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

[Incenjucar]

This really just brings up the motes of granularity that the game could use...

Pet
Steed
Minions
Summons
Conjurations
Solo
Enable Ally

Single-Target
Attack Strike
Multi-Attack
Area

Face-to-Face
Adjacent Melee
Reach Melee
Hit-and-Run
Ranged

Physical
Energy

Empowerment
Skills/Knowledge
Shapeshifting
Equipment

Heavy Defense
Medium Defense
Light Defense

Absorbing Defenses
Negating Defenses
Avoiding Defenses
Deflecting Defenses
Shared Harm Defenses

Constant Defenses
Situational Defenses
Regenerating Defenses

So on and so forth... soooo many options for classes and builds and characters...

 

[SensoryThought]

I hate the buzzword 'granularity' nearly as much as 'modular'.

 

[Li Shenron]

I really like the Ranger to have something special, be it spells or supernatural abilities, or even just extraordinary abilities with unearthly flavor.

I really don't like to water down the concept to a simple scout, archer/sniper, or woodsman... these are more Fighter concepts to me (except the last, which could be even a Commoner concept).

But it's definitely better that Ranger spells are an option, that can be replaced with something else already in the core rules. I liked the common house rule solution in 3ed of giving the Ranger (and Paladin) bonus feats in exchange for spellcasting abilities, however I also saw that as a generally less powerful variant, and I would much prefer those bonus feats to be something unique... probably something more similar to 3e Rogue's special abilities than feats.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I hate the buzzword 'granularity' nearly as much as 'modular'.

If "granularity" is a buzzword for you that you feel compelled enough to mention it, you are not going to enjoy a lot of the discussions over the next couple of years.

Useful design concepts have terms associated with them, whether people like it or not.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Sure, but historically, ranger spellcasting has been just "druid lite."

Depends how far back you go - originally they got MU and Cleric spells, and could get up to 6th level spells or higher if you got to a high enough level!

(balanced? no way in hell - but that's the original design for you!)

 

[delericho]

Depends how the rest of the classes are structured.

In 3e (and 1st and 2nd Ed), there's a clear progression from the 'pure' Fighter to the 'pure' spellcasters:

Fighter -> Paladin -> Cleric
Fighter -> Ranger -> Druid

In 4e, though, that was broken. The Fighter became a Martial Defender, the Paladin a Divine Defender (and Fighter-substitute), and the Ranger a Martial Striker.

IMO, this was mostly good, except I think I would have pegged the Ranger as a Primal Striker (and Barbarian as Primal Defender, with both able to drift into the other's role if need be).

So, if the game is keeping anything resembling the 4e structure, the Ranger should not have 'spells' - he should have whatever the Primal powers are called. However, if the game is reverting to the older layout, then the Ranger should have spells (of the same type as the Druid).

My preference on this one would actually be the 4e style, so I voted for option #3.

 

[kitsune9]

Yes, but all of them should be ranged spells.

For the win!