what the Ranger should be, so maybe the best option is to allow each of us to have the Ranger we desire.
It occurs to me that the Ranger could easily become the "arcane half caster" I know a segment of the community has been wanting, and it needn't even be a violation of the Ranger's themes- for example, Elves are traditionally associated with nature in D&D, in some campaigns they were the first Wizards, passing along the tradition to humans, and their fey ancestry often gives them arcane abilities like teleportation, conjuring darkness, etc. etc..
Yet for some reason, most people want the Ranger to more "primal" in their use of supernatural abilities. They don't want Rangers wielding flaming swords or teleporting under their own power.
A lot of the spell options in the OP are perfectly cromulent for Rangers to have, but it seems the presentation is partly the problem. I'm reminded of the 3.5 Swordsage and how some were irked at the idea of a "martial" character conjuring sheets of flame or being carried aloft by the wind.
Interestingly, I can't see why a Ranger wouldn't be able to do such things- elemental magic is definitely primal in nature, and Druids have been evoking fire, lightning, cold, and the like for decades.
I do, however, understand the desire to have one more option for a mundane character if one doesn't want to have flashy supernatural abilities- even Fighters, Rogues, and Barbarians these days can do things that cannot be explained by "skill and training", and each of these classes has been given subclass options that veer into pure magic.
Indeed, it seems the Barbarian is the warrior class that has become the most tied into primal power and spiritual boons of late, putting the Ranger in a strange spot. And there's no particular reason why a Ranger should be better at surviving in the wild lands than a Barbarian- in fact, if you go back to the original Barbarian class in Unearthed Arcana, many of the abilities people desire for the Ranger were actually part of the Barbarian's kit originally!
The Ranger's niche has always been sort of dubious. Why couldn't Ranger be a subclass of Fighter, for example? Seems easy to do, doesn't it?
But the problem is, people want very different things for the Ranger. Since 2e, we've seen the Ranger as a more lightly armored class- making the Ranger a Fighter would have us seeing Rangers in full plate and using shields- and that definitely doesn't seem to fit most people's idea of a D&D Ranger.
To determine what the Ranger could be, it seems that we need to start with what they cannot be.
*They cannot be equal to the Fighter in melee combat, because then the question becomes "why Fighter?".
*They cannot be as tough and enduring as the Barbarian, again, because that would raise the question of "why Barbarian?".
*They cannot be equal to the Rogue in skills proficiency.
*They cannot be equal to any of the full casters.
*They cannot be equal to the Monk in mobility.
They cannot even be the best at survival, because Druid, Cleric, and Wizard all have better options to deal with this, and the current design of the game is that no one class is meant to be considered "necessary". Niche protection is no longer a factor in game design, for good or ill, and if the Ranger was somehow the best option in the Exploration tier, one could theoretically have a new variant of the old "who is going to play the Cleric?" question.
*Assuming, of course, that the Exploration tier matters in the game, which is a much larger topic of debate.
What they ought to be equal to is their "cousin", the Paladin, but because the Ranger's identity is far less defined, and the Paladin's abilities are explicitly supernatural, that is not even the case!
It seems to me that the best possible solution is to make Ranger a "build your own class", similar in some respects to the Warlock. In fact, I could totally see a hybrid martial/warlock with a Fey or Primal Pact powering their abilities, along with Pact Boons to let one select the abilities that they feel suit the Ranger best. Possibly even an option for Pact Magic for those who like the idea of Rangers slinging spells!
Because I don't think we'll ever see a true consensus on what the Ranger should be, so maybe the best option is to allow each of us to have the Ranger we desire.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I don't see the problem with your list.
My hypothesis is that the ranger is a standing for three different classes
- Primal half caster focused on animal and plant summons and buffs.
- Pseudo-arcane half caster focused on Evocation and Divination spells
- Martial noncaster with minor non-spell wilderness gimmicks
Because as you see the highest voted on option of the spells that I gave is Exploding Arrow which is directly opposed to the non-magical Ranger some people expressed desire for and the quiet subtle Ranger other people desire.
There seems to be no desire to have the 3 share one class nor split the class into 3.
The magical power sources of D&D are so ill-defined it doesn't really matter what you would call any of it. Cleric magic is Divine because it comes from the gods. But Paladin magic is now no longer from the gods, so why are they still Divine? And why do gods get their own power source definition? They are merely Outer Planar beings that grant magic, so why is their magic different than other ones? One would think that Warlock magic should also then be Divine, since demons and devils and celestials are from the Outer Planes too, granting magic to Prime creatures. But Warlocks are Arcane for some reason? The same power that Bards generate their magic from? That doesn't make sense.
And why is it that Ranger's magic is Primal... even Fey Wanderer Rangers... and yet Fey Pact Warlocks are Arcane? At what point does the magic that comes in from the Feywilds turn Primal in one case but Arcane in another? How does that make sense? It doesn't. Because no one at WotC has ever bothered to truly work this stuff out.
That's why it's hard for me to get all worked up about the "Magic of D&D" and whether some classes uses it or don't, and ones use one type and others use another so-called type. It's all so nebulous and wishy-washy that there really is not any point in worrying about it or trying to define it.
And why is it that Ranger's magic is Primal... even Fey Wanderer Rangers... and yet Fey Pact Warlocks are Arcane? At what point does the magic that comes in from the Feywilds turn Primal in one case but Arcane in another? How does that make sense? It doesn't. Because no one at WotC has ever bothered to truly work this stuff out.
That's why it's hard for me to get all worked up about the "Magic of D&D" and whether some classes uses it or don't, and ones use one type and others use another so-called type. It's all so nebulous and wishy-washy that there really is not any point in worrying about it or trying to define it.
CreamCloud0
Hero
the question occurs to me, what was your qualifications for picking the listed spells in the poll? you haven't exactly listed any sort of medicinal/healing abilities, or group protective capabilities, wouldn't that skew the results of what is 'apropriate' if there aren't options for all types of category.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
It certainly used to me more coherent than it is now, for my money. In my games it still is.
Cue the responses letting me know it was never the way I think it was.
These were for new ideas for ranger spells to stretch the limits and find the boundaries of what is allowed or appropriate as ranger magic. With little numerical explanation.
Basic healing, talking to animals, and group stealth are already seen as Ranger magic.
Tonguez
A suffusion of yellow
Exploding arrows have existed on Earth for a thousand years, theres nothing magical about them
According to the Wujing Zongyao (Military Classics) "Behind the arrow head wrap up some gunpowder with two or three layers of soft paper, and bind it to the arrow shaft in a lump shaped like a pomegranate. Cover it with a piece of hemp cloth tightly tied, and sealed fast with molten pine resin. Light the fuse and then shoot it off from a bow."
of course theres also no reason why this should be limited to Rangers either, and also needs for alchemist to have invented explosive power in the setting. Which is one of the issues of the class system where the Ranger could be a Fighter subclass and where the best version is the Rogue Scout.
Yeah I wondered that too - the spell selection was slightly skewed and didnt cover the areas you mention nor any 'terrain mobility' focussed or even some more robust animal communication/summoning abilities.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
