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

[SensoryThought]

I think being martial and having tracking/survival abilities is sufficient for the base class. Multiclass if you want spells.

I wouldn't be opposed to them having the 'preferred enemy' again, gaining woodcraft/herbalism abilities to create cures and salves, animal friendship being core, or gaining bonuses to social and knowledge regarding fey creatures.

 

[Incenjucar]

Another reason to separate rangers from magic is that it lets you give them access to all types of magic. Divine, arcane, shadow, elemental, and psionic rangers all make as much sense as primal ones. Really you could apply that layer to a lot of martial classes, so long as you didn't go overboard and make it so paladins are indistinguishable from divine-dabbling fighters.

 

[Minigiant]

Rangers are the stereotypical survivalist class. 90% of them have being skilled and staying in the wilderness (Be it the wood, at sea, another pane, or da streets) for long periods of time. There rangers should be ale to:

Heal themselves
Neutralize and cure poisons
Handle/charm animals
Harm animals and plants
Exist comfortably in extreme environments
Create and disarm natural traps
Forage for food and drink

Spells are an easy to do all this but it doesn't have to be the method. They could be other forms of magic, ingrained in the skill system, or be in something else.

 

[avin]

I like my rangers as a martial survivalist class.

That said 5E should have room to both martial and magical ranger, the same way I guess there will be cloth-priests and armored-clerics...

 

[paladinm]

The original Ranger class, as featured in the Strategic Review (proto-Dragon) was a fighter with limited arcane And divine spell casting. Of course there was no "Druid" class at that point. The two-weapon fighter or archer aspects hadn't really entered into it. There was a sort of "favored enemy" ("Giant" class only), and of course tracking.

In BECMI, there was a Ranger-like class called a Forester (in the Gazetteer supplements) that was essential the Elf class for humans. No tracking or such, but they were mages and fighters simultaneously.

 

[OnlineDM]

I voted for the second option, but I'd prefer that the default for Rangers to be non-magical, with some kind of option to get magic. Maybe that's just semantics, but a magic-wielding ranger should be the exception in my opinion.

 

[Plane Sailing]

My ideal ranger class would probably have the HD and movement of the 3e barbarian, creat stealth and spotting skills and a bunch of outdoorsy talents. Tough and mobile independent survivors is the image I'd most like to see. Multiclassing or specific themes would be my preferred way of allowing casting into the class.

Cheers

 

[harlokin]

I voted for the second option, but I'd prefer that the default for Rangers to be non-magical, with some kind of option to get magic. Maybe that's just semantics, but a magic-wielding ranger should be the exception in my opinion.

I agree.

I also think that any Class should have potential access to magic; so a Fighter should also be able to gain the ability to cast spells (if the Player wishes and the DM deems it appropriate for the Campaign) by spending Feats or equivalent.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

Sure, but historically, ranger spellcasting has been just "druid lite." If that's how it's going to be in 5E, I would rather have rangers who want to cast spells do it by multiclassing druid. There's no sense duplicating a bunch of druid rules. (Of course, this assumes the multiclass rules are up to snuff.) Then the ranger class can focus on fleshing out ranger-specific stuff, instead of wasting space on cut-and-pasted druid material.

Now, if there is going to be "ranger magic" that is substantively different from "druid magic," I'd be open to that as a ranger build option. But I'm not sure what such magic would look like.

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

I don't see why both options should take precidence over the other. Modularity does require some things to be, you know, MODULAR. Same goes for the assassin and paladin, have both options on the table. There is no reason to force it to go one way or another.

 

[nightwalker450]

If it's a subtype of Ranger to cast spells I'd be fine with that. But I like the default ranger just being a martial character.

Preferably, I'd like multiclassing to handle this.
Ranger multi-Druid (nature magic ranger), Ranger multi-Wizard (Arcane Archer), Ranger multi-Cleric (DIVINE Archer, so little support )

 

[Greg K]

If it's a subtype of Ranger to cast spells I'd be fine with that. But I like the default ranger just being a martial character.

Preferably, I'd like multiclassing to handle this.
Ranger multi-Druid (nature magic ranger), Ranger multi-Wizard (Arcane Archer), Ranger multi-Cleric (DIVINE Archer, so little support )

If they are going with 3e multiclassing, I would prefer not to use multi-classing if we can get a ranger that casts 0 level spells at first level. I don't want to require hoop jumping for my players for a valid concept like this (if it fits the GM setting). Whether the default spell list is nature, arcane, divine, the others can all be handled by variant spell lists which was both discussed in the 3.0 DMG (and, probably, the 3.5 DMG) and used in the 3e Unearthed Arcana for the Arcane Sage, Divine Bard, Savage Bard variants and the Urban Ranger variant.

 

[Dausuul]

If they are going with 3e multiclassing, I would prefer not to use multi-classing if we can get a ranger that casts 0 level spells at first level. I don't want to require hoop jumping for my players for a valid concept like this (if it fits the GM setting). Whether the default spell list is nature, arcane, divine, the others can all be handled by variant spell lists which was both discussed in the 3.0 DMG (and, probably, the 3.5 DMG) and used in the 3e Unearthed Arcana for the Arcane Sage, Divine Bard, Savage Bard variants and the Urban Ranger variant.

Why is it "hoop jumping" if the way you get "spells like a druid" and "fight like a ranger" is to multiclass ranger/druid? Isn't that the whole point of multiclassing?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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.

Also agree with this as an acid test: If you have to give druid stuff to rangers or ranger stuff to druids because your multiclassing is inadequate, fix the multiclassing instead.

That's why rangers got spells in the first place. 1E "dual classing" wasnt adequate for so many character concepts. The reverse is true, as well--put too much archetype baggage on a single class (due to a single literary antecedent even), and you make multiclassing rules that much more difficult to do well. It turns into a design death spiral.

There is a truism in software development that if certain kinds of bugs continue to appear during early development, make sure you deal with the real problems. If you don't, it will plague the project from then on. So many people put a band aid on it or even mask it, instead, because it is quicker and easier right then. Or worse, get aggravated at having to deal with it. However, those kinds of problems are worth their weight in gold! They tell you exactly where you should be spending some time to solve a design flaw, before you have too much effort invested in the design to change it.

This is also why any multiclassing rules should be designed into the game from the very beginning.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I want options for both magical and mundane rangers.

I also think rangers should be able to choose more weapon style specialties that fit wilderness warriors -- Axe, spear, sword (all with or without shield), archery. I've never understood how TWF fits the archetype.

I liked the 1E ranger and 3.5E & 4E rangers, but not the versions in between.

 

[Elf Witch]

Sure, but historically, ranger spellcasting has been just "druid lite." If that's how it's going to be in 5E, I would rather have rangers who want to cast spells do it by multiclassing druid. There's no sense duplicating a bunch of druid rules. (Of course, this assumes the multiclass rules are up to snuff.) Then the ranger class can focus on fleshing out ranger-specific stuff, instead of wasting space on cut-and-pasted druid material.

Now, if there is going to be "ranger magic" that is substantively different from "druid magic," I'd be open to that as a ranger build option. But I'm not sure what such magic would look like.

I would not mind s different spell list then the druid but I find even using the druid spell list they are two very different classes. Ranger is one of my favorite classes. I usually take the archer progression and I would hate to have to multiclass to get what I have now in 3E. I am not interested in having my ranger shape change or have the restrictions on what weapons I can use.

The reason I like ranger so much is that it gets both martial and some magical ability and that appeals to me quite a bit. Personally if they were going to get rid of a class I would rather it be druid and leave the ranger alone. One of the reasons I like ranger over druid is that it not a religious class you don't have to worship a god or be a defender of nature.

I really hope that have both types of rangers that way people like me still get our favorite type of ranger and there is a mundane one for other people who prefer that.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

... I am not interested in having my ranger shape change or have the restrictions on what weapons I can use...

This is exactly the same way that some people are not interested in having spells on their ranger. Fix the druid so that shapechanging is not inherent*, and the weapons are more wide open, and multiclassing will work. That the ranger/druid option does not work is a sign that the druid is also bolluxed.

* With the caveat that it might be that a "nature priest" class separate from druid, with the druid then focused on something else--presumably the shape shifting. In that case, anyone wanting the 1E ranger would have a ranger/priest character, with appropriate domains or whatever makes a nature priest focused on nature. That is, "casts lots of nature spells" and "turns into all kinds of animals" are two things that people would conceivably like to have separate and/or mixed with something besides the other thing. So let "druid" be one and do the other in another class. What if you want to do "Beorn" from LotR? Then you'd go with ranger and the shapechanger class.

 

[Invisible Stalker]

I prefer my ranger with spells. As a class I'd like to play, the ranger has taken the biggest fall from 1e to now.

 

[SKyOdin]

I never liked the spell-casting of the Paladin or Ranger classes very well. In the Paladin's case, I always thought the class would have been better off expanding Smite Evil and Lay on Hands into generally more versatile and defining mechanics. Similarly, I would drop the Ranger's spellcasting in favor of special abilities, powers, or some other kind of mechanic.

Spellcasting might be better off the domain of dedicated spellcasters. For that matter, I wouldn't mind seeing traditional vancian magic the sole domain of the Wizard class.

 

[Khaalis]

I am in the No Spells camp personally. I have never truly wanted to see the ranger as the nature version of the paladin. They shouldn't be even More militant druids IMHO.

Personally, I think that Fantasy Craft got it right when they made the Ranger archetype into the Scout class. The class is a true wilderness warrior. It focuses on both Combat and Exploration. It covers all of the core "ranger" ideals from military scout, to bounty hunter, guide, hunter, guerilla fighter, etc.