• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! 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%


First Post
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?

log in or register to remove this ad


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.
Last edited:

Elf Witch

First Post
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.


First Post
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. :)


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.


- 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.

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).


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

Remove ads