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

[Falling Icicle]

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.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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]

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.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

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]

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]

Yes, but all of them should be ranged spells.

 

[TwinBahamut]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[illwizard]

I went for the middle ground, but just a question; How were Rangers flavoured in the earlier (pre 3e) editions? Mystical at all or pure hunter/woodsman styled?

 

[illwizard]

Oops, i think Tallifer Ninja answered me.

 

[Dausuul]

I voted no. We have a nature-themed caster class. It's called "druid." If the multiclassing system works properly, you should be able to multiclass ranger/druid and get whatever balance of "wilderness warrior" and "natural spellcaster" floats your boat. Focus the ranger design on the "wilderness warrior" side instead.

 

[Elf Witch]

I voted for the second option I would like to be able to have both magical and mundane rangers. I use both in my games and my players like having the choice.

Saying that there is already a caster ie druid in the game makes it redundant for rangers to have magic I just don't agree with that. There is a lot of differences between what a ranger can do with weapons and what a druid can do.

Personally I would like to see options for magical and mundane bards and paladins gives a more wide choice on what concept you are looking to play.

 

[The Human Target]

It really depends.

I hope they give the 5e ranger more identity to his name than "like Aragorn" or "Like Drizz't.

But I like magic, so I went yes.

 

[TwinBahamut]

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'm not sure why you bring up the Striker role, since that really wasn't what I was referring to. It is more the fact that a lightly armored warrior who uses weapons like the bow is something of an archetypical character (Robin Hood is a fine example), and I don't really want to see magic forced into what is otherwise a non-magical archetype.

Also, I disagree about Aragorn actually being a Ranger under any D&D definition, but that might be hard-fought battle...

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.

I'm not really a fan of bow Fighters. I prefer to class concept of a Fighter to be a bit more specific than that. That's probably another hard battle to fight, though.

 

[Incenjucar]

I prefer rangers to default as purely-martial Rambo-like light skirmishers that use their wits and knowledge to gain advantages using their environment, whether urban, sylvan, or dungeon.

Magic can be something they dabble in to that end, but I'd prefer that to be an option, rather than the default. Rambo or Arnold's character in Predator didn't need to wiggle their fingers or talk to spirit bears to do their thing.

 

[Ainamacar]

- 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.

I like it. I might go a little further and fluff the ranger as a martial character that can learn how to subtly inhabit and utilize resources closely associated with given environments. That would leave room open for other -lores, like urbanlore, underlore, or even the l-licious helllore. Sort of like a 3.5 horizon walker, but with less focus on being awesome in particular terrains and more on leveraging the resources of the current environment (whatever it is) in an evocative way.

 

[haakon1]

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.

Nod. We usually like to get rid of the companion animal and chosen enemies, in favor of more woodsy stuff. And the two-weapon fighting (Driz'zt) ranger isn't popular with us either -- rangers are more of a fighter with skills, to us (in 3.5e, with house rules to de-Driz'zt-ify).

 

[Sirot]

I would want rangers to have the option to learn nature magic. The ranger by default should be a martial-only class though.