The Ranger: to Spell or not to Spell

[Eldritch_Lord]

As some have mentioned previously, the niche of the casting paladin and ranger is that of the hybrid. There are martial classes that can fill the shoes of either (in 3e, a barbarian, wilderness rogue, scout, etc. for the former and a knight, heavily-armored fighter, crusader, etc. for the latter). There are magical classes that can fill the shoes of either as well (wizard, cleric, or druid for the former depending on which edition's ranger you're using, and cleric or favored soul for the latter). Given a multiclassing system that doesn't suck, you could build a "level X ranger" that is a fighter 1/druid X-1 or fighter X-1/druid or anywhere in between. However, it is the synergy between the two that would make the ranger class worthwhile.

Take the duskblade as an example. It has good BAB and up to 5th level spells, which is something you can achieve as a fighter/wizard. However, it has class features like Quick Cast and Arcane Channeling and an altered spell list and progression (heavy on buffs and touch spells and not much else, plus tons of low-level slots) that let it synergize its casting with its fighting in a way that no permutation of a fighter/wizard can. The late-3e ranger is similar: his list is full of archery- and nature-related spells that are specific to the ranger list, making an archery ranger play much differently from an archery-focused druid or fighter or druid/fighter.

So the ranger can easily find a place in 5e if it is a hybrid that goes beyond the martial/caster multiclass. This could be a full class (that would probably look like a duskblade/arcane archer in terms of schtick), it could be a kit/PrC for multiclass druid/fighters, it could be a mutlciass feat like Swift Hunter et al. that hybridizes two classes, whatever, as long as it does more than "nature-y fighter with spells."

 

[paladinm]

I guess this is what I'm wondering.. The ranger has always had some sort of spell capability, up until 4e. Both 4e and C&C have stripped the ranger of all spells, and I'm not sure what is left is sufficient to really justify its own class. The modern ranger seems just to be a lightly armed fighter with some nature-oriented abilities and pre-selected combat feats, and a few rogue skills thrown in. So why couldn't you just have a rogue or fighter with nature-feats/skills?

If a ranger doesn't have spells, we don't need a ranger class. At least the paladin (any version) has enough uniqueness to justify such a class. Unless we make Smite/Dispel Evil and Lay on Hands into new feats as well..

 

[KidSnide]

I always liked the idea of the ranger as the "smart" fighter with a lot of skills and "trick/knowledge" abilities (which could be spellcasting, snares, terrain bonuses, primal utility powers, animal companion or something else) to complement a somewhat more lightly armored set of fighting abilities.

At the extreme, a fighter/rogue, a wise fighter with a wilderness theme and a ranger could all be different ways of expressing the same character.

-KS

 

[KesselZero]

I like what I'm hearing about the ranger not really being necessary, that it should just be a Woodsy theme added to a fighter or rogue or anyone. But I think that if ranger is its own class, which I'm sure it will be, it should have spells for the simple reason that if it doesn't, it may as well just be a fighter or rogue. It always bugs me that if you want to be an archer, you have to be a ranger, not a fighter. Why can't a dude who lives in a house be as good with a bow as a dude who lives in a tree? Also, can anyone tell me (and I mean this sincerely) where/when/why the ranger became the "bow guy?" The two most famous rangers are Strider and Drizzt, and neither of them uses a bow (I guess Drizzt looted Taulmaril from his wife's corpse but that's not exactly what he's known for). Whence the archetype?

 

[Sunseeker]

I like what I'm hearing about the ranger not really being necessary, that it should just be a Woodsy theme added to a fighter or rogue or anyone. But I think that if ranger is its own class, which I'm sure it will be, it should have spells for the simple reason that if it doesn't, it may as well just be a fighter or rogue. It always bugs me that if you want to be an archer, you have to be a ranger, not a fighter. Why can't a dude who lives in a house be as good with a bow as a dude who lives in a tree? Also, can anyone tell me (and I mean this sincerely) where/when/why the ranger became the "bow guy?" The two most famous rangers are Strider and Drizzt, and neither of them uses a bow (I guess Drizzt looted Taulmaril from his wife's corpse but that's not exactly what he's known for). Whence the archetype?

The Ranger: Archer is probably more closely related to Legolas than Aragorn.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I like both options. Sometimes I like a mystical ranger, though I mostly prefer non-magical rangers (sometimes with animal companions). No TWF rangers for me, though, thanks.

 

[paladinm]

I like what I'm hearing about the ranger not really being necessary, that it should just be a Woodsy theme added to a fighter or rogue or anyone. But I think that if ranger is its own class, which I'm sure it will be, it should have spells for the simple reason that if it doesn't, it may as well just be a fighter or rogue. It always bugs me that if you want to be an archer, you have to be a ranger, not a fighter. Why can't a dude who lives in a house be as good with a bow as a dude who lives in a tree? Also, can anyone tell me (and I mean this sincerely) where/when/why the ranger became the "bow guy?" The two most famous rangers are Strider and Drizzt, and neither of them uses a bow (I guess Drizzt looted Taulmaril from his wife's corpse but that's not exactly what he's known for). Whence the archetype?

By 3.x, the Ranger had to have either an archery or 2-weapon build. I guess Robin Hood is the model of the Archer build. Legolas was both an archer and 2-weapon fighter; Aragorn (the "definitive" ranger) was neither.

In 1e and 2e, "basic" fighters were the ones who had access to weapon specialization (and "double specialization" in 1e UA), so they would indeed have made superior archers.

If a ranger is a "hybrid class", what is it a hybrid of? Fighter/druid or fighter/rogue? Or some of all three? If all three, it would seem very close to the 1e version of the bard.

 

[Minigiant]

I like what I'm hearing about the ranger not really being necessary, that it should just be a Woodsy theme added to a fighter or rogue or anyone. But I think that if ranger is its own class, which I'm sure it will be, it should have spells for the simple reason that if it doesn't, it may as well just be a fighter or rogue. It always bugs me that if you want to be an archer, you have to be a ranger, not a fighter. Why can't a dude who lives in a house be as good with a bow as a dude who lives in a tree? Also, can anyone tell me (and I mean this sincerely) where/when/why the ranger became the "bow guy?" The two most famous rangers are Strider and Drizzt, and neither of them uses a bow (I guess Drizzt looted Taulmaril from his wife's corpse but that's not exactly what he's known for). Whence the archetype?

I think the archery theme came form 90% of fighter and paladin pictures and fighter archetypes are melee. When someone wanted to make archers, many went to rangers as a result.

Then there is that jerk Legolas WHO RUINED IT FOR EVERYONE.

The D&D ranger started as a simple fighter but it evolved. And now people want to devolve it back to a simple warrior. TWF and archery rangers can die.

My longest played ranger wielded a greataxe, 4 celestial wolves, a bear, several pouches of wyvern poison, a snare trap, and 7 throwing daggers.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Aragon cast almost as many spells as Gandalf did.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Aragon cast almost as many spells as Gandalf did.

Tolkien just didn't dwell on the 25 minutes of spellcasting Gandalf did every morning, casting his 24-hour duration defensive spells on himself.

If you read the book with detect magic up, you can see that for yourself.