D&D General What is appropriate Ranger Magic

Which of the following do you see as general Ranger spells?

  • Autumn Blades

    Votes: 5 10.2%
  • Beastmeld

    Votes: 9 18.4%
  • Blade Cascade

    Votes: 7 14.3%
  • Blade Thrist

    Votes: 5 10.2%
  • Bloodhounds

    Votes: 11 22.4%
  • Exploding Arrow

    Votes: 14 28.6%
  • Giant Axe

    Votes: 5 10.2%
  • Greenwood Linb

    Votes: 2 4.1%
  • Heatsight

    Votes: 8 16.3%
  • Implacable Pursuer

    Votes: 12 24.5%
  • Long Grasp

    Votes: 2 4.1%
  • Othrus

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • Sense Fear

    Votes: 6 12.2%
  • Steel Skin

    Votes: 3 6.1%
  • Strength of the Beast

    Votes: 10 20.4%
  • Umbral Escape

    Votes: 6 12.2%
  • Wildtalk

    Votes: 12 24.5%
  • Wooden Escape

    Votes: 4 8.2%
  • Rangers should have no magic spells.

    Votes: 23 46.9%
  • Rangers should not have magic spells but not be limited to natural limits

    Votes: 13 26.5%
  • Rangers should have every more core magic spells.

    Votes: 5 10.2%


log in or register to remove this ad

TwoSix

Master of the One True Way
Good design usually at least defining what you want to design.

Everyone agrees on the vague image on the ranger. The second you talk mechanics, people start complaining.
If a character can fight OK, doesn't wear plate armor, and doesn't use kung fu, they generally code as "ranger".
 

CreamCloud0

One day, I hope to actually play DnD.
Good design usually at least defining what you want to design.

Everyone agrees on the vague image on the ranger. The second you talk mechanics, people start complaining.
i feel like the issue with most attempts to design a ranger is that they attempt to focus in and make a 'core' to their design of it, but the ranger IS vague, besides bard i'd say it's one of the most jack of all trades classes there is, to design a good ranger you need to be able to pick and choose the specific strengths that your ranger excells at from the list of niches of the 'collective ranger concept'
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
i feel like the issue with most attempts to design a ranger is that they attempt to focus in and make a 'core' to their design of it, but the ranger IS vague, besides bard i'd say it's one of the most jack of all trades classes there is, to design a good ranger you need to be able to pick and choose the specific strengths that your ranger excells at from the list of niches of the 'collective ranger concept'
Part of the problem is how team based RPGs work.

You have to be good at something: either by equaling the baseline of what is considered good (The A5e Ranger or PF2 Ranger is a good warrior) or combining 2 or more things to meet the baseline (The 5e Ranger's Spells and Attacks combine to be a good Martial).

The issue is since 2e, the Ranger isn't just a Fighter+ in combat and the exploration pillar is a hot debate.

So everyone fights offer how to make the Ranger unique in combat as well as everyone arguing about how to run exploration.

The Bard and Paladin lucked out.

Most people are fine with "Duh Divine SMITE!" of Paladins so as long as that works the magic is secondary.

WOTC just made Bards full casters and used OPness to distract from complaints.
 




Chaosmancer

Legend
Ignoring the "what if the class designed to have spells for 95% of its entire existence didn't have spells" angle, there is another issue which was kind of glaring to me about the design direction of these spells, and of official druid spells and themes as well.

Why do we constantly assume Central Europe?

Look at the ranger spells up in the vote for a second, none of them are themed around deserts, or tundras, or storm-wracked mountaintops. We assume whenever we speak of "nature" or "the wilderness" about the forests of central Europe during the medieval ages, filled with deer, hog, squirrels and small birds. And the ranger, more than even the druid, should be a class that can go anywhere, that is at home, anywhere. Yet... we never seem to build this into the thematics of the class. They are green-cloaked (because forest leaves) archers whose biggest challenge in the wild is finding food in a vibrant forest teeming with animal life, and fighting off low-level threats.

A ranger really should be able to feel perfectly at home and perfectly thematic in every single environment, and we should really expand which parts of "nature" we are dealing with. We've barely scratched that surface, and it would be pretty rich ground to look for ideas in.
 


Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Why do we constantly assume Central Europe?
you know the reason.

Look at the ranger spells up in the vote for a second, none of them are themed around deserts, or tundras, or storm-wracked mountaintops. We assume whenever we speak of "nature" or "the wilderness" about the forests of central Europe during the medieval ages, filled with deer, hog, squirrels and small birds. And the ranger, more than even the druid, should be a class that can go anywhere, that is at home, anywhere. Yet... we never seem to build this into the thematics of the class. They are green-cloaked (because forest leaves) archers whose biggest challenge in the wild is finding food in a vibrant forest teeming with animal life, and fighting off low-level threats.

I miss Sandstorm, Stormwrack, and Frostburn.

Back in the original WOTC forums, I suggested Rangers get starting armor, weapon style, and spells based on terrain

Desert: Cloth wearing dual wielder with fire and sand whipping around them
Arctic: Heavy armor spear user with ice spells and ice skates
Forest: Bow and TWF light armor user with entangle
Sea: Finesse light armor fencer who can breathe water or walk on it.
 

Remove ads

Top