D&D General What spells should be on the rangers list?

It might also depend on whether the setting is a Low Magic setting or a High Magic setting. If you were role-playing in a low magic setting, the Ranger would be spell-less and rely more on their skills and wilderness training.
Rangers would be unnecessary in a low magic setting because the only threats to civilization in the wilderness would be mundane or close enough to mundane to kill with a mundane sword.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Rangers would be unnecessary in a low magic setting because the only threats to civilization in the wilderness would be mundane or close enough to mundane to kill with a mundane sword.
i have to disagree here that they would be unnecessary because i don't see the point of the ranger as to exist solely to be hunting these threats that require the supernatural to defeat, they are shepherds and guides of their lands, they know it and keep it in line, there doesn't need to be magical beasts for them to play that role.
 

Just out of curiosity, but what about the spell-less Fighter? Shouldn't they know magic as well? They're combat experts who will find themselves dealing with magical opponents at some point in their adventuring after all.
i think it depends on how much you think that magic should actually be 'needed' to defeat those kinds of opponents, i see rangers using magic because they are more of a jack of all trades and diversify their skills much more while the fighter focuses in much more on combat specifically to the point where they theoretically don't need to rely on it.

this question is also why IMO the swordmage is such a popular archetype, they are those 'fighters' who commit to incorporating magic into their fighting style.
 

i have to disagree here that they would be unnecessary because i don't see the point of the ranger as to exist solely to be hunting these threats that require the supernatural to defeat, they are shepherds and guides of their lands, they know it and keep it in line, there doesn't need to be magical beasts for them to play that role.
Also, there are plenty of magical beasts that can fall to a trained non-magical warrior.
 



I'm going to say find steed and find greater steed.

Back in 2e, there was a kit in the Complete Fighter's Handbook called the beast rider. I liked it, as it allowed me to play a character who could ride his version of Battle Cat from He-Man. You also had an empathic link to it. That's what find steed and find greater steed do.

I should not have to play a paladin to gain access to a couple of spells.
 

I'm going to say find steed and find greater steed.

Back in 2e, there was a kit in the Complete Fighter's Handbook called the beast rider. I liked it, as it allowed me to play a character who could ride his version of Battle Cat from He-Man. You also had an empathic link to it. That's what find steed and find greater steed do.

I should not have to play a paladin to gain access to a couple of spells.
The hollow warden ranger gets phantom steed and I was playing around with some neat abuses of that spell, but frankly find steed would be more fitting.
 

Yeah, that philosophy really leads to, "why isn't everybody casting spells"?
The ranger doesn't use magic because it's convenient.

The ranger uses magic because it's required.

Rangers deal with magical monsters and terrain. Tracking and pursuing fey or dragons or other D&D monsters safely more or less require the blatant supernatural.
 

The ranger doesn't use magic because it's convenient.

The ranger uses magic because it's required.

Rangers deal with magical monsters and terrain. Tracking and pursuing fey or dragons or other D&D monsters safely more or less require the blatant supernatural.
Again I point you to the A5e spell-less ranger. Magic is not required.
 

Remove ads

Top