• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E Should Rangers Have Spells in 5e?

Should 5e Rangers Have Spells?

  • Yes, all Rangers should have spells, as in past editions

    Votes: 12 8.8%
  • Yes, but they should be optional/exchangable for other things

    Votes: 84 61.3%
  • No, Rangers should never have spells unless they multiclass

    Votes: 41 29.9%

Falling Icicle

Adventurer
Prior to the 4th edition, Rangers had access to a small number of spells (up to 4th level). Would you like to see Rangers in 5e have spells?

I went with the second choice, they should be available but optional. If you want to make a purely martial ranger or a ranger with some spells, I think both should be options.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Crazy Jerome

First Post
Prior to the 4th edition, Rangers had access to a small number of spells (up to 4th level). Would you like to see Rangers in 5e have spells.

1E rangers were somewhat over powered. The practical effect of giving rangers spells, since 2E started, has been to steadily erode the core wilderness warrior aspect because they had spells to make up for it. This hit rock bottom at launch of 3E, though of course 3.5 and the elventy-billion alternate rangers designed between 3E and 3.5 tried to address it. This is also why bards are so difficult to do well (apparently).

I would prefer that multiclassing (or whatever the equivalent is) be required. We don't necessarily need specific and detailed "roles", but it is the rare D&D class that tries to do more than two things well, that ever works as intended.
 

underfoot007ct

First Post
Prior to the 4th edition, Rangers had access to a small number of spells (up to 4th level). Would you like to see Rangers in 5e have spells?

I went with the second choice, they should be available but optional. If you want to make a purely martial ranger or a ranger with some spells, I think both should be options.

I agree... In the 5E "lets keep everybody happy" mode, I think a 5E Ranger would best if at a certain level (maybe 4 or 5) your have a path choice. Choice of spells or more martial stuff (more archery or Two weapon ). So everyone can play the Ranger style they prefer. Even a Third choice of some sort.
 

I voted the 2nd option but that is not quite correct. What I would prefer is:

- A base ranger who is mundane/martial only.

- However, there should be options for the ranger to sporadically gain access to "Woodlore" instead of higher martial abilities. This Woodlore is not exactly divine magic, and certainly not spells, but subtle supernatural effects that are isolated to the ranger only rather than being a cleric or druid "hand-me-down". They should be at-will abilities that perhaps take several minutes to even an hour or so to warm up and manifest and they cannot be used concurrently. Perhaps the highest level Woodlore effects can be enacted immediately. Woodlore should be directly tied to the mysterious things we think a ranger should be able to do.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
 

Hawke

Explorer
I don't want a unified spell system like 3E such that a ranger having access means he's picking from powers that the other classes are. Even if they aren't "powers" in the 4E sense, I hope that the spell-like choices available to rangers are tailored choices for the ranger class at a given level.
 

TarionzCousin

Second Most Angelic Devil Ever
Yes, but all of them should be ranged spells.
winkgun.gif
 

TwinBahamut

First Post
I'm not really a fan of the Ranger's magic. It dilutes the concept of what is otherwise the game's main lightly armored skirmisher/archer warrior class. It just seems unnecessary to me.

That said, I'm fine with them getting animal companions of some sort, and maybe optional abilities of mystical woodsman skill (don't have to be spells). I wouldn't mind giving Fighter the option to have an animal pet, either, but I suppose that is the subject of a different thread...
 

Greg K

Legend
I chose the 2nd option.

I want them to have two options

1. Spellcasting: casting 0 level at level 1. Gaining the spellcasting at later levels never felt right-especially, in 3e. In 3e, gaining the ability to cast spells at later levels rather than first seemed more appropriate for a prestige class.
2. Martial (No Spellcasting). Similar to Complete Champion (and similar variants that were circulating early in 3e) replace the ability to cast spells with a feat whenever the character gained the ability to cast a new spell level.

I would also like Paladins to work the same way.
 

trancejeremy

Adventurer
Yes. I don't consider them to be "woodsmen", so much as something straight out of Tolkien. They didn't cast spells, but they did have some powers the bordered on the supernatural, IMHO, so close enough.

Of course, since they weren't in the movies, no one gets the connection anymore.
 

Tallifer

Hero
I'm not really a fan of the Ranger's magic. It dilutes the concept of what is otherwise the game's main lightly armored skirmisher/archer warrior class. It just seems unnecessary to me.

The Ranger was not a striker class originally. He was a woodsman, a defender of the frontier and a friend of the fey. A Dunedain like Aragorn and the other Rangers of the North.

I think the new edition should return to supporting a Fighter with a bow like all the previous editions, so that the Ranger can remain a special primal class. And I say that as a staunch Fourther, but one who loves classic literature and mediaeval legends.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top