D&D 5E (2014) Convince me that the Ranger is a necessary Class.

[ECMO3]

3) Why do rangers cast spells?

Because in core D&D, the rules for the above don't exist or don't scale past level 5. So designers just copy and reuse spells.

I disagree with this. I think spells are a core part of the Ranger design concept and not a result of the features they are trying to implement. I think spells on their own are at least as necessary to the class identity as some of the things you mention.

Also the 14 things you list are covered by spell casting, but many of them are not covered well by the Ranger spell list and you need to go to other lists to get some of them. Which brings me to my next point - Ranger spells used to include spells from the Magic user (i.e. Wizard) list and included a spell book in the same fashion as a Magic-User. Wideing the current Ranger list to include Wizard spells would improve the class identity and in fact adequately achieve more of the 14 things you mention.

 

[Micah Sweet]

because just because you can't always be directly driving towards your own character's personal backstory hooks doesn't mean they shouldn't have weight on your character's in-universe build choices.

Mechanical weight. And it can, in a variety of ways, several of which I named. You're welcome to disregard them, but they are options.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I disagree with this. I think spells are a core part of the Ranger design concept and not a result of the features they are trying to implement. I think spells on their own are at least as necessary to the class identity as some of the things you mention.

Ranger spells used to include spells from the Magic user (i.e. Wizard) list and included a spell book in the same fashion as a Magic-User.

That is definitely one interpretation, but I see no reason why spells should be considered core to the rangers concept.

 

[ECMO3]

That is definitely one interpretation, but I see no reason why spells should be considered core to the rangers concept.

They have had spells in every version of D&D and they were clearly not some of the things mentioned in every version.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They have had spells in every version of D&D and they were clearly not some of the things mentioned in every version.

I don't understand the second part of your sentence. In any case, the class fantasy doesn't really talk about spellcasting in any version to my recollection.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ranger's core concept is wilderness expert. That does not necessarily need spells, it is just that spells tend to be the easiest way to handle more detailed non-combat rules in D&D.

But the wilderness expert archetype being a spellcaster is a bit of an anomaly. It is not strongly associated with magic conceptually and a lot of the examples of this archetype in fiction are non-magical.

Personally I'd prefer if the base ranger was magicless, and magic was an add-on via some subclasses.

(Edit: I also think I already said the same thing in this thread a year ago, but I'm not sure.)

(Edit 2: Yep.)

I don't think the base concept of ranger i.e. outdoorsy wilderness guy, really requires magic. It is traditionally given magic in D&D, but in every edition people ask for a magicless ranger.

And we already have a full dedicated nature magic class in the druid.

 

[ECMO3]

I don't understand the second part of your sentence. In any case, the class fantasy doesn't really talk about spellcasting in any version to my recollection.

Sorry poor grammar/typos on my part.

There are 14 things Mini mentioned as core to the Ranger class. Some (most?) of them have not been a part of every Ranger, yet spells have been a part of every D&D Ranger.

IE talks about Rangers being fomidable with Druidic and Magical abilities at high level also they are able to use all magic items related to telepathy or ESP.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sorry poor grammar/typos on my part.

There are 14 things Mini mentioned as core to the Ranger class. Some (most?) of them have not been a part of every Ranger, yet spells have been a part of every D&D Ranger.

IE talks about Rangers being fomidable with Druidic and Magical abilities at high level.

I tend to focus on class description/fantasy, rather than mechanical expression. After all, that's the whole reason classes exist at all: to model a particular type. For Ranger, that type it seems to me is wilderness expert, and nothing about that type demands spells, no matter how often they appear in the official rules.

 

[ECMO3]

I tend to focus on class description/fantasy, rather than mechanical expression. After all, that's the whole reason classes exist at all: to model a particular type. For Ranger, that type it seems to me is wilderness expert, and nothing about that type demands spells, no matter how often they appear in the official rules.

Well like I said the description described the Ranger as Druidic and Magical in 1E, although I will admit I do the opposite. I focus on the mechanics and use those to write the fiction for a specific PC.

If I want a PC that is all about Fear and Charms and being crazy good at Charisma checks I am probably going to a Fey Wanderer Ranger, picking up 1 or 2 level dip and feat to get specific spells I want and to rip with survival and hiding and nature and anything not related to my character idea, but I can understand how others don't do this.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Ranger's core concept is wilderness expert. That does not necessarily need spells, it is just that spells tend to be the easiest way to handle more detailed non-combat rules in D&D.

i think claiming the ranger is a wilderness expert is actually a significant factor in what muddies the waters on what they are, i'd claim they're actually a survival expert, and knowing your terrain and the enemies in it is a huge boon for survival, it's a subtle distinction but an important one, plus there are plenty of urban ranger concepts out there.

But the wilderness expert archetype being a spellcaster is a bit of an anomaly. It is not strongly associated with magic conceptually

i mean, the druid is standing right next to the ranger in this topic aren't they? i think there's plenty of examples of magic and powers coming from understanding gaia, mother earth and being in tune with nature

and a lot of the examples of this archetype in fiction are non-magical.

out of curiosity i would question the magic levels of the settings those rangers are taken from