The Ranger: to Spell or not to Spell

[Sunseeker]

Should be an option, but not mandatory. I play a ranger right now and use all of maybe 2 spells on a regular basis, which tend to have more to do with replenishing my ammo than any real buffs(of course we're all sort of brokenly OP thanks to one of the players). But still, I rarely use spells.

 

[Mercule]

I'm going to say No... but. Multiclassing should be a viable option for casters. It sounds like they're trying to make it work in 5E, and I think the flat BAB table will help with that. In other words, the Ranger class shouldn't have any spells, but a functional multiclass system should allow the player to season to taste with reasonable, non-crippling, trade-offs. That way, I can play my Strider-like learned defender, while my wife can play the pure martial, hunt-you-down-and-kill-you tracker, and someone else can play the one-with-nature avenger with druid spells.

 

[Argyle King]

Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but I think a non-magic using ranger could be done by simply making an outdoors/nature oriented rogue.

If you need (or want) magic augments to your abilities, that could be done via whatever 5E uses as a paragon paths/prestige classes. It needed not even be magic necessarily. If a fighter can learn to be good enough with a sword to do some of the things a D&D fighter can do, why can't a D&D ranger learn to be good enough with plants and animals to do a little bit of alchemy and Dr. Doolittle action?

 

[Kannik]

Honestly, I think the Ranger class has outlived its usefulness.

I concur. Ranger should be the living in the wilderness part, or the beast master part, or the tracking part, or the favoured foe part. That sounds like Theme and/or Background to me.

The fighting and spell casting bit ought to be divorced from this. Archer ranger is an archer who happens to live in the woods, alongside his exotic weapon companion ranger, and their nature spell casting and dagger wielding friend ranger.

Let the fighting way be the fighting way, and the rest be the rest.

peace,

Kannik

 

[Crazy Jerome]

No for me in most designs, with one promient exception. In most designs, spell casting in the ranger is a symptom of busted multiclassing rules. I'd rather them fix the root problem and remove all need for the ranger to have spells--freely able to multiclass and set the proportion as the player sees fits. One of the biggest drawbacks of the ranger getting dribs and drabs of spells at higher levels is not the power level but the set proportion. Power level can easily be fixed, but proportion cannot.

That is, if the designer says a ranger is 3/2 "skilled fighter"/"sort of druid", then they have embedded that ratio for all rangers, all the time. No thanks. If you fix multiclassing so that such a ranger can tack on a few levels of fighter (or barbarian or rogue) and/or druid to round out the proportions differently, then you don't need spells on the ranger. So which is it going to be?

Plus, I'd really rather there be some "wood lore" that expanded into something interesting without having to be druidic spells. Then the wilderness characters could all get some of that, with the ranger and druid being top of the list.

The one exception is a system that is deliberately designed to limit the complexity of multiclassing by building some key hybrids pretty close to the 50/50 mark for the core class concepts--and the hybrid has some built in synergy that combines the two sources. If in such a system the fighter and druid are core class concepts, then I'm ok with the ranger being their designated 50/50 hybrid. You'd presumably still multiclass with fighter or druid (or others), if you want to vary the proportion, but here the hybrids are deliberately designed to simplify that process for you. In short, in such a design, the ranger is mainly providing the hybrid synergy and anchor to make the character work. (This would be more obviously useful in fighter/wizard, wizard/cleric, and other such difficult combos to get right, but would not be unwelcome in the fighter/druid mix.)

 

[Minigiant]

[MENTION=984]Kannik[/MENTION] & [MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION] Since we do not know the extent of back grounds and themes, it would be difficult to imagine the the removal of the ranger why still being able to create the ranger archetypes. The multiclassing, skills, and spellcasting system would have to be totally redone.

[MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION]

That is the problem. The combat, skills, and spell system cannot be entangled well with the pre-4e multiclass system. The ranger is a mix of various features that D&D separated behind hard walls. The only way to make a a warrio who excelled in natural environments was to multiclass to either multiclass fighter, rogue, and druid and accept the weakness in all 3 aspects OR make a base class that was a combat/skill/nature class evenly.

The ranger exists because D&D systems don't mesh well. The same with the paladin, the monk, and the bard. Fixing the systems would require a complete reinvention of D&D's combat system, skill system, and magic system. 4E did and there was a MASSIVE backlash. (4E's combat and spells uses the same system and gaining full training to a skill is just a feat)


5E wont be doing that though. I really doubt it will completely reinvent D&D.

 

[Mercule]

Honestly, I think the Ranger class has outlived its usefulness. Take the martial stuff and blend it with the Barbarian (and perhaps then blend both with Fighter)

As much as I want to disagree, I can't come up with a good argument. I found myself bored and with little but a copy of my 3.5 PHB, this weekend, so I started making notes for what I'd do for 5e.

When I looked at the classes chapter, I could not see any reason to keep the barbarian (that being the first class, alphabetically, it was the first I looked at). Is there really a reason the base fighter should be restricted from taking any of the barbarian skills? I don't want to have to multiclass or pay double just because my fighter was part of a march campaign and learned to forage. Rage could probably serve just as well as a feat tree or theme. Ditto with the danger sense stuff -- shouldn't anyone who devotes their life to standing in the way of swords develop a feeling for when they're in that situation?

Looking at the ranger, I find myself asking similar questions. Tracking has been available to anyone as a feat or NWP for two decades. I don't like the idea of anyone being better at armed combat than the fighter, which rules out TWF and archery focus. The animal companion can't be a core concept if Aragorn is a ranger (and he must be, or we've completely scrapped the origin of the class). That leaves stealth and survival (the main purpose behind the skill monkey ranger) and favored enemy. We already killed survival by rolling the barbarian into the fighter. I'm okay with the ranger advancing a bit slower than the rogue in stealth, or making the multiclass trade-offs. And, favored enemy provides a third, meaningful, path of focus to a fighter. Fighters can choose to bolster their battle prowess through unchecked adrenaline (rage), careful study of certain threats (favored enemy), or straightforward practice (weapon mastery/specialization).

Probably worth noting as part of the above thought process, is that I've also come to the conclusion that the feat system sucks. It isn't a horrible idea to have some sort of perk system. The 3e/4e feat system was just such a huge, ungoverned bucket that it's unworkable at any real scale. While I wouldn't go whole hog on either the 4e powers system or power sources, I think having class abilities and, maybe, source abilities would be a great way of controlling the bloat, as well as providing a framework for extensibility (why, yes, I am a programmer). The basis already exists by having fighter and wizard bonus feats (from a select list) and the rogue's "special ability" choices.

 

[Greg K]

I like the 4e martial ranger. However, I vote an option for both. Using 3e as an example,

1. I would like to see them get 0 level spells at first level at a bard like spell progression rather than waiting several levels (which made it feel more appropriate for a PrC); and

2. Include a variant that substitutes combat feats for spell casting with a bonus feat granted each time a new spell level would be gained (a not uncommon variant on the web during 3e and, finally, made official in Complete Champion).

Option 1 works good for a clerical order in my campaign.
Option 2 works good for the hunter, woodsman warrior, etc. from non-barbarian cultures

 

[Mengu]

Ranger is one of those classes that's I think a little overloaded like the fighter. You can be an archer ranger, you can be a two weapon ranger, you can have the spell caster ranger, you can have the animal companion ranger. Being "one of them rangers" is just not very well defined by anything other than, you are an outdoors type that's good with a weapon... but even then, city rangers, have also spawned from the class, so the outdoor staple doesn't even have to hold fast.

So my vote would be, you may as well divorce one of those components from the ranger class. If you want to be a spell casting ranger, no problem, pick a level or three of cleric or wizard, done. Or if you also want an animal companion, pick up a level or three of druid.

Of course then, how do you differentiate between a lightly armored fighter, and a ranger... I'm not sure. Favored enemy doesn't really do it for me. I could be a fighter who hates goblins. I could be a wizard who hates undead, there I have a favored enemy too.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I think ranger should be the default ranged attacker and leave the fighter to be the melee combatant. The ranger should hand over, very politely, two weapon fighting to the fighter and return the spell casting to those who know how to use it. Ranged weapon excellence is a great niche for one class to rule supreme. Thrown weapons could still be available to fighters and rogues but the bow should rest confidently in the calloused hands of the ranger.

If this was the case multiclassing would be clear cut for both rangers wishing to dabble in magic and also for the other classes wanting to up their ranged game.

Rangers should also be accomplished fletchers so that a ranger needn't bother keep stock of arrows but always be considered to have enough. (Unless reason says otherwise).

Having said that I'm okay with rangers having a select few tricks up their sleeves, not magical per se, but certainly mystical. Such tricks might include tracking, summon woodland animals, befriend animals, animal companion, elk's endurance, and so on. I don't think magic suits the down to earth nature of a ranger.