The Ranger: to Spell or not to Spell

[Minigiant]

How many hands did your ranger have? And is celestial wolf an exotic or martial weapon proficiency?

Two but he had a prehensile tail for a while after a shrimish with a weremonkey orc warlord.

 

[Gryph]

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); take the spellcasting and blend it with the Druid. Then model a 'ranger' be some multiclass combination of Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue and Druid (in proportions to suit the individual player).

If we're keeping a distinct Ranger class, it should retain spellcasting, being halfway between the martial Fighter and the primal Druid. The Paladin should likewise retain spellcasting, being halfway between the martial Fighter and the divine Cleric. And there should be a 'partial spellcaster' Mageblade that is halfway between the martial Fighter and the arcane Wizard.

Either solution is fine by me, BTW. But pick one, and go with it!

The 4e Warden is in many ways the spiritual successor to the 1e Ranger. I would keep the name Ranger because of its rich history in the game and then finish blending the two together.

Let Ranger go back to being a Fighter sub-class with some druidic (primal) abilities. I would limit its direct spell casting to utility type spells though.

 

[Sunseeker]

As I mentioned in the Paladin thread, 3e had a solution for this: Give players the option to swap out spellcasting for other options. If I haven't mentioned it yet today, I really, really, really, really want to see some kind of alternate class ability or ability tree option.

This, 100x this. All we need is the option to take spellcasting, or take some other feature and we can have the best of both worlds.

I have spells on my ranger...but I don't use them, the party has a buffer already so I'd gladly give up my spellcasting to get some other function.

 

[Kannik]

As long as i don't have to spend all my resources (feats, ability scores, skills) to make a ranger, I'd be fine modifying a fighter.

Sure. The current incarnation seems to point to backgrounds and themes as being part of the core of Next, which is where the non-fight part of the rangery bits would live, and as it is a base part of the PC it would be easy and non-'destructive' to choose.

Or, if the classes become very modularized, then your 'ranger module' might be part of the three 'modules' you take at first level (whereas a straight-up fighter may take the 'heavy armour' module instead) (note: I don't think this is where the game design is going )

In 4E (before hybrids), I had to make a warlock, multiclass with ranger (for Nature), and take the Skill training in Stealth... just to make a greataxe warrior who can heal, hide, and get along in the wild. That concept didn't come into fullness until level 4 while using all my feats.

Interesting... this may be more PM territory, but I'm curious as to what the warlock brought to the table vis-a-vis the heal/hide/wild/axe concept?

peace,

Kannik

 

[Minigiant]

Interesting... this may be more PM territory, but I'm curious as to what the warlock brought to the table vis-a-vis the heal/hide/wild/axe concept?

peace,

Kannik

Heh. I meant warlord. Before the bribe he was a Str/Cha/Dex light armored half elf warlord multclassed with ranger, trained in stealth, and opened the fight with a throwing axe Twin Strike. Accursed phone.

Also glad to see so many people who are pro-"special ability" rangers.

 

[Mattachine]

I like the idea of choosing from a menu of special abilities.

I dislike spellcasting rangers--disliked them from AD&D right through 3e. Non-casting ranger variants existed in all editions for a reason.

 

[howandwhy99]

Yeah we'll see options again. TWF, High level druidic spell casting, surprise, tracking, maybe even unique followers at the top end. Who knows?

Here are a couple I can't see them ignoring:

 

[CleverNickName]

In my 3.5E games, I give the player a choice: (s)he can play a ranger as-written in the SRD, or (s)he can play a ranger with d10 Hit Dice and no spells. The player almost always chooses the no-spells version.

 

[Mercule]

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.

This goes back to something I was thinking during a discussion about fighters being basic/noob-friendly* and wizards being advanced. I don't have a problem with that model... but... I like the idea of having the warlock (or sorcerer) included as a noob-friendly arcanist.

If the ranger is supposed to be a thoughtful, well-prepared warrior type, it definitely has something that could separate it from the fighter, both mechanically and thematically, without having to be better at any given weapon/style. I have no idea what sort of mechanics you could throw in to make the ranger a "fighter for advanced players", but I would absolutely love that idea. In fact, that's how I remember 1e rangers playing (more strategic), which is probably where my love for the ranger class come from.

* Said tongue-in-cheek, as someone who is definitely not a noob (30 years of gaming) but would much prefer to play a warlock to a wizard.

 

[drothgery]

In my 3.5E games, I give the player a choice: (s)he can play a ranger as-written in the SRD, or (s)he can play a ranger with d10 Hit Dice and no spells. The player almost always chooses the no-spells version.

The most important benefit of a 3.5 ranger's spellcasting ability is that he can use wands of cure X wounds.