D&D General What is appropriate Ranger Magic

[GnomeWorks]

For those of you who believe that the Rangers should not have magic spells by default, what by default should a Ranger have that differentiates them from a fighter or a rogue?

There are two problems with this question, from my perspective.

First: I've nixed fighter and rogue, so ranger overlapping with their feature sets isn't a problem for me.

Second: I haven't gotten around to writing my take on the ranger yet, and I haven't put too much thought into it yet, so I can't really answer this question...

Monster slaying lore ala Witcher.

Mystical tracking skills.

Social skills with intelligent monsters.

...but it will probably have stuff along these lines.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

I added two options on rangers not having magic spells.

changed my vote then

 

[Minigiant]

Monster slaying lore ala Witcher.

Mystical tracking skills.

Social skills with intelligent monsters.

How is that different from skill proficiency in Nature, Survival, and Intimidation?

 

[Charlaquin]

Only blade cascade, exploding arrow, and implacable pursuer. None of which need to be (or should be) spells.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

There are two problems with this question, from my perspective.

First: I've nixed fighter and rogue, so ranger overlapping with their feature sets isn't a problem for me.

Second: I haven't gotten around to writing my take on the ranger yet, and I haven't put too much thought into it yet, so I can't really answer this question...



...but it will probably have stuff along these lines.

I mostly just use the old Revised Ranger, but with extra favored terrain/enemies and all Tasha's features.

Favored Foe, gives you the ability to communicate in basic manners with your foe (of at least 3 Int) and advantage on Charisma checks to interact with them, in addition to the Int/Wis advantage to recall lore and the damage bonus.

The whole camouflage thing is replaced by +10 to stealth and advantage to Initiative for you and your group as long as you are immobile in your favored terrain. During the first round of battle, your allies add your favored foe damage bonus if applicable.

And the capstone is;
Hunt's End
You maximize your damage roll agaisnt creatures with less than half their HP and they can never be hidden or invisible and they can't regain HP for a round after being hit by your attacks.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Changed vote to no magic, only fantasy woodcraft.

 

[Charlaquin]

For those of you who believe that the Rangers should not have magic spells by default, what by default should a Ranger have that differentiates them from a fighter or a rogue?

They should have specialized monster hunting abilities (which should not be spells), and abilities (which should not be spells) that allow them to navigate and survive in dangerous environments. This can start in the form of wilderness survival and beast and/or monstrous humanoid hunting at early levels, developing into more extreme natural environments and hunting of giants, dragons, and monstrosities at mid levels, and then to extraplanar travel and elemental/fey/fiend/celestial/etc hunting at high levels.

 

[Charlaquin]

How is that different from skill proficiency in Nature, Survival, and Intimidation?

Exceptions-based rules. Skill proficiencies are limited in use to the basic action resolution mechanic, and therefore by definition can only accomplish things anyone else could also accomplish. This is fine for rogues, whose “skill monkey” shtick is doing mundane things more reliably than anyone else, but not for rangers, who are defined by being able to go places and hunt foes in ways that are beyond ordinary folks’ capabilities. They therefore need hard-coded, exceptions-based abilities that define things they can do that no one else can. But, those things need to be expressed in terms of specialized knowledge and skill, rather than in terms of using magical power to alter reality.

 

[CreamCloud0]

i have no issue with rangers having magic but there's a few of these suggestions i didn't pick that for a ranger felt, hmmm, how to put it? magically overdesigned? IMO a ranger relies on simple refined practical basics and some of these spells feel more like something some academic wizard would end up putting together, for example i would've picked autumn blades if it was just summoning/using leaves, but the fact their weapon turns into those leaves feels thematically off for what i imagine for a ranger...

that being said, the spells i did pick were:
beastmeld
blade cascade (BotW link's flurry rush?)
bloodhounds
exploding arrow
heatsight
implacable pursuer
long grasp
strength of the beast
umbral escape
wildtalk
wooden escape (naruto substitution jutsu? kinda) i'm unsure on this one, if it had been framed as more like misleading illusions or slipping through the barriers between worlds...

some of these spells also feel very similar or serve very similar purposes to the point of feeling somewhat redundant, bloodhounds and implacable pursuer for instance, beastmeld, strength of the beast and tangentially heatsight(there are animals that see in infrared aren't there?) too.

edit:
the spells i didn't pick and reasons why, some of those reasons might actually be good.
autumn blades (see first paragraph)
blade thirst (glowing blue flame feels impractically/unnessacarily flashy for a stealthy hunter)
giant axe (very specific weapon requirements counters practicality, sizeshifting also doesn't feel very thematic IMO)
greenwood limb (a wooden arm feels too...crafted? again, 'wizard' magic vibes)
othrus (outright shapeshifting is too powerful a magic for rangers, also the choice of beast is very conspicuous, doesn't feel like 'part of the natural ecosystem')
sense fear (too telepath-y)
steel skin (metal does not feel nature-y, druids had the metal armour ban for a reason)

 

[GnomeWorks]

How is that different from skill proficiency in Nature, Survival, and Intimidation?

Wizards don't need spells, we have the Arcana skill.