How do you justify Rangers having spells?

[Windrammer]

I love the concept of the ranger, as hard as that may be to pin down. I see it as a skill/survivalism oriented warrior with a wilderness inclination.

But the spells seem kind of shoehorned in and it really breaks any possible immersion with the class. It makes it feel like a video game character.

Like... You have this guy who takes to the woods and becomes such a good outdoorsman that he can turn his hands into claws, transform into a tree, or make animals double in size. Where the hell does that come from? It could make sense if it were like an Elf or something, but "ranger" just seems like such a simple, common concept, and you have this bizarre magical ability just thrown in there with no sense to it. There's no cohesion here whatsoever and it leaves the class with no appeal except to supplement a complex build.

It would have been cool if the spell list was just emulating things that you could actually reflavor into things you could envision a ranger doing... Goodberry could be him gathering some nearby fruit with restorative properties. Charm animal could be considered just an uncanny way with animals. Delay poison could be him improvising an antidote with nearby plants or using anatomical knowledge to do something with their body that prevents the spread of the poison or something. Maybe even speak with plants could be flavored as him inferring information from looking at the plants. But then there's entangle, wind wall, and aspect of the earth hunter... I just don't get it.

How do you guys justify the casting?

[Necromancy]

Think of them as tricks then. Most could be explained away by terrain mastery

[Psyren]

PHB's take:


Characteristics: A ranger can use a variety of weapons and is quite capable in combat. His skills allow him to survive in the wilderness, to find his prey, and to avoid detection. He also has special knowledge about certain types of creatures, which makes it easier for him to find and defeat such foes. Finally, an experienced ranger has such a tie to nature that he can actually draw upon natural power to cast divine spells, much as a druid does.


Religion: Though a ranger gains his divine spells from the power of nature, he like anyone else may worship a chosen deity. Ehlonna (goddess of the woodlands) and Obad-Hai (god of nature) are the most common deities revered by, though some prefer more martial deities.

It comes from a close tie to nature. The only class that can match them in that respect (at least in core) also gets spells from nature, so it seems at least consistent.

[KillianHawkeye]

What are you even talking about, dude? :smallconfused:

Rangers have always had spells. It's a core part of the concept, and they get them for the same reason that a druid does... because in D&D, having a strong affinity with nature is itself a path to magical power and that's just how it works.

Think of the ranger being to the druid as the paladin is to the cleric, a champion of his beliefs who trades some potential for magic in exchange for greater combat ability and certain other skills. The ranger and paladin even have the same spellcasting schedule, so the comparison is a pretty obvious one IMO.

You're getting the concept of the ranger confused with the idea of a hunter or simple woodsman. The ranger certainly can be those things, but they are also more (just like the paladin is more than a simple knight or soldier, just like the bard is more than a simple musician, just like the monk is more than a simple martial artist and the barbarian is more than a simple tribal warrior). D&D is a game where the world is full of magic and amazing things, and many character concepts which might have totally mundane real world counterparts are inherently charged with magic in that fantastic realm. And if it feels like a video game to you, that's only because video games have copied a great many concepts from Dungeons & Dragons over the years.

[Gallowglass]

PHB's take:





It comes from a close tie to nature. The only class that can match them in that respect (at least in core) also gets spells from nature, so it seems at least consistent.

Rangers are just Druids who flunked out of Druid Community College before getting their degree.

[KillianHawkeye]

Rangers are just Druids who flunked out of Druid Community College before getting their degree.

Rangers are just Aragorns who took a minor in Druidic magic because there was that one chapter in Return of the King where Aragorn healed some people. #TrueStory


EDIT: Wait, they flunked out but still got their degree? I've been going to the wrong community colleges! :smalleek:

EDIT 2: I might have read that wrong................

[Honest Tiefling]

Rangers are just Druids who flunked out of Druid Community College before getting their degree.

Pretty much this. Even if the Ranger has a harder time turning into a dragon then a druid, doesn't mean they're 'just' a woodsman or outdoorsman. Those are Expert/Warriors who are lucky enough to have a whole two class levels! It's the difference between a Warrior and a Fighter and a Barbarian. DnD is usually built on the idea of Big Damn Heroes. The Ranger is a guy so in tune with nature it starts to empower him with magical abilities.

Or you could use the Spell-Less ranger from Complete Warrior. I don't remember it being very good, however.

[KillianHawkeye]

Or you could use the Spell-Less ranger from Complete Warrior. I don't remember it being very good, however.

I think it just gives a couple bonus feats here and there. Totally not worth it unless you don't plan on taking a lot more Ranger levels.

[torrasque666]

I think it just gives a couple bonus feats here and there. Totally not worth it unless you don't plan on taking a lot more Ranger levels.
That's the Complete Champion one.

[Necroticplague]

Isn't the CWar spelless ranger the crap one that just gets fast movement+SLAs of spells you could simply cast as a ranger?

EDIT: Yep, checked. Fast movement at 6, equivalent of Owl's Wisdom, Bear's Endurance, or Cat's grace 1/day at 11, 1/day neturalize poison or remove disease at 13, freedom of movement 1/day at 16. So pretty much strictly worse than having a ranger with spells.

[Windrammer]

It comes from a close tie to nature. The only class that can match them in that respect (at least in core) also gets spells from nature, so it seems at least consistent.

Yes, I'm aware of the text. But it's not


Rangers have always had spells. It's a core part of the concept, and they get them for the same reason that a druid does... because in D&D, having a strong affinity with nature is itself a path to magical power and that's just how it works.
In DnD, yes. That doesn't mean it makes sense. It's easy to wave a hand and say "affinity with nature=magical power, that's just how it works" but that doesn't actually explain at all how it works. I can get behind the idea that nature can give you a slight magical edge, but shapechanging into a tree or a bulette is taking it to a level of unjustifiable absurdity.


Think of the ranger being to the druid as the paladin is to the cleric, a champion of his beliefs who trades some potential for magic in exchange for greater combat ability and certain other skills. The ranger and paladin even have the same spellcasting schedule, so the comparison is a pretty obvious one IMO.
It is an obvious one, and likely an intentional one, and it is one that I considered. But the nature of their spells is quite different, and so too is the nature of the class concept. Everything a Paladin can do is sort of in line with the theme. It is not so with Rangers.


You're getting the concept of the ranger confused with the idea of a hunter or simple woodsman. The ranger certainly can be those things, but they are also more (just like the paladin is more than a simple knight or soldier, just like the bard is more than a simple musician, just like the monk is more than a simple martial artist and the barbarian is more than a simple tribal warrior). D&D is a game where the world is full of magic and amazing things, and many character concepts which might have totally mundane real world counterparts are inherently charged with magic in that fantastic realm. And if it feels like a video game to you, that's only because video games have copied a great many concepts from Dungeons & Dragons over the years.
The problem is that the Ranger is the one that makes less sense than the rest.

[Jormengand]

How do you justify anyone having spells?

[SethoMarkus]

All that it comes down to is that your idea of the ranger is not compatible with the concept of the ranger in D&D. Neither is wrong, but the ranger in D&D is the way that it is because in D&D the ranger is a naruralist who has such a close affinity with nature they can cast spells. You do not need to agree with that for your concept of a ranger, but that is a ranger in D&D.

As far as building what you see as the ideal ranger, have you considered playing a barbarian or varient rogue? What about a Fighter with ranks in Knowledge Nature and Survival?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Rangers are just Druids who flunked out of Druid Community College before getting their degree.

So a ranger is like a Bachelor of Applied Druidology.

I want that title. I want it BAD.

[Gallowglass]

So a ranger is like a Bachelor of Applied Druidology.

I want that title. I want it BAD.

More like Associate of Applied Druidology.

or, you know, whatever "degree" they give people for attending a handful of seminars and then opening up a small business in herbcraft out of their garage.

The chiropractors of nature.

[georgie_leech]

So a ranger is like a Bachelor of Applied Druidology.


You owe me a new coffee and phone screen cover. Permission to sig?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

You owe me a new coffee and phone screen cover. Permission to sig?
:smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

For a decent spell-less ranger I recommend the Skirmisher (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/ranger/archetypes/paizo---ranger-archetypes/skirmisher) from PF. They replace their spells with a list of interesting Ex abilities that give them decent utility - for example, Skill Sage, Surprise Shift, Defensive Bow Stance, Uncanny Senses and Sic' Em.

[LTwerewolf]

If you're thinking of just some outdoorsy dude, that hunts and ambushes and whatnot, you're looking for wilderness rogue or scout.

[Gallowglass]

If you're thinking of just some outdoorsy dude, that hunts and ambushes and whatnot, you're looking for wilderness rogue or scout.

Oh dear, this is going to turn into a rehash of the "words have power! if I want to be a monk I want to be a monk" thread from last week isn't it.

"But I want to be a ranger!"

[tomandtish]

More like Associate of Applied Druidology.

or, you know, whatever "degree" they give people for attending a handful of seminars and then opening up a small business in herbcraft out of their garage.

The chiropractors of nature.

Exactly. Druids go to the UCLA of nature. Rangers go to community college.

[Sun Elemental]

It seems like people are more willing to accept fighting men that get divine miracles from Good (or Good gods) than fighting men that get divine miracles from nature.
They both get companions, they both have weapon tricks (ranger styles, paladin smite), but the magic's too weird?

[Troacctid]

Rangers are a spellcasting class. They get spells. Why does it need any special justification? A lot of classes get spells. It's not weird.

[ExLibrisMortis]

How do you justify fighters having no spells, when they are clearly so very useful?

Every class should have casting, at least on the level of paladins and rangers. That means: every Big Damn Hero past the 'common' levels (level 4+) knows some magic, whether by being in tune with nature (ranger), good (paladin), fighting (warblade, crusader, swordsage), thinking really hard (divine mind, lurk), training and study (maybe duskblade, but also assassin and such), or inherited power (the only arcane minimal caster I can think of is hexblade).

These minimal casters represent the least amount of magical knowledge you can pick up over an epic career across twenty levels. It's just so unlikely that you fight nightcrawlers and dread wraiths all over, and never think to yourself: "Well this death ward has saved my ass yet again, maybe I should learn to cast that thing sometime, this cleric may not always be there to do it for me!".

A high-level D&D character without magic is like a decorated commando without electronics. Yes, you're very deadly, but where is your night vision, your radio, your satnav? Life's just so much better if you don't ignore part of the world's physics.

[killem2]

I don't justify it because it had never been something that I had ever considered needs justification. It's like asking me to justify a why a fighter can use a sword.

[LTwerewolf]

Rangers are just Aragorns who took a minor in Druidic magic because there was that one chapter in Return of the King where Aragorn healed some people. #TrueStory


D&D rangers don't really have anything in common with Aragorn other than "hey we're out in the woods."

Aragorn
Two weapon fighting? Nope.
Archery? Nothing special.
Spells? Nope still.
Animal Companion? Big bag of nope.

Aragorn isn't a d&d ranger.

[inuyasha]

I've always flavored it as unique tricks that Rangers can do, which is the common method, but more and more I'm thinking of it as Rangers being friendly with vaguely defined "nature spirits' and essentially going "hey friendly invisible sylph thing, can I ask you for a favor?"

[Gallowglass]

I've always flavored it as unique tricks that Rangers can do, which is the common method, but more and more I'm thinking of it as Rangers being friendly with vaguely defined "nature spirits' and essentially going "hey friendly invisible sylph thing, can I ask you for a favor?"

That's a cool fluff. I like that.

[Deadline]

*shrug* Rangers in D&D have always had spellcasting. I've never worried about justifying because it doesn't seem to me to need justification, as it's never been weird to me. Also, they don't really feel like a video game thing to me either, because the spellcasting ranger was a thing right around the same time that Space Invaders was a thing.



D&D rangers don't really have anything in common with Aragorn other than "hey we're out in the woods."

Aragorn
Two weapon fighting? Nope.
Archery? Nothing special.
Spells? Nope still.
Animal Companion? Big bag of nope.

Aragorn isn't a d&d ranger.


And yet, the D&D Ranger is explicitly based on Aragorn. Go figure.

[Pluto!]

I agree that it's awkward.

Especially since they don't even start with spells. They're just generic trackers (who sometimes fight with two swords for some reason?), then all of a sudden once they've killed their Xth Orc, they start plucking badgers out of thin air. It's something we usually just look past with Rangers and multiclassed casters, but it's still weird when it gets brought up head on, especially in a singleclassed core character.

It's least awkward when they're just casting subtle effects like Charm Animal or spells that improve their senses, but effects like catching their swords on fire or physically transforming into a wolf just kind of demand that you don't take the game world too seriously.

[Pugwampy]

Its very much like paladins and clerics . Same faction but different role .


Rangers are a druid warrior hybrid class . They protect squishy druids . They spend more time training in weapons and armour so their druid magic and animal companions are very very low level.

Its not really the low level magic that attracts them to this class .
Some players enjoy owning "pets" and being sneaky but they dont want to play druids or rogues .
Other players are just being tactical because their DM loves tossing a certain monster at them over and over .

If magic annoys you so much , no problem you just make a fighter . Get all the ranger type stuff you want plus you will have extra feats .

[Âmesang]

I never had the chance to do it, but for a game of Pathfinder I had planned for my ranger, upon reaching 4th-level, to experience a particularly vivid dream about staring down a wolf that represented her past sins and her fuller awareness of the world around her and her place in it. Recognizing this, the dream-wolf would leap into her (think Nightwolf from Mortal Kombat: Defends of the Realm… kind of), and when she woke up she'd find herself with an actual wolf companion and the ability to wield the magic of the natural world.

I just wanted something significant to represent all that a ranger received at that level. Guess it still needed a bit of work, though. :smallconfused:

[KillianHawkeye]

D&D rangers don't really have anything in common with Aragorn other than "hey we're out in the woods."

Aragorn
Two weapon fighting? Nope. Actually, yes.
Archery? Nothing special. He does that, too.
Spells? Nope still. One time he heals some sick people with a flower or something.
Animal Companion? Big bag of nope. Okay, you got me here, but the D&D Ranger gets that more from their relationship to the D&D Druid.

Aragorn isn't is the archetype of a d&d ranger.

Fixed that for you. :smallbiggrin:

Keep in mind that class concepts have changed and evolved bit by bit over the decades of D&D history. When the Ranger class was first made, is was just straight-up Aragorn with more obvious magic to fit the more magical world of D&D (as LotR magic is quite rare and for the most part very subtle, no wizards throwing fireballs and such) and to make them a better fit with Druids who aren't really based on LotR.

[LTwerewolf]

Fixed nothing. His signature style of fighting is two handed. Archery? Yes he does it, but again nothing near specialized. You know who else can "use a bow?" Just about anybody. Just firing an arrow a couple times does not make you a ranger. He healed someone with a flower. Heal skill and alchemy are things. It shows no magical ability to be able to do this. He has far more in common with low level paladins than he does rangers.

Smite? Occasional extra damage when he needs it? Could chalk it up to plot armor, but it works here.
Heals people from time to time with what seems like almost a touch? Yar.
Seems to be unaffected by fear? Yep
Seems to be able to dodge and shake off a lot of effects, almost as if he had a very high bonus to saves? Check.

[Yogibear41]

I agree that it's awkward.

Especially since they don't even start with spells. They're just generic trackers (who sometimes fight with two swords for some reason?), then all of a sudden once they've killed their Xth Orc, they start plucking badgers out of thin air. It's something we usually just look past with Rangers and multiclassed casters, but it's still weird when it gets brought up head on, especially in a singleclassed core character.


Rangers and Paladins learn the basis for spell-casting during their initial training (its why they can use wands and scrolls at level 1) they just initially lack the personal power to power the spells themselves. If you go back to 1st edition rules, all divine magic comes from a deity, however, 1st and 2nd level spells could be cast without any sort of aid at all, so a person with no deity could cast 1st and 2nd level divine spells as long as he had the proper training. Granted back then divine spells only went up to 7th level, so in transition to 3.5 you could potentially argue that, that now applies to 3rd and maybe 4th level spells. Of course your mileage may vary based on your DM and campaign setting.

[Psyren]

You know who else can "use a bow?" Just about anybody.

Well sure, but actually hitting your target regularly is a bit harder and indicates at least proficiency.

[Jormengand]

To be honest, he's probably a ranger/fighter multiclass without enough ranger levels to get spells. Paladin for LoH might be a thing too, though not enough levels of that to get spells either. If we're honest, he's not going to be above level 5 (he doesn't do anything THAT spectacular), so maybe rgr 1/fgt 2/pal 2? That means he's proficient with a bow and has +5 BAB, meaning that he has a decent attack bonus but not enough that he hits Lurtz with every attack (going off the film, because I have quick access to that scene, he hits Lurtz with a bull-rush vs flat-footed, misses him, hits him, hits him, hits him again, misses him seven times, and hits him twice, meaning that he hits five and misses eight of his attacks against Lurtz's AC of around perhaps 19 (He appears to be wearing quite heavy armour and has a shield and decent dexterity), which would make sense if Aragorn had an attack bonus of around 7, which would be 5 for BAB, 1 for strength, and 1 because Uruk-hai are probably included in FE: Orc). The last attack may have been Smite Evil, or a Coup de Grace if Lurtz was actually unconscious by the time Aragorn made the swing (Even if Lurtz had any hit points left, a smite with a greatsword could easily deal enough damage to kill him outright).

The goblins in Moria, though, have an AC of probably 15, though, and Aragorn never misses any of them. Obviously, trying to relate LotR and D&D qualities directly will never be perfect.

[SethoMarkus]

He healed someone with a flower. Heal skill and alchemy are things. It shows no magical ability to be able to do this.

Except in LotR this is considered magic. Remember, magic was very subtle in Middle Earth, and the fantastical potions and food that might be described as alchemical or other mundane knowledge in modern D&D was (and is) considered "magic" in the Lord of the Rings universe.

You also have to keep in mind that the main characters of the LotR story would only be somewhere around levels 4-6 if translated into D&D terms. So the reason we don't see the charaters going around doing superhuman feats is because they are not high enough level yet (and indeed they never will be in that setting).

And I do agree with you that Aragorn shares a lot of similarities with a paladin. I think it is part of the reason there is a lot of overlap between the two in terms of theme. (Rangers are called the Paladins of the woods, afterall.) But, Aragorn is one of the archetypes for Ranger, and he is called a ranger in LotR, so there you have it... You may not agree with that reasoning, but it was the direction the creators took it. There have already been several suggestions of how to make the Ranger less magic-centric or how to build a more woodsman-type martial character if you still are looking for such.

(As a side note, wasn't there a thread a while back with the opposite view point as this one? I remember a thread about the "iconic ranger" and it being focused around two-weapon fighting, animal companions, favored enemies, and was just oozing with RAS loving.)

[Elder_Basilisk]

D&D rangers don't really have anything in common with Aragorn other than "hey we're out in the woods."

Aragorn
Two weapon fighting? Nope.
Archery? Nothing special.
Spells? Nope still.
Animal Companion? Big bag of nope.

Aragorn isn't a d&d ranger.

Aragorn isn't a 2e or 3e or Pathfinder ranger. However, a lot of the abilities that are now viewed as iconic ranger abilities were added in later editions of the class. The original versions of the ranger look a lot more like Aragorn but it has changed over time which is how the class can be partially inspired by Aragorn even though the modern version shares little with him except the title.

1e rangers had to be good (AD&D) or lawful (strategic review), didn't have two weapon fighting, archery, or animal companions, and weren't connected to the druidic ethos (in fact the alignment restrictions and described ethos precluded the druid "neutrality" schtick).

They work alone or in small groups (check--though a more complete review of Aragorn's history (esp under his Thorongil alias) reveals that Aragorn was only doing that for the time surrounding the Lord of the Rings; it wasn't always his modus operandi).
They kept only a few magic items or treasures (again, check but it's more how he lived in the Lord of the Rings timeframe than an actual restriction)
They can use magic items related to ESP, telepathy, or clairsentience--things like palantirs. Check.
They get a bonus to damage vs giants. Who knows where that came from.

Now spells--Aragorn does appear to have magical abilities in the Lord of the Rings. His healing ability is a subtle magic that uses herbs but it does seem to be presented as at least quasi-supernatural.

[Florian]

Oh dear, this is going to turn into a rehash of the "words have power! if I want to be a monk I want to be a monk" thread from last week isn't it.

"But I want to be a ranger!"

Funny you mention that. Back in that thread, I said that in a world with concrete external power sources (In this case: Nature) to tap into, people would do that and receive concrete results by doing so, in this case: Spells.

[Barstro]

Archery? Yes he does it, but again nothing near specialized.

Anybody can sing too. But Aragorn is Frank Sinatra.

What Aragorn is or isn't is likewise not the issue. The class isn't "Aragorn", he's just who people (correctly or not) assume was the model. The question really comes down to how the OP thinks the OED definition of "Ranger" seems incompatible with the class. I, for one, doubt that it would be an issue if the class were called "Martial Druid".

The "correct" answer is because WotC (and TSR, etc.) says they have spells.

As for the logic behind it (and I do not fault anyone for wanting the logic behind it), I agree that it makes sense to have an affinity to nature. From my memories of old AD&D, etc., there wasn't really anything like SLAs or abilities. If it wasn't mundane, then it was magic.

[Honest Tiefling]

*shrug* Rangers in D&D have always had spellcasting. I've never worried about justifying because it doesn't seem to me to need justification, as it's never been weird to me. Also, they don't really feel like a video game thing to me either, because the spellcasting ranger was a thing right around the same time that Space Invaders was a thing.

And yet, the D&D Ranger is explicitly based on Aragorn. Go figure.

I don't recall Merlin summoning the agents of heaven or planehopping to other worlds either, so I think over the editions some things have strayed quite far from their roots.

[LTwerewolf]

1E ranger was based on Aragorn, sure. 3E is definitely not. It's based on Drizzt more than anything.

[Jay R]

In D&D, most types of power have (or at least can have) a mystical component.

Nature has power, and Ranger are warriors who slowly attune themselves to the power of nature.

[KillianHawkeye]

His signature style of fighting is two handed.

Aragorn does not HAVE a signature fighting style. In the beginning he fights with two weapons (or a weapon and a torch, at Weathertop) and uses a bow. He switches to a two-handed weapon when his ancestral magic greatsword is reforged by the elves (and who wouldn't do that when magic weapons are so rare in that world?) and uses that for the rest of the story because it's the best weapon he can possibly get.

[Keltest]

D&D rangers don't really have anything in common with Aragorn other than "hey we're out in the woods."

Aragorn
Two weapon fighting? Nope.
Archery? Nothing special.
Spells? Nope still.
Animal Companion? Big bag of nope.

Aragorn isn't a d&d ranger.

Earlier editions were much more like Aragorn. Their favored enemies were just a catch all list of being good against a lot of different enemies, they got more hit dice than anyone else, but they weren't as big a die as other fighter types got. They could track, which Aragorn was explicitly pretty good at, and they were difficult to ambush. none of this animal companion or dual weapon/archery nonsense.

[Deadline]

I don't recall Merlin summoning the agents of heaven or planehopping to other worlds either, so I think over the editions some things have strayed quite far from their roots.

I don't know if that's truly the case. I think they started with that distance from their roots. A thing can be based on or inspired by another thing without perfectly emulating the thing it is based on. Sure, with extra supplements that include new spells, you amp up that difference and make it more noticeable, but I think it was always there.

Merlin may have been one of the inspirations for the wizard (or magic-user) class, but even in the earliest incarnations of D&D, the really stark differences were already there.


1E ranger was based on Aragorn, sure. 3E is definitely not. It's based on Drizzt more than anything.

But the 3E Ranger hasn't really changed all that much from previous versions. And spellcasting has always been a thing they could do. I think there was an analog of the animal companion in the followers they could get as well. And I'm pretty sure there was also a favored enemy type thing in the first version. TWF is the only thing I can think of for the class that was added after the initial version, and I think that came from the the 2nd edition version? I'm away from my bookshelf right now so I can't really check.

[KillianHawkeye]

TWF is the only thing I can think of for the class that was added after the initial version, and I think that came from the the 2nd edition version? I'm away from my bookshelf right now so I can't really check.

It definitely predates 3E.

[Jay R]

The original D&D classes were somewhat based on literature, but didn't really match it. They were often just a bunch of ideas thrown together randomly, even when they started from a specific source. This was even more true of classes introduced in magazine articles written by people who didn't write the game.

And the first class introduced in a magazine was Ranger, in The Strategic Review Vol. 1, #2, in an article by Joe Fischer.

The article doesn't ever mention Lord of the Rings or Aragorn, but there's reason to believe it was on his mind, because Rangers were better than others against orcs, and because a high-level Ranger could use any magic device with clairaudience, clairvoyance, ESP, etc. - like a palantir.

When they got followers, the followers were almost always Men, Elves, Half-Elves, Dwarves, or Hobbits.

But many of their abilities were not compatible with the Lord of the Rings, including a 1% chance of an extraordinary follower (which were not compatible with LotR).

The main point is that from the moment it was introduced, the Ranger class had some similarities to, and some huge differences from, Aragorn.

[Afgncaap5]

I'll be honest: Rangers having spells has always bugged me. I prefer to think of it as skills and tricks of the trade that appear magical to the uninitiated, though that's admittedly a shoddy solution to a problem of mimesis.

Frankly, I think this is more a problem with the d20 system's obsession with making magic take the form of spells and spell slots than a problem with Rangers themselves. I'd much prefer to have rangers have a generally ritualized approach to magic that makes their effects take longer to cast but last longer in the long run ("Hold! Before we entire the mines of Tharadel, let me invoke the song of sylvan fire, one that will allow my friend and companion Tuldar to better handle the fabled denizens within." *One hour later, Tuldar the Owl looms ominously, seemingly larger and with muscular wings. Franz the Fighter shifts uncomfortably*). In addition, one or two very fast "emergency" spell-slot-spells would fit. Striking a weapon on the ground and swearing an oath against an ambushing goblin on a worg mount feels like a fitting way for a Ranger to get a magical weapon, one I could even envision Aragorn pulling off.

[Wonton]

It is a bit weird, which is why it's great that in Pathfinder you can choose a Ranger archetype that trades those spells in for something else. That way if you don't want any "Druid" flavour with your ranger, he can just be a badass wilderness explorer who relies only on his skills.

[Jay R]

I'll be honest: Rangers having spells has always bugged me. I prefer to think of it as skills and tricks of the trade that appear magical to the uninitiated, though that's admittedly a shoddy solution to a problem of mimesis.

Yup. The only real, elegant solution is to drop the idea of Rangers as a mundane forest dweller, and replace it with the image of somebody deeply connected to the mystical power of the forest.


Frankly, I think this is more a problem with the d20 system's obsession with making magic take the form of spells and spell slots than a problem with Rangers themselves.

Something that dates back to 1976 is not a problem with the d20 system. Rangers in original D&D had spells.

[Psyren]

I'll be honest: Rangers having spells has always bugged me. I prefer to think of it as skills and tricks of the trade that appear magical to the uninitiated, though that's admittedly a shoddy solution to a problem of mimesis.

Frankly, I think this is more a problem with the d20 system's obsession with making magic take the form of spells and spell slots than a problem with Rangers themselves. I'd much prefer to have rangers have a generally ritualized approach to magic that makes their effects take longer to cast but last longer in the long run ("Hold! Before we entire the mines of Tharadel, let me invoke the song of sylvan fire, one that will allow my friend and companion Tuldar to better handle the fabled denizens within." *One hour later, Tuldar the Owl looms ominously, seemingly larger and with muscular wings. Franz the Fighter shifts uncomfortably*). In addition, one or two very fast "emergency" spell-slot-spells would fit. Striking a weapon on the ground and swearing an oath against an ambushing goblin on a worg mount feels like a fitting way for a Ranger to get a magical weapon, one I could even envision Aragorn pulling off.

I largely agree. In fact, I think a lot of high-level classes should begin to access the supernatural in some way without having to pick up spellcasting. When I look at classes like the PF Shadowdancer or the PF Assassin for instance, these are just things that I think high-level rogues should be able to do. Slowly but surely we're getting magical abilities added to their high-level repertoire (i.e. "Advanced Tricks" for the rogue) but it's still too slow for my tastes.

[Wonton]

I largely agree. In fact, I think a lot of high-level classes should begin to access the supernatural in some way without having to pick up spellcasting. When I look at classes like the PF Shadowdancer or the PF Assassin for instance, these are just things that I think high-level rogues should be able to do. Slowly but surely we're getting magical abilities added to their high-level repertoire (i.e. "Advanced Tricks" for the rogue) but it's still too slow for my tastes.

I assume you mean for balance reasons? Flavour-wise, I think it's weird to say that Rogues, Fighters, and Barbarians (and Knights, Cavaliers, Gunslingers, Samuari, etc) couldn't just be purely martial characters. Sure, what a Rogue can do in a video game (go invisible, teleport behind enemies, etc) looks like like magical ability, but that's all fine to keep in PrCs and archetypes, IMO.

[zergling.exe]

I don't recall Merlin summoning the agents of heaven or planehopping to other worlds either, so I think over the editions some things have strayed quite far from their roots.

Well Merlin is more of a druid, rather than a wizard in D&D. I believe this was even stated by some developer. Not aging, many appearances, etc.

[Keltest]

I largely agree. In fact, I think a lot of high-level classes should begin to access the supernatural in some way without having to pick up spellcasting. When I look at classes like the PF Shadowdancer or the PF Assassin for instance, these are just things that I think high-level rogues should be able to do. Slowly but surely we're getting magical abilities added to their high-level repertoire (i.e. "Advanced Tricks" for the rogue) but it's still too slow for my tastes.

Personally I have no problems with re-writing the higher level class features as being subtle magical effects. A fighter with 20 strength when naked? He's magic. A rogue who can hide behind the shadow of a chair in a brightly lit room? Magic. A wizard with more than 4 hit points? magic.

[Wonton]

Personally I have no problems with re-writing the higher level class features as being subtle magical effects. A fighter with 20 strength when naked? He's magic. A rogue who can hide behind the shadow of a chair in a brightly lit room? Magic. A wizard with more than 4 hit points? magic.

You had to come up with an example of high-level unrealistic play, and you chose 20 Strength of all things? :smalltongue: A character with 20 strength can lift 400 lbs over his head - the world record clean & jerk is 579 lbs.

P.S. Looked it up, Deadlift (i.e. "lift off ground", which is double your maximum load) record is 1155 pounds, almost exactly double the previous figure. Seems consistent!

[Jay R]

Personally I have no problems with re-writing the higher level class features as being subtle magical effects. A fighter with 20 strength when naked? He's magic. A rogue who can hide behind the shadow of a chair in a brightly lit room? Magic. A wizard with more than 4 hit points? magic.

I could go further. In a magic-based world, I could believe that inherited traits are mystical, rather than genetic. Life itself could be a great mystical force. The sun is not merely a giant ball of fire; it's part of the magic of Pelor. Lightning might come from Thor, not unbalanced potential. And the fact that cold is a force, not mere absence of heat, means that forces are not caused by the same things as in our world.

[ComaVision]

You had to come up with an example of high-level unrealistic play, and you chose 20 Strength of all things? :smalltongue: A character with 20 strength can lift 400 lbs over his head - the world record clean & jerk is 579 lbs.

P.S. Looked it up, Deadlift (i.e. "lift off ground", which is double your maximum load) record is 1155 pounds, almost exactly double the previous figure. Seems consistent!

I wouldn't use the clean & jerk as an example. Most of the 'lift' there is done with your legs. Shoulder press is a better comparison, though the world record is still around 520 lbs.

[Afgncaap5]

I largely agree. In fact, I think a lot of high-level classes should begin to access the supernatural in some way without having to pick up spellcasting. When I look at classes like the PF Shadowdancer or the PF Assassin for instance, these are just things that I think high-level rogues should be able to do. Slowly but surely we're getting magical abilities added to their high-level repertoire (i.e. "Advanced Tricks" for the rogue) but it's still too slow for my tastes.

I don't know if I'd like to classify certain things as magic (then again, who am I to tell a player why their rogue is so awesome?), but there are some things. Like, at the low level, a sorcerer's ability to summon a familiar is a magical effect that isn't a spell at all, it's just "magic" that the sorcerer knows how to do (or at least, it's not a "spell" in the way that D&D defines it.) To an extent, a ranger's ability to call an animal companion is this as well.

I also think the Shadowcaster's progression of magic had a nice feel to it, wherein certain magical effects became so well known that the player could just "do" them without them being spells. That's starting to veer away from the territory of what I think rangers should be able to do and more into how I like magic to feel in my games, though, so I'll save that for another discussion thread.

[Prime32]

I love the concept of the ranger, as hard as that may be to pin down. I see it as a skill/survivalism oriented warrior with a wilderness inclination.

But the spells seem kind of shoehorned in and it really breaks any possible immersion with the class. It makes it feel like a video game character.

Like... You have this guy who takes to the woods and becomes such a good outdoorsman that he can turn his hands into claws, transform into a tree, or make animals double in size. Where the hell does that come from? It could make sense if it were like an Elf or something, but "ranger" just seems like such a simple, common concept, and you have this bizarre magical ability just thrown in there with no sense to it. There's no cohesion here whatsoever and it leaves the class with no appeal except to supplement a complex build.

It would have been cool if the spell list was just emulating things that you could actually reflavor into things you could envision a ranger doing... Goodberry could be him gathering some nearby fruit with restorative properties. Charm animal could be considered just an uncanny way with animals. Delay poison could be him improvising an antidote with nearby plants or using anatomical knowledge to do something with their body that prevents the spread of the poison or something. Maybe even speak with plants could be flavored as him inferring information from looking at the plants. But then there's entangle, wind wall, and aspect of the earth hunter... I just don't get it.

How do you guys justify the casting?The original ranger class was far more pragmatic about it. They cast spells from the wizard and druid lists, but they weren't scholars nor did they have any mystical connection to nature. They taught themselves a handful of simple spells because those spells seemed like they'd be useful in the wilderness, and for no other reason.

In D&D, learning how to detect poison is a skill no different from learning how to tie a knot - if you need to eat wild plants in exotic locations regularly, you'd be foolish not to learn it.

[LTwerewolf]

Other than the fact that that post above breaks several forum rules, it doesn't say aragorn more than anything else.

[mouser9169]

My personal favorite is the AD&D one that had access to both arcane and divine spells.

[Trunamer]

3.x D&D ranger = fighter + druid hybrid