Should Rangers Have Spells?

[Trickery]

Should the Ranger class have spells?

As you might guess, I don't think it should. The class description on D&D Beyond imagines Rangers as "deadly hunters" who learn to track their quarry, moving stealthily through the wild. These are "independent adventurers," used to life in the wilds away from the comfort of a bed. Only one reference to their spellcasting is made, and that as a throwaway line, something they get because of their "familiarity with the wilds."

Furthermore, the most common characters given as inspirations for the class are spell-less. Whether your fancy is Aragorn, Drizzt, or otherwise, your Class Fantasy probably doesn't involve communing with nature to cast druidic spells. Rangers in fantasy are wilderness warriors with some roguish features. Arguably, you can build a character more closely suited to the fantasy by making a Scout Rogue and Fighter multiclass.

I think spells hold the class back. Because they get spells, many of their features (Hunter's Mark, speaking with beasts, advanced tracking and stealth abilities) come in the form of spells and not features. This makes the class seem less like a Ranger and more like a Gish.

What are your thoughts?

[Waazraath]

Agreed. Also other typical rangers mentioned in another thread (Robin Hood, Lone Ranger) don't have any spellcasting. I wouldn't mind some semi-magical abilities (lay on hands would be quite appropriate for a ranger as well, and an animal companion in the line of familiar / steed (but then without it being a spell), and then more class abilities could be used for hunting, skill, unique damage abilities (the Xanathar subclasses are on the right track there), etc.

[GlenSmash!]

The sweet spot has always been abilities that ride the line between magic and near supernatural wilderness skill.

Still while I prefer a spell less ranger personally, I see the logic of a ranger in a D&D setting learning spells as spells are an intrinsic part of the natural world, and indeed the land itself that the ranger lives off of is magic in most D&D settings.

Ultimately I think Geralt of Rivia from the Witcher is more representative of a D&D Ranger than Strider or Drizzt.

[Vogie]

I had that same thought - when I made my Further Revised Ranger (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?582686-The-Ranger-Further-Revised-(PEACH)), I made the Ranger player choose at level 2 between 3 Mantle options: One gives half-casting, one gives battlemaster maneuvers, and the last gives a combat Wild Shape form. If you don't have spellcasting, you can use your bonus spells given by their archetype once per long rest.

I gave them a lay on hands variant that fuels their Ranger features, including goodberry creation, and also replaced Focused enemy with a "Hunter's Mark" feature.

[mythmonster2]

I think making the spellcasting a subclass would be a good way to handle it. Let the base chassis focus on exploration and favored enemy.

[Man_Over_Game]

I believe that Rangers SHOULD have spells.

Otherwise, a lot of what makes the Ranger "unique" could easily be duplicated with a Fighter/Rogue hybrid. That's probably the main reason why the original spell-less Ranger fell flat and didn't go past level 5, because there just isn't enough ways of making a magic-less combatant that uses stealth that can't already be done.

If they don't have spells, then they need something dramatic that pushes them away from ever being affiliated with Fighters and Rogues. Something so vast that they'd HAVE to be its own class. Things like traps, helping the party sneak, or befriending animals comes to mind.

Rangers already have a hard time maintaining their own identity. We cannot allow it to get any worse, and removing magic, considering Rangers have their own class spells, would seem like it'd make the Rangers even more generic.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Rather, remove the magic system if you must. But, if you do, replace it with something 2x as colorful and unique. Anything less is just compounding one of the biggest problems with the Ranger.

[Segev]

If they didn't have spells, they'd need to have their subclasses boosted significantly. As-is, the Ranger is oft considered a very weak class choice. Though I will say the Gloomstalker Ranger in my ToA game is really enjoying his Ambush feature, and is actively excited about the prospect of invisibility to darkvision.

Take away spells, and it might even be viable to upgrade, say, the Beastmaster Ranger to having a full second set of actions for his animal companion to act with.

[Trickery]

If they don't have spells, then they need something dramatic that pushes them away from ever being affiliated with Fighters and Rogues. Something so vast that they'd HAVE to be its own class. Things like traps, helping the party sneak, or befriending animals comes to mind.

Funny you should put it this way. One thing you reminded me of, something I think we all find puzzling, is that 5e Rangers don't have Track. They can take the Survival skill and have bonuses to using it sometimes, but their tracking ability is weaker than that of a Bard with expertise in Survival.

This is what I mean when I say that spells hold the Ranger back. If a Ranger wants to track effectively, he must use Hunter's Mark on the target ahead of time or cast spells like Locate Animals or Plants - Druids are better at the latter. Just rolling survival is no good because anyone can do that and other classes are better at it. But some other classes can also pick up Hunter's Mark and Locate Animals or Plants.

Stealth is a similar story, the difference being that the Ranger has to wait a lot longer to get good at it (pass without trace being the earliest stealth "feature").

[Aimeryan]

I believe that Rangers SHOULD have spells.

Otherwise, a lot of what makes the Ranger "unique" could easily be duplicated with a Fighter/Rogue hybrid. That's probably the main reason why the original spell-less Ranger fell flat and didn't go past level 5, because there just isn't enough ways of making a magic-less combatant that uses stealth that can't already be done.

If they don't have spells, then they need something dramatic that pushes them away from ever being affiliated with Fighters and Rogues. Something so vast that they'd HAVE to be its own class. Things like traps, helping the party sneak, or befriending animals comes to mind.

Rangers already have a hard time maintaining their own identity. We cannot allow it to get any worse, and removing magic, considering Rangers have their own class spells, would seem like it'd make the Rangers even more generic.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Rather, remove the magic system if you must. But, if you do, replace it with something 2x as colorful and unique. Anything less is just compounding one of the biggest problems with the Ranger.

In agreement with this, except the the very first line.

Actually, I think they should have nature-based ritual casting, but no other form; some spells (like Pass Without Trace) would become ritual spells for them at an appropriate level. Sort of like a modified Ritual Caster feat.

Outside of this, I would focus on the other aspects that are unique to them and focus them with subclasses - beast management, traps, trick shots, etc. Various games out there can provide inspiration (Dota's Windranger, WoW's Hunter, etc.).

[airless_wing]

I'm not necessarily for the removal of ranger spells, but I do really like the idea of Ranger Invocations from another thread on here recently. I feel like more At-Will/Short Rest augmentations could round of their kit very well. So many of the Warlock incantations already carry over fairly well: Things like Beast Speak and Eldritch Sight translate to the Ranger class already. A better home brewer than myself could find a way to make a Hunter's Mark invocation be the ranger version of Agonizing Blast even.

[Damon_Tor]

Funny you should put it this way. One thing you reminded me of, something I think we all find puzzling, is that 5e Rangers don't have Track. They can take the Survival skill and have bonuses to using it sometimes, but their tracking ability is weaker than that of a Bard with expertise in Survival.

This is what I mean when I say that spells hold the Ranger back. If a Ranger wants to track effectively, he must use Hunter's Mark on the target ahead of time or cast spells like Locate Animals or Plants - Druids are better at the latter. Just rolling survival is no good because anyone can do that and other classes are better at it. But some other classes can also pick up Hunter's Mark and Locate Animals or Plants.

I've always said that ranger spells should interact with their class features more. Here's a great example of someplace that could work: you could have a tracking spell that works about as well as you would expect at the given spell level, but which overperforms in someway to track a favored enemy.

[GlenSmash!]

Rather, remove the magic system if you must. But, if you do, replace it with something 2x as colorful and unique. Anything less is just compounding one of the biggest problems with the Ranger.

Adventures in Middle-earth did this with their Wanderer class. It's essentially a spell less 5e Ranger, but it has massive bonuses with regard to that systems Journey mechanic (overland travel).


I've always said that ranger spells should interact with their class features more. Here's a great example of someplace that could work: you could have a tracking spell that works about as well as you would expect at the given spell level, but which overperforms in someway to track a favored enemy.

I like this idea.

[Bigmouth]

I believe that Rangers SHOULD have spells.

Otherwise, a lot of what makes the Ranger "unique" could easily be duplicated with a Fighter/Rogue hybrid. That's probably the main reason why the original spell-less Ranger fell flat and didn't go past level 5, because there just isn't enough ways of making a magic-less combatant that uses stealth that can't already be done.

If they don't have spells, then they need something dramatic that pushes them away from ever being affiliated with Fighters and Rogues. Something so vast that they'd HAVE to be its own class. Things like traps, helping the party sneak, or befriending animals comes to mind.

Rangers already have a hard time maintaining their own identity. We cannot allow it to get any worse, and removing magic, considering Rangers have their own class spells, would seem like it'd make the Rangers even more generic.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Rather, remove the magic system if you must. But, if you do, replace it with something 2x as colorful and unique. Anything less is just compounding one of the biggest problems with the Ranger.

I don't want to agree, as I think ranger magic as it stands is horrible...but seriously, without magic, how are you going to compete with a Warrior, Rogue, or a combo of the two?

Invocation style 'build-a-class' options are definitely an option. Easy to break, hard to balance...but they can be fun.
Ritual magic seems much more in theme. It would probably need a new name to keep it from being stolen by other classes. But a spell list of their own, with castings per day only being limited by time would be something that could easily make them more fun. Suddenly all the little rp spells aren't competing with spells that are actually useful.

And last but not least, please stop with Favored Enemy. The concept is awful, will always be awful. Anything built on or based upon it is doomed to be awful as well.

[Bjarkmundur]

Actually, I think they should have nature-based ritual casting, but no other form; some spells (like Pass Without Trace) would become ritual spells for them at an appropriate level. Sort of like a modified Ritual Caster feat.

I actually do this in my game.

Survival Skills. At 2nd level, choose one spell from the ranger spell list. You can now cast that spell as a ritual, using only what you can find around you as material components. You can choose an additional spell at levels 5, 9, 13 and 17.
Example: Goodberry is just your superior ability to forage, alarm is an actual trap you make, cure wounds is a combination of herbs applied to a bruise as a salve, etc.


I'm not necessarily for the removal of ranger spells, but I do really like the idea of Ranger Invocations from another thread on here recently.

Seems like it's actually a commonly used method of making a class with specific SUPER flavorful abilities. Check out the Princess class. It's a homebrew that uses "Talents" to give the player some abilities that are too specific to be implemented in any other way.

[KorvinStarmast]

Should the Ranger class have spells?
Yes. It is to the Druid what a Paladin is to the Cleric.

What I object to in the various design decisions is that they did not make the Ranger a "prepared spells" class but instead a "Spells Known" class which significantly limits the Ranger's flexibility in making a build. (It's a disappointment but it is not a fatal one).

If you go back a few years, though, the devs provided an example of how to build a ranger without spells. It was the same post (circa 2015) that had the first example of what a Divine Soul / Favored Soul for 5e would look like. (A few years later XgTE came out and a different version of it was the final form that took).

[GlenSmash!]

If you go back a few years, though, the devs provided an example of how to build a ranger without spells. It was the same post (circa 2015) that had the first example of what a Divine Soul / Favored Soul for 5e would look like. (A few years later XgTE came out and a different version of it was the final form that took).

Yup. This right here:

https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/UA3_ClassDesignVariants.pdf

[Man_Over_Game]

Invocation style 'build-a-class' options are definitely an option. Easy to break, hard to balance...but they can be fun.
Ritual magic seems much more in theme. It would probably need a new name to keep it from being stolen by other classes. But a spell list of their own, with castings per day only being limited by time would be something that could easily make them more fun. Suddenly all the little rp spells aren't competing with spells that are actually useful.

Could do something like "You can choose from a list of gambits that you can use on your adventure. Each gambit has its own preparation time, and you can choose to use a gambit a number of times per Short Rest equal to your Ranger level. Saving Throws and Ability Checks use 15 + proficiency + Wisdom, unless stated otherwise".

Gambits could be things like:

Ambush Mastery: Sense the presence of someone trying to track or detect you or any ally within 60 ft of you. You have Advantage on checks related to spotting or tracking creatures, while they have Disadvantage on checks to spot or track you or affected allies. If Divination magic is being used to track you then the Diviner must make a Spellcasting check equal to 15 + your proficiency + your Wisdom. If the caster fails, you know the direction of the source, and any divination spells from the source that attempt to find your location fail for the next 24 hours.
Trap Mastery: Create a number of traps that either injure the target or alert you of their activation. You can create a trap with a trigger line spanning up to 5x10 feet. Traps last 3 hours and may force a Dexterity Saving Throw to avoid, or a Perception Check to detect. Traps take 5 minutes each to make. If you spend a minute disassembling a trap, you are refunded the gambit points of the disassembled trap for the next time you create the same type of trap before your next Short Rest. Each trap has a special effect, Saving Throw, and damage type (when applicable), which you choose when you make them:

Pit: Bludgeoning Damage equal to 1d4 * Proficiency Modifier and knocked prone. The requires an Athletics check to escape equal to your Ranger Saving Throw.
Blade: Slashing Damage equal to 1d10 * Proficiency Modifier.
Arrow: 1d6 * Proficiency Modifier. Creatures within 10 feet must also make the saving throw.
Net: A Medium or smaller creature caught in this trap is Restrained for the duration of the trap, or until the net is destroyed by fire or slashing damage (HP equals Ranger level). At Ranger level 7, it can catch Large creatures, or creatures within a 10x10 space, centered on your choice of the triggered spaces. Damage that the net receives from captured creatures is halved.
Poison: Only available if you or an ally has both the proficiency in and access to the Poisoner's Kit. Spend an additional Gambit point and make a Arrow or Blade trap. When that trap deals damage, it deals an additional 1d6 Poison damage and the target is Poisoned for the next minute. The creature makes a Constitution Saving Throw at the end of each turn to no longer be poisoned.
Flask: Only available if you or an ally has both the proficiency in and access to the Alchemists' Kit. Choose Fire or Acid. When this trap is triggered, the creature is caught in a volatile concoction that deals 1d4 * proficiency of your chosen damage type at the end of each round they are afflicted. Either they or an adjacent ally can attempt to remove the effect by spending an Action, allowing the creature another Dexterity Saving Throw. Being splashed with water also removes the effect.
Alarm: When this trap is triggered, it silently alerts you of its triggering as long as you are on the same plane of existence. You can spend additional Gambit points to increase its duration and trigger size, doubling for each additional gambit point. You can spend up 4 gambit points doing this, making the trap permanent, although you can only have a number of permanent Alarm traps equal to your Wisdom modifier (minimum 1). Doubling the cost of the Gambit points you spend on it will also allow it to have it be a spiritual tripwire, alerting you whenever any creature gets within 5 feet, including those who do not have physical bodies, although this changes the Saving Throw to be Charisma instead of Dexterity. Creatures who you inform of the trap automatically succeed on not triggering it.

Beast Mastery: Add your proficiency bonus on your Animal Handling checks, or gain twice your proficiency bonus if you are already proficient. You can attempt to calm a beast with your action by spending a number of Gambit points equal to its CR (minimum 1) and succeeding on a check equal to 15+ the creature's CR. If the creature is hostile, this causes the creature to be Charmed by you and is no longer hostile to you until attacked for an hour. If the creature is not hostile when you take this Action, it is now friendly to you and no longer hostile to your allies, and will follow basic commands by you for an hour. If you failed your check, you charm the creature for the next minute, but it cannot be targeted by this gambit again for another 24 hours. You can use this gambit on a monstrosity or elemental with an intelligence of 5 or less, but it will cost twice as many Gambit points.
Blade Mastery: If you make a melee weapon attack, you can spend a Gambit point. Doing so causes you to not provoke opportunity attacks from the enemy you attacked, to deal bonus damage equal to your proficiency modifier if it's the first time you've hit that creature this turn, and you can consider any 1 you roll on the attack to be replaced with a 20. If you spent a Gambit point this way and ended your turn within enemies' reach, those enemies have Disadvantage to attack you until the start of your next turn.
Sniper Mastery: If you make a ranged weapon attack a creature that isn't behind cover, you can spend a Gambit point the first time you hit them turn. They make their choice of a Strength or Dexterity Saving Throw. If the creature fails, you can choose to have the creature be knocked prone, be pushed back 10 feet, or both. When you spend a Gambit point this way, you can draw a weapon with the Thrown trait so long as it's to replace a weapon with that trait with which you made a ranged weapon attack, and your ranged weapon attacks are considered to have a 1d12.

[Nagog]

I believe that Rangers SHOULD have spells.

Otherwise, a lot of what makes the Ranger "unique" could easily be duplicated with a Fighter/Rogue hybrid. That's probably the main reason why the original spell-less Ranger fell flat and didn't go past level 5, because there just isn't enough ways of making a magic-less combatant that uses stealth that can't already be done.

If they don't have spells, then they need something dramatic that pushes them away from ever being affiliated with Fighters and Rogues. Something so vast that they'd HAVE to be its own class. Things like traps, helping the party sneak, or befriending animals comes to mind.

Rangers already have a hard time maintaining their own identity. We cannot allow it to get any worse, and removing magic, considering Rangers have their own class spells, would seem like it'd make the Rangers even more generic.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Rather, remove the magic system if you must. But, if you do, replace it with something 2x as colorful and unique. Anything less is just compounding one of the biggest problems with the Ranger.

I personally really like the idea of traps and stuff like that for the Ranger. This would lend to a more proactive and preparation-based playstyle, such as the party or individual setting up their traps and guessing at where the enemy will be to set them right. Also, they could have a feature similar to Sneak Attack or Smite that grants bonus damage to trapped enemies. This could synergize well with something like Goading Strike or an inverse to Fear, forcing the enemy to approach you with it's movement based on a save? Could be a great full-martial control class, and could combo well with an Oath of Conquest Paladin.

Update: If the 1st level spell Snare were a class feature and had a casting time of 1 action (or perhaps even bonus action considering), that could be a great step in the right direction, although other features to build on this would be much appreciated as well.

[Nagog]

Could do something like "You can choose from a list of gambits that you can use on your adventure. Each gambit has its own preparation time, and you can choose to use a gambit a number of times per Long Rest equal to your Ranger level".

Gambits could be things like:

Stalker Mastery: Turning a successful Survival check to track a creature into a 1 hour divination effect that causes you to succeed on all future Survival checks to track them, as well as moving full speed while you track.
Create a number of trip wires that either create a trap or alert you of their activation. You can trap a number of lines equal to your Proficiency modifier, with each line spanning up to 10 feet.
Ambush Mastery: Sense the presence of someone trying to track or detect you or an ally traveling with you. If a creature is tracking you without magic, you have Advantage on checks related to spotting them, while they have Disadvantage on checks to spot you. If Divination magic is being used to track you, the spell ends, or the source is no longer able to detect you.
Beast Mastery: Add your proficiency bonus on your Animal Handling checks, or gain twice your proficiency bonus if you are already proficient. You can attempt to calm a beast with your action by spending a number of Gambit points equal to its CR (minimum 1) and succeeding on a check equal to 15+ the creature's CR. If the creature is hostile, this causes the creature to be Charmed by you and is no longer hostile to you until attacked. If the creature is not hostile when you take this Action, it is now friendly to you and no longer hostile to your allies, and will follow basic commands by you. If you failed your check, you charm the creature, but it cannot be targeted by this gambit again for another 24 hours. You can use this gambit on a creature that's not a beast, but it will cost twice as many Gambit points.
Blade Mastery: For the turn, your speed is increased by 15, you do not provoke opportunity attacks by enemies you attack, and your weapon attacks deal bonus damage equal to your proficiency for every different enemy they hit. If you end your turn adjacent to an enemy, you gain the benefits of the Dodge action.
Sniper Mastery: For the turn, if you make a ranged weapon attack a creature that isn't behind cover, the first time you hit them has them make their choice of a Strength or Dexterity Saving Throw. If the creature fails, you can choose to have the creature be knocked prone, be pushed back 10 feet, or both. Weapons with the Thrown trait do not use your Object Interaction to draw, and your ranged weapon attacks are considered to have a 1d12 weapon die.


So, I could see Ambush Mastery being abused heavily by Metagamers. The two ways that could go is they make a perception check, the roll is low. The DM asks them to roll again, and they instantly know (OOC) that there's an ambush coming. The other method is the DM asks them to make a perception check with advantage when preparing an ambush, also giving away OOC that there's an ambush coming.
I would adjust that to having their Passive Perception bonus doubled for people attempting to track them.

Other than that, everything sounds good!

[Rynjin]

I personally really like the idea of traps and stuff like that for the Ranger. This would lend to a more proactive and preparation-based playstyle, such as the party or individual setting up their traps and guessing at where the enemy will be to set them right. Also, they could have a feature similar to Sneak Attack or Smite that grants bonus damage to trapped enemies. This could synergize well with something like Goading Strike or an inverse to Fear, forcing the enemy to approach you with it's movement based on a save? Could be a great full-martial control class, and could combo well with an Oath of Conquest Paladin.

It's been tried before in previous editions and nobody ever learns that it simply does not work in 99.999% of D&D style games.

The Trapper archetype in Pathfinder is absolute garbage. The trap-based archetype in Pathfinder 2 is absolute garbage. The ability to Craft Traps in previous editions has always been garbage.

This is because you are generally invading enemy territory, not defending your own.

That puts a severe damper on trap effectiveness, because they are stationary while your party is meant to be mobile.

It also puts extreme pressure on the rest of the party to conform to the Ranger's tactics. Everybody needs to be on board with playing passively and luring enemies into traps.

Which leads to the third issue: the time and effort required is basically impossible to balance with the effects. If you're taking 5-10 minutes out of game and hours in game, plus resources, to make this trap, it better have a big effect...but few effects can match that lead-in, and none actually DO.

It's basically an unworkable concept and it baffles me why people keep trying to push it, especially since they do so with basically no regard for WHY it needs to be workshopped heavily, and they always forget lessons learned from previous editions when doing so.

[Kane0]

Because the conceptual ranger is so different across tables and players it seems something like spells, rituals or invocations are necessary to fit everything in. In my experience, usually when i see casting taken out the resulting ‘brew ends up looking like a stretched out fighter or rogue subclass or mimics magic without calling it magic; and that feels like its going against the simplicity that 5e design aims for.
Spells known instead of prepped is a problem, as are some ranger spells being lacklustre or late. Those can be fixed without jettisoning the whole lot and reinventing the wheel.

[Snails]

I believe that Rangers SHOULD have spells.

Otherwise, a lot of what makes the Ranger "unique" could easily be duplicated with a Fighter/Rogue hybrid. That's probably the main reason why the original spell-less Ranger fell flat and didn't go past level 5, because there just isn't enough ways of making a magic-less combatant that uses stealth that can't already be done.

I agree that the concept is too narrow. Aragorn himself is not necessarily anything other than a Fighter with extra skill proficiencies and good stats, be it through a special Race or simply many levels or likely both.

To be a workable class, Ranger has to scream something that is as useful as a Sneak Attack, like a serious set of Beastmaster abilities or a strong dash of Druidic Martial Champion (much like Paladin is to the Cleric).

Spells to boost TWF enough, like Hunter's Mark, that works but it is booooring....

[Aimeryan]

It's been tried before in previous editions and nobody ever learns that it simply does not work in 99.999% of D&D style games.

The Trapper archetype in Pathfinder is absolute garbage. The trap-based archetype in Pathfinder 2 is absolute garbage. The ability to Craft Traps in previous editions has always been garbage.

This is because you are generally invading enemy territory, not defending your own.

That puts a severe damper on trap effectiveness, because they are stationary while your party is meant to be mobile.

It also puts extreme pressure on the rest of the party to conform to the Ranger's tactics. Everybody needs to be on board with playing passively and luring enemies into traps.

Which leads to the third issue: the time and effort required is basically impossible to balance with the effects. If you're taking 5-10 minutes out of game and hours in game, plus resources, to make this trap, it better have a big effect...but few effects can match that lead-in, and none actually DO.

It's basically an unworkable concept and it baffles me why people keep trying to push it, especially since they do so with basically no regard for WHY it needs to be workshopped heavily, and they always forget lessons learned from previous editions when doing so.

This is true, yet reaches the wrong conclusion. The post is basically a truism of 'traps that require set up don't work well if you can't set them up'. Your conclusion is then that this is unworkable in D&D, presumably because you can't set them up. I would say they can be set up, hence the conclusion is wrong.

There are two ways I see this working:

1) Set up and lure (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DefensiveFeintTrap). The idea is to trap an area then pull enemies into the traps. This works even when invading because retreat and taking cover is a thing.

2) Scout ahead and trap. If you can get in ahead of the party, set up the traps in strategic positions, then start the combat it works. This requires that the subclass also focuses on stealth, however, it need only be temporary to get the traps in place.

As for whether this fits all types of parties? No, of course not. It will fit some, though. Personally, a 3 man team of such rangers all working together to set up traps and play in that playstyle would be great fun.

[Vogie]

That puts a severe damper on trap effectiveness, because they are stationary while your party is meant to be mobile.

It also puts extreme pressure on the rest of the party to conform to the Ranger's tactics. Everybody needs to be on board with playing passively and luring enemies into traps.

Which leads to the third issue: the time and effort required is basically impossible to balance with the effects. If you're taking 5-10 minutes out of game and hours in game, plus resources, to make this trap, it better have a big effect...but few effects can match that lead-in, and none actually DO.


I don't mind the ranger looking like more like a nature-based artificer, and if all of the traps included are stationary then yes, they're doing it wrong. Things like Create Bonfire or Mold Earth could be better amalgamations of traps than variations on "Snare". I could see a trap-launcher as something a decent artificer creates at a middling level, shooting traps at a target's feet. You could even lean into the ridiculous, with Kled-Style "Bear Trap on a Rope" shenanigans.

And to be fair, more magical things like Cordon of Arrows could be buffed into a decent area of effect trap, or even things like putting Web on the ranger Spell lists would be useful.

[Tanarii]

Yes. It's been part of the class since day 1. They definitely should have spells.

Now whether they should have them so early on is a different matter. Rangers went from getting at 8th level to getting them at 6th (4th with bonus spells) to getting them at 2nd.

The ranger class has been relatively stable in its core functions, despite what many like to claim. It's just been rearranged a bit in terms of what levels they come at and how they work mechanically.

[Rynjin]

I don't mind the ranger looking like more like a nature-based artificer, and if all of the traps included are stationary then yes, they're doing it wrong. Things like Create Bonfire or Mold Earth could be better amalgamations of traps than variations on "Snare". I could see a trap-launcher as something a decent artificer creates at a middling level, shooting traps at a target's feet. You could even lean into the ridiculous, with Kled-Style "Bear Trap on a Rope" shenanigans.

And to be fair, more magical things like Cordon of Arrows could be buffed into a decent area of effect trap, or even things like putting Web on the ranger Spell lists would be useful.

Historically, this has also been done (the Trapper from PF for instance CAN load their traps onto arrows), and it always still kinda sucks, because the balancing act between making traps effective, easy to use, and cost efficient is such a PITA to hit.

[Snails]

Historically, this has also been done (the Trapper from PF for instance CAN load their traps onto arrows), and it always still kinda sucks, because the balancing act between making traps effective, easy to use, and cost efficient is such a PITA to hit.

The characteristics of (1) very quick to set up and (2) effectiveness enough to be a major class ability (more or less) forces the traps to be "like magic". Like it or not, the effectiveness of these traps will be compared to Thunderwave and Glyph of Warding and Fireball.

So, yes, they have to be glued to arrows or be proximity mines that can be deployed with a single action. A major class ability should be a real major class ability. If it is not pretty good or better in >51% of the encounters, then it is not good enough.

Flavorwise this is the worst possible choice. Garishly useful and weirdly effective "no no this is not magic but technology" does not say "nature warrior" to me, but "steampunk".

I can imagine how Trap Master would work well for an NPC. I cannot see how it can work well for a PC.

[Kane0]

I always thought cordon of arrows is pretty good though. Could use half damage on a successful save and maybe a d8 instead of d6 but not bad.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Yes. It's been part of the class since day 1. They definitely should have spells.

Now whether they should have them so early on is a different matter. Rangers went from getting at 8th level to getting them at 6th (4th with bonus spells) to getting them at 2nd.

The ranger class has been relatively stable in its core functions, despite what many like to claim. It's just been rearranged a bit in terms of what levels they come at and how they work mechanically.

I'd support Rangers having more non-magical abilities in exchange for being 1/3 casters, if being a 1/3 caster wasn't something normally reserved for archetypes instead of base classes. I wouldn't mind that this'd put them out of sync with Paladins, since they're gonna be blowing most of their spell slots on smites anyways, not on casting actual spells, meaning Ranger'll probably end up feeling just as magical as Paladins.

One minor nit to pick: technically, in 3rd edition the Ranger gets spells first at 6th level, unless they get bonus spells. This is true. However, this is somewhat of a misleading edge case. If they have Wis 10 or lower, they don't get them at all. If they have Wis 12 or higher, they have a bonus 1st level spell, meaning they get spells at 4th. It's only Rangers with exactly 11 Wisdom that get spells at 6th level. In practice, I never saw anyone playing a Ranger who could cast spells but didn't have at least 12 Wis, especially since it's a stat that is of importance for many of their skills in that edition (and also Will saves are important).

[Aimeryan]

I can imagine how Trap Master would work well for an NPC. I cannot see how it can work well for a PC.

Strategy and patience. To be fair, if you like to blow through campaigns like a train on a track then it simply wont be your thing - however, it will be someone's.

[Trickery]

Strategy and patience. To be fair, if you like to blow through campaigns like a train on a track then it simply wont be your thing - however, it will be someone's.

Getting your group to play along is the problem. It's bad enough trying to play the party face and getting the rest of the group to stop making stupid persuasion attempts that do nothing but move the plot backward. Or trying to be the tank and getting the rest of the party to stay behind you and stop rushing through doors. Or trying to take a short rest while others want to go investigate that room over there and start another fight.

The difference with traps is that they don't work at all if your party isn't game. In contrast, one of the best things about a standard Hunter Ranger is that they do okay no matter what.

[Spiritchaser]

The 5e “ranger” that fits my concept of ranger best mechanically is a wood elf UA scout fighter with a few levels of rogue (if you go far enough then assassin works well though I would imagine that others might work well too)

Wood elf magic is enough casting to fit the bill.

So yes, I guess my idea of a ranger can cast spells... just not very many.

[Sindal]

Ive never had a problem with them, since I always treat the spells as abilities. They dont feel like spells despite being magic.

All of them sound like abilities. Especially the ranger specific ones.

Learning cure wounds is just having poultices.

Learning hail of thorns is just learning how to perform a scatter shot.

Hunters mark is just focus firing someone. (Though this one should be a class ability on it's own if you asked me)

Healing spirit it just deploying a little satchel with some make shift healing herbs you gathered. Concord is a really fancy trap you learnt to make.

Summoning spirits is just calling you pack in for a while. Almost like you got underlings.

Lightning arrow is just modifying an arrow with some rare concoction .

All the self buffs (swift quiver, guardian of nature) are various kinds of combat focuses and kind shifts they learn to push their limits thr same way a fighter gets action surge and barbs get rage.

The issue for me was never that they are spells for me because on paper they give ranger a list of abilities that help emphasis that they dont fight by just swinging weapons or sneaking up on people.

Paladins get smite to help cut them off from normal fighters (and auras and channeled) and it would make a lot of sense if all rangers got hunters mark the same way all papasins get smite. So if you don't wanna bother with all of your other utility and aoe stuff, you always get that as a baseline.

(Side note, hunters mark could even change depending on your conclave.)

The usual issues with them their rigid nature (cant switch them) and the speed you get them. Most of the later damage spells are just poor options by the time you get them and some utility spells are redundant if you have any form of spell caster in the team.

I'd more say they need to look into how they are handled instead or removing them. You could dress them up and call them abilities but it wouldn't change all that much as picking spells is more or less the same thing

I can't tell you how happy I was to have my gloomstalker spells when I was investigating a war camp and later had to perform an emergency hostage save operation (rope trick from the search party)

It made me feel like a ranger adapting to my environment. A rogue would have hidden away . A fighter would have stood his ground and fought or hauled thr hostages away with their superior stats and tankiensss.

I 'found' a safe spot in the environment and hid everyone.

[Nagog]

It's been tried before in previous editions and nobody ever learns that it simply does not work in 99.999% of D&D style games.

The Trapper archetype in Pathfinder is absolute garbage. The trap-based archetype in Pathfinder 2 is absolute garbage. The ability to Craft Traps in previous editions has always been garbage.

This is because you are generally invading enemy territory, not defending your own.

That puts a severe damper on trap effectiveness, because they are stationary while your party is meant to be mobile.

It also puts extreme pressure on the rest of the party to conform to the Ranger's tactics. Everybody needs to be on board with playing passively and luring enemies into traps.

Which leads to the third issue: the time and effort required is basically impossible to balance with the effects. If you're taking 5-10 minutes out of game and hours in game, plus resources, to make this trap, it better have a big effect...but few effects can match that lead-in, and none actually DO.

It's basically an unworkable concept and it baffles me why people keep trying to push it, especially since they do so with basically no regard for WHY it needs to be workshopped heavily, and they always forget lessons learned from previous editions when doing so.


This is true, yet reaches the wrong conclusion. The post is basically a truism of 'traps that require set up don't work well if you can't set them up'. Your conclusion is then that this is unworkable in D&D, presumably because you can't set them up. I would say they can be set up, hence the conclusion is wrong.

There are two ways I see this working:

1) Set up and lure (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DefensiveFeintTrap). The idea is to trap an area then pull enemies into the traps. This works even when invading because retreat and taking cover is a thing.

2) Scout ahead and trap. If you can get in ahead of the party, set up the traps in strategic positions, then start the combat it works. This requires that the subclass also focuses on stealth, however, it need only be temporary to get the traps in place.

As for whether this fits all types of parties? No, of course not. It will fit some, though. Personally, a 3 man team of such rangers all working together to set up traps and play in that playstyle would be great fun.


I don't mind the ranger looking like more like a nature-based artificer, and if all of the traps included are stationary then yes, they're doing it wrong. Things like Create Bonfire or Mold Earth could be better amalgamations of traps than variations on "Snare". I could see a trap-launcher as something a decent artificer creates at a middling level, shooting traps at a target's feet. You could even lean into the ridiculous, with Kled-Style "Bear Trap on a Rope" shenanigans.

And to be fair, more magical things like Cordon of Arrows could be buffed into a decent area of effect trap, or even things like putting Web on the ranger Spell lists would be useful.


Historically, this has also been done (the Trapper from PF for instance CAN load their traps onto arrows), and it always still kinda sucks, because the balancing act between making traps effective, easy to use, and cost efficient is such a PITA to hit.


The characteristics of (1) very quick to set up and (2) effectiveness enough to be a major class ability (more or less) forces the traps to be "like magic". Like it or not, the effectiveness of these traps will be compared to Thunderwave and Glyph of Warding and Fireball.

So, yes, they have to be glued to arrows or be proximity mines that can be deployed with a single action. A major class ability should be a real major class ability. If it is not pretty good or better in >51% of the encounters, then it is not good enough.

Flavorwise this is the worst possible choice. Garishly useful and weirdly effective "no no this is not magic but technology" does not say "nature warrior" to me, but "steampunk".

I can imagine how Trap Master would work well for an NPC. I cannot see how it can work well for a PC.

So while larger, more powerful traps would often be "set up before combat" (similar to ritual spells like Silence), many smaller, easier traps would be deploy-able as an action or bonus action in the midst of combat, perhaps flavored as a set number of traps the Ranger prepared that morning similar to a Wizard preparing spells. The idea of variations on arrows and things are cool (I'd even love to see a Punching Glove Arrow just because), and could even adapt many of the ranger spells currently available (Flame Arrows, Lightning Arrow). As current, the focus of the ranger seems to be Exploration (a pillar that is rarely, if ever, used) and dealing damage (a role done better by plenty of other classes). A martial class bent specifically for controlling the battlefield would give the ranger a solid footing as a class all it's own, and be both damage dealer and support.

Some higher level abilities that could build on this could be the opportunity to use a reaction to make a ranged or melee attack against an enemy that triggered a trap. Just kinda spitballing here, but I think that if executed properly, this could be a wonderful rework.

[Segev]

Can somebody explain the several-times-made assertion (in this thread) that the ranger having spells is "awful?" I'm not even disputing it, but I wonder what the complaint actually is. I can read it several ways, and the actual intent behind the statement will point, I think, towards possible solutions.

[Trickery]

Can somebody explain the several-times-made assertion (in this thread) that the ranger having spells is "awful?" I'm not even disputing it, but I wonder what the complaint actually is. I can read it several ways, and the actual intent behind the statement will point, I think, towards possible solutions.

It's a matter of Class Fantasy, basically. Most of the Ranger inspirations in fantasy aren't spellcasters, but more like wilderness warriors. That kind of character is, arguably, better built by a Fighter or Barbarian with Rogue: Scout levels. Additionally, locking a lot of the Ranger's kit behind spells puts a major limit on uses per day which can be bad for features like Hunter's Mark.

[Man_Over_Game]

Can somebody explain the several-times-made assertion (in this thread) that the ranger having spells is "awful?" I'm not even disputing it, but I wonder what the complaint actually is. I can read it several ways, and the actual intent behind the statement will point, I think, towards possible solutions.

Part of it is in regards to spells that the Ranger has but doesn't need. Goodberries come to mind (as feeding a group of adventurers as a Ranger is pretty darn easy).

Part of it is in regards to effects that the Ranger already has without magic. Hunter's Mark's ability to tracking your mark is rarely relevant compared to the Ranger's innate ability to do so.

Part of it is that many people have a stigma towards magic, and feel that a true martial expert wouldn't have to rely on it. It sets this image that the Ranger is as magical as the Eldritch Knight or Paladin, and people like keeping those concepts separate. They imagine EK's as this guy who uses lightning swords and barrier shields, while the Ranger is someone who's supposed to be successful without "cheating".

[Damon_Tor]

Beast Dreams
Level 2 Enchantment

Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: Touch
Component: VS
Duration: 1 hour

You touch a willing beast, and one minute later your body falls into a deep sleep or trance. While the spell lasts, you perceive the world using the beast's senses. You can communicate with the beast telepathically during this time, and you can urge it to do what you wish though most beasts are under no compulsion to obey you and are not likely to take actions they aren't otherwise inclined towards. (If the beast is your Companion, it obeys your commands faithfully as normal)

If the target of the spell is a creature native to your Favored Terrain, or is your Beast Companion, the spell lasts for 8 hours instead.

The spell ends when your sleep or trance ends, including when your body takes any damage, or if a creature uses an action to shake you awake. If the target beast dies or becomes unconscious the spell ends.

Your sleep or trance during this spell counts as restful for the purposes of taking a long rest.

This spell is probably the homebrew ranger spell I like the best because it hits on several things I feel like Rangers should be better at:

The spell becomes more powerful based on the Ranger's class features, specifically adding capabilities to the Beast Master, but also referencing Favored Terrain. More ranger spells should do this. For one thing, it allows Ranger spells go off the curve without just making them Bard-bait.
Rangers should be the best at scouting, and this is a damn good scouting spell. 8 hours as an owl can get you a ton of intel, and unlike Find Familiar, there's no range limitation. You could be camped over a mile away from the enemy base and scout out the best paths
I feel like Rangers should be more useful during rests. Spells that allow him to perform a useful activity while resting normally are great.


It also works fine in urban settings: even excluding ubiquitous beasts like rats and pigeons, image being able to walk around in the body of the Queen's cat, or the King's riding horse. A Beast Master ranger can make even better use of this spell, because he can command his Companion to fight while connected to him with this spell. A panther companion might stalk around the forest at night and take out watchmen and guards in key locations to make their journey in the morning safer. A wolf companion might seek out a local wolf pack and challenge the alpha to take command, earning the party some wilderness allies for the next day. A bear companion might steal some pic-a-nic baskets.

There's also some synergy here. For example, if level 3 spell allows a ranger to deliver touch spells through a willing beast for 1(or 8, same restrictions) hours, and functions even if the ranger is otherwise unable to cast spells (including, but not limited to, being unconscious). This would allow a ranger to set Snares in strategic locations remotely during rests (and if done towards the end of a long rest, potentially recover the spell slots used to do so.) So not only is the trail ahead well explored by the Ranger, he's also given his party an edge in combat assuming they're likely to be able to drive the enemy into the snares.

[Segev]

It's a matter of Class Fantasy, basically. Most of the Ranger inspirations in fantasy aren't spellcasters, but more like wilderness warriors. That kind of character is, arguably, better built by a Fighter or Barbarian with Rogue: Scout levels. Additionally, locking a lot of the Ranger's kit behind spells puts a major limit on uses per day which can be bad for features like Hunter's Mark.


Part of it is in regards to spells that the Ranger has but doesn't need. Goodberries come to mind (as feeding a group of adventurers as a Ranger is pretty darn easy).

Part of it is in regards to effects that the Ranger already has without magic. Hunter's Mark's ability to tracking your mark is rarely relevant compared to the Ranger's innate ability to do so.

Part of it is that many people have a stigma towards magic, and feel that a true martial expert wouldn't have to rely on it. It sets this image that the Ranger is as magical as the Eldritch Knight or Paladin, and people like keeping those concepts separate. They imagine EK's as this guy who uses lightning swords and barrier shields, while the Ranger is someone who's supposed to be successful without "cheating".

Ah. Okay, as a class fantasy thing I can understand the complaint, at least.

Personally, I've always been in the camp that saw Rangers as being the "Druid Paladin." Thus, I have no issue with them casting spells, as a thematic thing. I wonder if the Paladin would have the same complaints if people didn't fixate on the alignment paragon thing instead.

Thinking along these lines, what sets a paladin apart from a cleric is that he has class features focused specifically on smiting and on healing without spells, and gets a horse to fill out the "knight" image. The paladin "class fantasy" is "paragon heroic knight with such purity he can perform healing miracles." But mechanically, he's MOSTLY a fighter/cleric hybrid with a couple of unique class features (smiting and spell-less healing).

Class design-wise, the Ranger is supposed to be a fighter/druid hybrid. The unique class features tend to center around tracking and wilderness survival by skill rather than spell; older editions had it copy the druid's animal companion, as opposed to the paladin, who got one uniquely that the cleric and fighter did not. There's also the "favored enemy" business, which made the ranger something of a specialist in terms of monster-hunting.

I think the intended class fantasy, then, is "self-sufficient monster hunter." The ranger isn't a rogue or a fighter; he's the Lone Ranger meets Batman. A Batman who lives in the wilds and MacGuyvers his way through all his prep, rather than needing money and supertech.

Thematically, they're specialists in particular kinds of foes, and they're implaccable, hard to evade, hard to escape, and terminator-like in their persistance. From the druid, they get "Nature, red in tooth and claw." From the fighter, they get "predator is deadly in combat."

To that end, I would argue that having spells shared with druids makes sense where those spells promote hunting, savagery, and tracking, even peripherally. Talking with animals, for instance, is useful for gathering information on your prey. Having a loyal companion creature is key to solving mobility problems or to flanking/pack hunting. Uniquely Ranger spells should probably interact heavily with favored enemies and terrains, highlighting expert status.

[Nagog]

Ah. Okay, as a class fantasy thing I can understand the complaint, at least.

Personally, I've always been in the camp that saw Rangers as being the "Druid Paladin." Thus, I have no issue with them casting spells, as a thematic thing. I wonder if the Paladin would have the same complaints if people didn't fixate on the alignment paragon thing instead.

Thinking along these lines, what sets a paladin apart from a cleric is that he has class features focused specifically on smiting and on healing without spells, and gets a horse to fill out the "knight" image. The paladin "class fantasy" is "paragon heroic knight with such purity he can perform healing miracles." But mechanically, he's MOSTLY a fighter/cleric hybrid with a couple of unique class features (smiting and spell-less healing).

Class design-wise, the Ranger is supposed to be a fighter/druid hybrid. The unique class features tend to center around tracking and wilderness survival by skill rather than spell; older editions had it copy the druid's animal companion, as opposed to the paladin, who got one uniquely that the cleric and fighter did not. There's also the "favored enemy" business, which made the ranger something of a specialist in terms of monster-hunting.

I think the intended class fantasy, then, is "self-sufficient monster hunter." The ranger isn't a rogue or a fighter; he's the Lone Ranger meets Batman. A Batman who lives in the wilds and MacGuyvers his way through all his prep, rather than needing money and supertech.

Thematically, they're specialists in particular kinds of foes, and they're implaccable, hard to evade, hard to escape, and terminator-like in their persistance. From the druid, they get "Nature, red in tooth and claw." From the fighter, they get "predator is deadly in combat."

To that end, I would argue that having spells shared with druids makes sense where those spells promote hunting, savagery, and tracking, even peripherally. Talking with animals, for instance, is useful for gathering information on your prey. Having a loyal companion creature is key to solving mobility problems or to flanking/pack hunting. Uniquely Ranger spells should probably interact heavily with favored enemies and terrains, highlighting expert status.


While this is a wonderful narrative for a backstory, in play for a D&D game, it doesn't translate well. Favored terrain and Favored enemies are a nice touch, but unless they're a peripheral class ability, they don't work in a campaign setting unless the DM has stated pre-character creation something along the lines of "This campaign is heavily focused around hunting goblins in the Underdark". If too much of a Ranger is based in their Favored enemy/terrain, outside of those specific areas, they're severely lackluster at best, and useless at worst. All in all, this would make a great NPC class, but not a player class.

[Segev]

While this is a wonderful narrative for a backstory, in play for a D&D game, it doesn't translate well. Favored terrain and Favored enemies are a nice touch, but unless they're a peripheral class ability, they don't work in a campaign setting unless the DM has stated pre-character creation something along the lines of "This campaign is heavily focused around hunting goblins in the Underdark". If too much of a Ranger is based in their Favored enemy/terrain, outside of those specific areas, they're severely lackluster at best, and useless at worst. All in all, this would make a great NPC class, but not a player class.

These problems are true. I will say that knowing the campaign ahead of time is important to any build. I have a ranger in my ToA game who, unsurprisingly, has "jungle" as his favored terrain. (Well, technically "forrest," since there is no "jungle," but we agreed it applied to jungles.)

This is an issue for any sort of "specialist." I actually think a key component to broadening it would be a spell to allow a ranger to add a favored enemy, and another to add a favored terrain, would be fitting. I can't remember if 5e Rangers prepare like a druid or know spells like a bard or sorcerer; this spell would become a tax in the latter case, and a minor tax in non-favored conditions in the former.

Multiple favored enemies over their career, with scaling bonuses against them to stagger their importance (which 3.5 made into something you could arrange so that newer, more fitting ones got the bigger bonus) helps a bit. 3e screwed up in making these bonuses things that some valid favored enemy types (e.g. undead) are immune to. PF and I think 5e have largely fixed that.

Really, what it comes down to is one of three situations:

1) The ranger PC builds the wrong specialist for the campaign, having his favored enemies and terrains rarely, if ever, appearing.
2) The ranger PC builds exactly the right specialist for the campaign, having his favored terrain and enemies be the bulk of what they encounter.
3) The ranger PC builds a specialist, and his favored enemies and terrain come up about evenly with other types of enemies and terrains; as the ranger levels up, he gains more favored enemies and terrains and thus is able to apply the benefits more often.

I think (3) is what is the generic expectation. The ranger is supposed to shine against particular enemies or in particular terrains, and be okay in the others.

Situation (1) is the worst case scenario, in my opinion; the ranger is no fun to play in that case. (2) is a lot of fun for the ranger, but risks the ranger being too strong. Though given the ever-present caster/non-caster disparity, it probably still isn't actually stronger than the casters.

I will say that (2) is the case in my campaign wrt terrain; the ranger utterly negates the exploration roll when they're going overland (though not by river), and they generally forage more food than they need for the whole party. This isn't a huge deal, but it makes the jungle travel a non-issue rather than a steady drain on resources. (And I'm apparently bad at running encounters, because they don't use up a quarter of their resources - not een close - even agaisnt supposedly-Hard. They're having fun, so I'm not complaining, but I do need to step up my game so they don't get bored later on.)

From a balance perspective, I would suggest you should mostly balance the ranger to be fine as a fighter and a gish spellcaster even outside of his specialties, and make him have the same sort of power boost you see when a caster starts upcasting his spells from his rarer slots when the ranger's specialties come into play.

[Trickery]

Most classes don't need to know the campaign ahead of time. Barbarians hit things, druids/clerics/paladins swap to whatever spells they need, wizards pick up new spells, rogues and bards use their skills and features regardless of what they're fighting, etc. Classes that need to know campaign details ahead of time are the exception: Ranger, certain varieties of Sorcerer, grapplers (due to size limitations), etc.

[Morty]

To me, ranger spells mostly just feel like a half-finished feature of a class that already feels like it consists of such.

[Vogie]

Uniquely Ranger spells should probably interact heavily with favored enemies and terrains, highlighting expert status.

You had me up to this point.

The mechanics of "Favored" enemies and "favored" terrains simply do not translate into good gameplay. Think if the Land Druid only received bonus spells while in that specific ecological area - that is about the level of silliness that favored terrain types implies.

However, if you remove the "favored" aspects of your quote you're going in the right direction - "Uniquely Ranger spells should probably interact heavily with enemies and terrains, highlighting expert status."

The 3rd, 7th, and 15th level features of the RAW Hunter Subclass is probably the best known example of how the Ranger's "Favor" should be built. It's not aligning the PC for or against a specific creature type, but a styles of fighting. You're not choosing between beasts vs humanoids vs dragons, but rather a choice between swarms vs single massive target vs something that equally useful at all times.

Ideally, that style would be applied to terrain as well. Is your character:

Blending with Terrain around you, allowing you to move stealthily, easily hide in the area, et cetera (the existing features - Land’s Stride, Hide in Plain Sight, Vanish - that all rangers are locked into at the moment)
Manipulating Terrain to create cover, difficult terrain, and choke points (would probably be things like Mold Earth, Spike Growth, Wall and Wind Effects, in addition to features giving bonuses like "attacking from cover" or "additional damage to targets on difficult terrain" and AoE attacks. I'd love to see a Ranger version of the Warlock's Darkness/Devil's Sight combo here in this zone, perhaps based on Fog Cloud or other versions of obscurement.)
Weaponizing terrain with traps, mines, and the like, and forced movement effects that allow you to maximize use of them (would have ritual trap creation, trap launchers, Snare as a Bonus Action, Create Bonfire, and 4th-Edition Style Attacks or features that force your targets into said traps if they avoid them)

[Segev]

Alternatively, you could develop the concept of "favored terrain" and "favored enemy" so that each had perks and powers it gave that could be used anywhere, but which obviously either work well with the favored thing, or which are inspired from the favored thing.

I do think the 5e favored terrain is fine; it's niche and nice when it comes up, but not going to make or break the class. It's a ribbon: you don't get lost (i.e. always know which hex you're going to) in your favored terrain, and you get more forage (saving hassle/money on food).

But what if kobolds as a favored enemy gave bonuses against traps in general?

Dragons as a favored enemy gave access to evasion?

Goblins let you mark something as a reaction, keeping them from hiding from you for as long as you Concentrate on them?

[Trickery]

Alternatively, you could develop the concept of "favored terrain" and "favored enemy" so that each had perks and powers it gave that could be used anywhere, but which obviously either work well with the favored thing, or which are inspired from the favored thing.

I do think the 5e favored terrain is fine; it's niche and nice when it comes up, but not going to make or break the class. It's a ribbon: you don't get lost (i.e. always know which hex you're going to) in your favored terrain, and you get more forage (saving hassle/money on food).

But what if kobolds as a favored enemy gave bonuses against traps in general?

Dragons as a favored enemy gave access to evasion?

Goblins let you mark something as a reaction, keeping them from hiding from you for as long as you Concentrate on them?

Mearls did this with terrains in one of his design session things. Favored terrains instead granted bonuses like fire resistance, better perception checks, faster movement speed, a swim speed, etc. I think it's a much better version of that feature. It does something mechanical rather than just removing travel hazards (removing parts of the game) from specific terrains.

[Rynjin]

You had me up to this point.

The mechanics of "Favored" enemies and "favored" terrains simply do not translate into good gameplay.

It works well for the Horizon Walker PrC, but that functions closer to what Segev wanted, where you get your Favored Terrain bonus only in that Terrain (so the Initiative bonus, and Perception/Stealth/Survival bonus), but each Terrain Mastery gives you something usable anywhere, like Dimension Door a number of times a day for being attuned to the Ethereal Plane, a Swim speed for Aquatic Terrain, and so on, while being sort of a combined Favored Enemy at the same time (you get Favored Enemy style bonuses against all creatures that live in that Favored Terrain slot.).

[Segev]

Part of it is that "explorer" is probably not the right thing to make the province of any one class. And the terrain favoring lends itself towards that. What the class fantasy lends itself to as a fighter/druid hybrid with an emphasis on tracking is being a hunter. A predator. The "expert" thing is more along the lines of "we need a memetic Van Helsing to kill a vampire" than "we need Pocahontas to guide Lewis and Clark through North America."

For one thing, playing the guide - native or otherwise - means you wind up doing a lot of mouthpiece-exposition for the GM. It's just a role that's probably better filled by a "native guide" type NPC, who knows stuff because he's the DM's mouthpiece for information your characters wouldn't have but need to know to make sense of the weirdness in this alien location.

For another, "explorer" can describe just about any class; most adventurers do qualify.

On the other hand, the combative side of nature (again, fighter/druid hybrid) is that of predator/prey, hunter/hunted. And tracking works well through that. Maybe even merge favored terrain and favored enemy: one is the broader category of the other. So, you pick a favored terrain, and that opens the list of creatures that inhabit that terrain. There are one or two features for picking the terrain, but the "better" abilities, the ones you customize your build with, come from picking particular creatures out of that list as favored enemies.

Maybe you gain Proficiency to any Intelligence or Wisdom rolls pertaining to knowledge or understanding of the terrain type, and to anything pertaining to any favored enemies you pick up from it. You also gain perks that are nominally pertinent to surviving and being self-sufficient there, but are applicable to other situations. THen, when you pick particular favored enemies, you have additional features based on them that are, again, specifically useful against them, but also generally useful. Like the goblin anti-hiding thing; it counters their ability to run up and stab you then take a bonus action to hide. But is useful in general when facing a stealthy creature.

Could even borrow the Land Druid thing and put a small list of spells on the Ranger List for each favored terrain.

[Aimeryan]

Getting your group to play along is the problem. It's bad enough trying to play the party face and getting the rest of the group to stop making stupid persuasion attempts that do nothing but move the plot backward. Or trying to be the tank and getting the rest of the party to stay behind you and stop rushing through doors. Or trying to take a short rest while others want to go investigate that room over there and start another fight.

The difference with traps is that they don't work at all if your party isn't game. In contrast, one of the best things about a standard Hunter Ranger is that they do okay no matter what.

Sure; as a subclass this is fine - you have a session 0 and if people are up for that sort of game then it could be an amazing subclass for it. Other classes this would work nicely with would include the druid and wizard for battlefield control and rogue for hit and run skirmishing. Would also just work well with more Trapmasters.

If that isn't what the party is looking for, then choose another subclass *shrug*.

[Morty]

Specializing in a particular kind of terrain is fine if it's optional, like a feat, PrC (in the hypothetical scenario where PrCs work), subclass or whatever else. This way it's just one among many things you have and you know what you're getting into. The history of the ranger class has largely been trying to make it fit being a central, obligatory class feature in a system where your class defines your character more than anything else.

[Segev]

Specializing in a particular kind of terrain is fine if it's optional, like a feat, PrC (in the hypothetical scenario where PrCs work), subclass or whatever else. This way it's just one among many things you have and you know what you're getting into. The history of the ranger class has largely been trying to make it fit being a central, obligatory class feature in a system where your class defines your character more than anything else.

That's like saying wizards are shoehorned into picking a school. You could make the same argument, even, based on the progression. 1e AD&D rangers only had favored enemies to pick; it wasn't until 3e that they gained favored terrains for tracking and such. If even then. Wizards started wtih the option to specialize, but by 5e, it's a requirement (unless you use one of the odd subclasses out of Xanathar's).

Making "favored terrains" almost a secondary subclass for rangers would work; Warlocks have two subclass choices to make, too, so there's precedent.

[Trickery]

That's like saying wizards are shoehorned into picking a school. You could make the same argument, even, based on the progression. 1e AD&D rangers only had favored enemies to pick; it wasn't until 3e that they gained favored terrains for tracking and such. If even then. Wizards started wtih the option to specialize, but by 5e, it's a requirement (unless you use one of the odd subclasses out of Xanathar's).

Making "favored terrains" almost a secondary subclass for rangers would work; Warlocks have two subclass choices to make, too, so there's precedent.

Small point: the Wizard can choose to cast spells of their specialty, but the Ranger can't choose for the campaign to take place in their favored terrain or feature their favored enemies.

[Morty]

That's like saying wizards are shoehorned into picking a school. You could make the same argument, even, based on the progression. 1e AD&D rangers only had favored enemies to pick; it wasn't until 3e that they gained favored terrains for tracking and such. If even then. Wizards started wtih the option to specialize, but by 5e, it's a requirement (unless you use one of the odd subclasses out of Xanathar's).

Making "favored terrains" almost a secondary subclass for rangers would work; Warlocks have two subclass choices to make, too, so there's precedent.


Small point: the Wizard can choose to cast spells of their specialty, but the Ranger can't choose for the campaign to take place in their favored terrain or feature their favored enemies.

Wizard schools are also considerably broader and more versatile than favored terrain. Unless you're an enchanter in an undead-only campaign, you're unlikely to find your specialized school failing entirely. And even then, you can cast other spells.

A better analogy are paladin mounts. A paladin on a trusty mount is an iconic image, but giving all paladins a class feature that's a pain in the butt to use in the game's eponymous environment is a bad idea. So 5E made the mount a spell, and thus optional.

[Nagog]

These problems are true. I will say that knowing the campaign ahead of time is important to any build. I have a ranger in my ToA game who, unsurprisingly, has "jungle" as his favored terrain. (Well, technically "forrest," since there is no "jungle," but we agreed it applied to jungles.)

This is an issue for any sort of "specialist." I actually think a key component to broadening it would be a spell to allow a ranger to add a favored enemy, and another to add a favored terrain, would be fitting. I can't remember if 5e Rangers prepare like a druid or know spells like a bard or sorcerer; this spell would become a tax in the latter case, and a minor tax in non-favored conditions in the former.

Multiple favored enemies over their career, with scaling bonuses against them to stagger their importance (which 3.5 made into something you could arrange so that newer, more fitting ones got the bigger bonus) helps a bit. 3e screwed up in making these bonuses things that some valid favored enemy types (e.g. undead) are immune to. PF and I think 5e have largely fixed that.

Really, what it comes down to is one of three situations:

1) The ranger PC builds the wrong specialist for the campaign, having his favored enemies and terrains rarely, if ever, appearing.
2) The ranger PC builds exactly the right specialist for the campaign, having his favored terrain and enemies be the bulk of what they encounter.
3) The ranger PC builds a specialist, and his favored enemies and terrain come up about evenly with other types of enemies and terrains; as the ranger levels up, he gains more favored enemies and terrains and thus is able to apply the benefits more often.

I think (3) is what is the generic expectation. The ranger is supposed to shine against particular enemies or in particular terrains, and be okay in the others.

Situation (1) is the worst case scenario, in my opinion; the ranger is no fun to play in that case. (2) is a lot of fun for the ranger, but risks the ranger being too strong. Though given the ever-present caster/non-caster disparity, it probably still isn't actually stronger than the casters.

I will say that (2) is the case in my campaign wrt terrain; the ranger utterly negates the exploration roll when they're going overland (though not by river), and they generally forage more food than they need for the whole party. This isn't a huge deal, but it makes the jungle travel a non-issue rather than a steady drain on resources. (And I'm apparently bad at running encounters, because they don't use up a quarter of their resources - not een close - even agaisnt supposedly-Hard. They're having fun, so I'm not complaining, but I do need to step up my game so they don't get bored later on.)

From a balance perspective, I would suggest you should mostly balance the ranger to be fine as a fighter and a gish spellcaster even outside of his specialties, and make him have the same sort of power boost you see when a caster starts upcasting his spells from his rarer slots when the ranger's specialties come into play.

For favored terrain / enemies, I think a good balance for the Enemy side is being able to switch the broad scope of favored enemies on a long rest. This may or may not translate well, (the language thing would also have to be tweaked as a language on demand could be difficult to explain), but it could help with the lack of versatility in Situation (1).

[Mith]

Ah. Okay, as a class fantasy thing I can understand the complaint, at least.

Personally, I've always been in the camp that saw Rangers as being the "Druid Paladin." Thus, I have no issue with them casting spells, as a thematic thing. I wonder if the Paladin would have the same complaints if people didn't fixate on the alignment paragon thing instead.

Thinking along these lines, what sets a paladin apart from a cleric is that he has class features focused specifically on smiting and on healing without spells, and gets a horse to fill out the "knight" image. The paladin "class fantasy" is "paragon heroic knight with such purity he can perform healing miracles." But mechanically, he's MOSTLY a fighter/cleric hybrid with a couple of unique class features (smiting and spell-less healing).

Class design-wise, the Ranger is supposed to be a fighter/druid hybrid. The unique class features tend to center around tracking and wilderness survival by skill rather than spell; older editions had it copy the druid's animal companion, as opposed to the paladin, who got one uniquely that the cleric and fighter did not. There's also the "favored enemy" business, which made the ranger something of a specialist in terms of monster-hunting.

I think the intended class fantasy, then, is "self-sufficient monster hunter." The ranger isn't a rogue or a fighter; he's the Lone Ranger meets Batman. A Batman who lives in the wilds and MacGuyvers his way through all his prep, rather than needing money and supertech.

Thematically, they're specialists in particular kinds of foes, and they're implaccable, hard to evade, hard to escape, and terminator-like in their persistance. From the druid, they get "Nature, red in tooth and claw." From the fighter, they get "predator is deadly in combat."

To that end, I would argue that having spells shared with druids makes sense where those spells promote hunting, savagery, and tracking, even peripherally. Talking with animals, for instance, is useful for gathering information on your prey. Having a loyal companion creature is key to solving mobility problems or to flanking/pack hunting. Uniquely Ranger spells should probably interact heavily with favored enemies and terrains, highlighting expert status.

I had a different jum0ing off point from this: What if the Ranger was styled as a Druidic Monk and the Barbarian as the Druidic Paladin equivilent? So a Ki system is used by the Ranger to perform more supernatural feats as they become more in tune with nature.

Barbarians meanwhile either have proper attack drawing abilities, and/or the abilities to incite rage in allies in contrast to the Paladin defenses.

This falls apart with spells, unless you give the Barbarian and Paladin a comparable resource pool that could be used for specific thematic supernatural feats instead of true spell casting.

[ccjmk]

For me the sweet spot would have been:

* Hunter having maneuvers, pretty much like all Fighter, Ranger, Paladin and Bard have fighting styles, but each gets different sets (with Fighter having all to choose from), some subset of maneuvers, and probably keeping just a d6 (so Battle Master has the added thing of having an increasingly big die)

* Beast Master having a GOOD pet.

* A 3rd subclass with 1/2 spellcasting. We have EKs and ATs with 1/3 casting, having a subclass get 1/2 casting would be dope IMO. Warden is a name that sounds good to me.. confers that sort of druidy "I protect the forest" vibe.

Then XGtE subclasses could have just worked their way freely with more features. A subclass could have a number of fixed spells once per short rest for example, while others just get more features.

[Tanarii]

The biggest problem is D&D doesn't have extensive exploration mechanics, they're very light weight and they are all too often hand waved.

Comparing and contrasting to Forbidden Lands (which I've been play testing for a campaign), which also features the Social, Exploration, and Combat. The exploration mechanics are a critical component to have covered, the social mechanics have potentially serious consequences for failure, and combat is as important when it occurs but is definitely something you don't generally seek out. If you have a three person group where one person specializes in each and another is a backup generalist, you're in good shape. If you don't have the equivalent of a Ranger or Druid wilderness specialist, you better stock up on lots of provisions and be prepared to spend a lot of time lost and wandering around.

This is possible in 5e too (and in fact an important aspect of my campaigns), it's just doesn't feel as well fleshed out. It doesn't help that in most campaigns encumbrance is barely a thing and supplies are generally easy to come by.

I get not everyone wants to play old-school struggling to survive hex-crawls though. And that takes something away from Rangers and what they're capable of.

[Trickery]

This is possible in 5e too (and in fact an important aspect of my campaigns), it's just doesn't feel as well fleshed out. It doesn't help that in most campaigns encumbrance is barely a thing and supplies are generally easy to come by.

I get not everyone wants to play old-school struggling to survive hex-crawls though. And that takes something away from Rangers and what they're capable of.

Additionally, the Ranger's exploration features generally detract from that element of the game. If we look at Natural Explorer, its benefits don't help the player overcome challenges; they remove challenges. The Ranger doesn't use these features against the game world; they use them against the DM:

"Difficult terrain makes it hard to..." nope.
"Food is scarce, so half of you..." nope.
"Busy with your search, you were unalert and..." nope.
"You're whisked away to a foreign land. You're lost, and..." nope.
"You don't know how many creatures..." yes I do.
This isn't a good feature by any definition of good. It just guarantees that the Ranger won't actually do what it's supposedly good at.

[Dr. Cliché]

Personally, I wouldn't object to seeing Rangers replace their spells with something else. Maybe give them to a subclass if you want them to remain in some form.

I mean, the one I see used 90% of the time is Hunter's Mark, and it seems like you could easily replace that with some extra damage on their attacks (perhaps with a condition attached).

From a thematic perspective, I just don't see Rangers casting spells as such. I like the idea of them having something like Invocations instead.

I'd also like to see Rangers with shapeshifting abilities - either something akin to Wild Shape or else something like Lycanthropy (like the Blood Hunter Subclass). To me at least, these feel more appropriate than actual spells.




Thinking along these lines, what sets a paladin apart from a cleric is that he has class features focused specifically on smiting and on healing without spells, and gets a horse to fill out the "knight" image. The paladin "class fantasy" is "paragon heroic knight with such purity he can perform healing miracles." But mechanically, he's MOSTLY a fighter/cleric hybrid with a couple of unique class features (smiting and spell-less healing).

Class design-wise, the Ranger is supposed to be a fighter/druid hybrid. The unique class features tend to center around tracking and wilderness survival by skill rather than spell; older editions had it copy the druid's animal companion, as opposed to the paladin, who got one uniquely that the cleric and fighter did not. There's also the "favored enemy" business, which made the ranger something of a specialist in terms of monster-hunting.

I think the issue for me is that an Oath of the Ancients Paladin seems like a far better fighter/druid than a Ranger.

[Segev]

How would you design Ranger exploration powers to be used against the problem rather than against the DM? Foraging, at least, is just "you get more forage." I think that is, at least, no worse than normal foraging rolling well. It just means you don't have to roll AS well.

Also, "wisked away to a foreign land" doesn't prevent the ranger from being lost in the sense that he doesn't know how to get back home. Only in the sense that he's never wrong about which way he traveled as he moves between hexes.

I think the issue for me is that an Oath of the Ancients Paladin seems like a far better fighter/druid than a Ranger.

That's more an issue that arises with the Nature Cleric vs. the Druid, too. But it is a valid point.

[paladinn]

I have to disagree that ranger is to druid as paladin is to cleric. That was certainly true in BECMI: a paladin was a high-level fighter who got some cleric spells (like a cleric 1/3 of his level) and detect evil and turning undead. The BECMI ranger analog, the "druidic knight" from VotPA, was much the same, but limited to leather armor and non-metal weapons. S/he used druid spells and got detect danger (kinda like the 5e barbarian ability). No turn undead.

Since 3x, and especially in 5e, paladins have very much deviated from clerics in many ways. Clerics have all the various domains from which to choose, with a wide variety of options. Paladins are no longer required to serve a deity, but are defined by their oaths. Smites are now the focus of the paladin class, for good or ill. I personally would love to see a spell-less paladin, but coming up with class features to compensate and reworking the smite mechanic might be more than most would care to do.

I agree that a spell-less ranger would be preferable; but then, you end up with a blend of rogue and fighter that really doesn't have much of its own to justify being a class. I do Not like the whole "superiority dice" mechanic that's been bolted on the the battlemaster; it seems really contrived.

Soo.. theorycrafting here.. How about instead of trying to make a paladin-analog, we focus on an EK analog? The ranger gets all the base fighter features, druid spells (1/3) and detect danger at 3rd level, Hunters Mark (or Studied Target from PF) at 7th, a Hunter's Prey feature at 10th, Hide/Vanish at 15th, Dodge/Evasion at 18th.

Just my $.02

[Trickery]

How would you design Ranger exploration powers to be used against the problem rather than against the DM? Foraging, at least, is just "you get more forage." I think that is, at least, no worse than normal foraging rolling well. It just means you don't have to roll AS well.

Also, "wisked away to a foreign land" doesn't prevent the ranger from being lost in the sense that he doesn't know how to get back home. Only in the sense that he's never wrong about which way he traveled as he moves between hexes.

The whole "lost" thing is open to interpretation. I imagine the Ranger knows how to get back to anywhere that he was, and that teleportation and similar would thwart that. But that's just my idea. People have different ideas.

For how to design a feature that would be used to handle the problem, I'd look to the Rogue. The Rogue gets a number of tools for dealing with problems like traps, but all of them require the Rogue to actually roll a skill check.

For the Ranger, that's the simplest way to handle it. Give the Ranger expertise or advantage on Survival checks made outdoors and give them a boost to Nature checks. Give them a Track ability, perhaps something that functions like Locate Create for a creature that the Ranger is aware of or that the Ranger knows passed through the area recently. That sort of thing.

[paladinn]

How would you design Ranger exploration powers to be used against the problem rather than against the DM? Foraging, at least, is just "you get more forage." I think that is, at least, no worse than normal foraging rolling well. It just means you don't have to roll AS well.

Also, "wisked away to a foreign land" doesn't prevent the ranger from being lost in the sense that he doesn't know how to get back home. Only in the sense that he's never wrong about which way he traveled as he moves between hexes.


That's more an issue that arises with the Nature Cleric vs. the Druid, too. But it is a valid point.

You kinda lost me at "moves between hexes". 5e isn't supposed to require a mat and minis the way 3x and 4e did (especially 4e).

[Segev]

You kinda lost me at "moves between hexes". 5e isn't supposed to require a mat and minis the way 3x and 4e did (especially 4e).

Admittedly, I'm pulling this from ToA as well as the core, but the definition of "lost" in ToA is that you failed your survival check and thus went in a random direction on the map. The map of Chult is done up in hexes. While I do use a mat and minis, because it's more fun for me and my players that way, Tomb of Annihilation's hex grid map is not combat-scale. It's very much about exploration and travel, and the rules it provides connect neatly with the rules of the Ranger's favored terrain.

The Ranger doesn't automatically know where any given location is in his favored terrain. However, he can't become lost; he always knows which direction he went and is going. And if he wants to get back to somewhere he knows of, he knows how to do it (even without necessarily backtracking; for instance, he could short-cut across a u-turn to the other leg he came down.)

[Tawmis]

Should the Ranger class have spells?

I think spells hold the class back. Because they get spells, many of their features (Hunter's Mark, speaking with beasts, advanced tracking and stealth abilities) come in the form of spells and not features. This makes the class seem less like a Ranger and more like a Gish.

What are your thoughts?

I think spells work out fine with Rangers. Otherwise, they're going to be outclassed by the "strictly" melee types such as Fighters and Barbarians (and potentially even Paladins). I have always envisioned the D&D Ranger to be the Druid who took a more direct approach to the fight. Using spells can mold a Ranger to how the player wants their ranger to be. If you stick only "Class Features" on a Ranger, I feel like you limit them. If someone wants a "nature" focused Ranger, they can pick up spells to use that compliment that. Otherwise, I think folks would be inclined to multiclass Fighter/Druid combo to try and get that. A Ranger isn't bound to using spells if they don't want to (which is why I say they're the Druids who took the more direct fighting method, because they have melee weapons to fall on - spells to me were always a way to help the Ranger track, speak with animals, and such - so they were more a fall back on/secondary kind of thing to enhance them.

[Tanarii]

Admittedly, I'm pulling this from ToA as well as the core, but the definition of "lost" in ToA is that you failed your survival check and thus went in a random direction on the map. The map of Chult is done up in hexes. While I do use a mat and minis, because it's more fun for me and my players that way, Tomb of Annihilation's hex grid map is not combat-scale. It's very much about exploration and travel, and the rules it provides connect neatly with the rules of the Ranger's favored terrain.
BECOMING LOST

Unless they are following a path, or something like it, adventurers traveling in the wilderness run the risk of becoming lost. The party's navigator makes a Wisdom (Survival) check when you decide it's appropriate, against a DC determined by the prevailing terrain, as shown on the Wilderness Navigation table. If the party is moving at a slow pace, the navigator gains a +5 bonus to the check, and a fast pace imposes a - 5 penalty. If the party has an accurate map of the region or can see the sun or stars, the navigator has advantage on the check.

If the Wisdom (Survival) check succeeds, the party travels in the desired direction without becoming lost.
If the check fails, the party inadvertently travels in the wrong direction and becomes lost. The party's navigator can repeat the check after the party spends ld6 hours trying to get back on course.
DMG

You have to be trying to go in a desired direction to become lost. If you do so, you go in the wrong direction. So hexes or not don't matter, your point basically holds true. Unless you're on a featureless plain picking a direction at random, you're still trying to get somewhere, and might end up not going that way. Being lost or not might not matter so much though. As in "huh, guess we missed the hill we were aiming for, we'll head for those mountains instead."

The worst consequences of getting lost are you don't make it to a destination if on a journey, and you can't find your way back if exploring. If you're already teleported random against your will somewhere both of those already hold true.

[Segev]

Right. In fact, this came up interestingly in the game. The monk, without consulting he ranger or the guide, made a map of the first leg of their journey. So I was also rolling his survival to see if he correctly interpreted the direction they were going. This led to his map folding back on itself strangely a couple of times. It was a challenge for me to draw up for his player.

[Luccan]

Should the Ranger class have spells?

As you might guess, I don't think it should. The class description on D&D Beyond imagines Rangers as "deadly hunters" who learn to track their quarry, moving stealthily through the wild. These are "independent adventurers," used to life in the wilds away from the comfort of a bed. Only one reference to their spellcasting is made, and that as a throwaway line, something they get because of their "familiarity with the wilds."


So, firstly, it's my belief an "independent adventurer" absolutely should have spells. If you're on your own, you want every advantage you can get. Healing spells, stealth improvements, a little BFC to cover yourself, etc. They're description as hunters against particular foes can also support this; some enemies are going to need magic to deal with effectively. Though, admittedly, that doesn't mean every ranger should cast spells, I just think it's another way to look at it.



Furthermore, the most common characters given as inspirations for the class are spell-less. Whether your fancy is Aragorn, Drizzt, or otherwise, your Class Fantasy probably doesn't involve communing with nature to cast druidic spells. Rangers in fantasy are wilderness warriors with some roguish features. Arguably, you can build a character more closely suited to the fantasy by making a Scout Rogue and Fighter multiclass.


So, it should be noted that while Drizzt has influence on modern rangers (I think less than some give him credit for, though, especially these days), really the only comparison for its earliest inspiration is Aragorn. Thing is, duplicating some of the things he can do without spells presents some issues. Firstly, he has several abilities that are definitely magical, though subtler than in D&D. Secondly, a lot of those abilities already exist as spells; replicating them all as class abilities would be incongruous with the design of most other classes (and even the Warlock's Invocations have some limits). Thirdly, Aragorn can kind of just use his magic whenever he wants (or at least as the plot demands). Placing resource limits on that to balance it with, say, the spellcasting Paladin when Rangers could just be casting spells in the first place wouldn't make much sense. However, I have issues with the "iconic rangers in other media" idea, which I'll get to below.



I think spells hold the class back. Because they get spells, many of their features (Hunter's Mark, speaking with beasts, advanced tracking and stealth abilities) come in the form of spells and not features. This makes the class seem less like a Ranger and more like a Gish.

What are your thoughts?

I have one ranger spell I think should be a class ability: Hunter's Mark. However, that's partly because it's a tax on a limited set of spells known any way. Seriously, every ranger takes it. But I like the idea of setting sights on a particular target and being able to hunt them particularly well while you do. Any other spell the ranger learns would be too much as a class ability. It would have to be toned down to something like Expertise (which I do think rangers should get), which would have to limit how much you got any way.

However, this part also assumes something: iconic ranger features from fiction. Why is talking to animals, for instance, something a ranger should be able to do without a spell*? Druids can't. Warlocks have to spend an invocation on it. It's because Aragorn could do it, right? For me, personally, that doesn't work. Because when I think of a D&D ranger, I think of... a D&D ranger. Aragorn and nowadays Drizzt might be inspirations, but they aren't in line with how D&D actually works (weird for Drizzt I know, but it's true). D&D rangers have always been sneaky warrior-hunters, but they've also always been (less powerful) spellcasters. To me, it's an important part of playing a ranger. Which they still managed to screw-up this edition by limiting ranger spells known for no good reason, but I guess that's my point: I don't think what's wrong with rangers is that they can cast spells.

I don't think a spell-less ranger is wrong, per say, but I don't think I want it as the default. Everyone else already hit on the points of basically being able to create a spell-less ranger with other classes, so I won't repeat that here. I will add I don't think the spell-less ranger was very popular as an idea until 3rd edition, where it was worse than the regular ranger and also the scout which followed it.

*Slight digression, but thought this was important to bring up: speaking with animals is definitely a magical ability. How would rangers being able to do that without spells be better than them doing it with spells?

[Kane0]

I actually think a key component to broadening it would be a spell to allow a ranger to add a favored enemy, and another to add a favored terrain, would be fitting. I can't remember if 5e Rangers prepare like a druid or know spells like a bard or sorcerer; this spell would become a tax in the latter case, and a minor tax in non-favored conditions in the former.


They know rather than prep, but i'ts common homebrew.

A spell to temporarily change your favored enemy/terrain is a great idea though, might pinch that!

[Segev]

They know rather than prep, but i'ts common homebrew.

A spell to temporarily change your favored enemy/terrain is a great idea though, might pinch that!

Probably the best way to make it something that you don't just automatically cast every time you're not dealing with your favored terrain or enemy would be to make it take Concentration. This might also make it TOO weak, though; I'd have to review what favored enemies give you. FAvored terrain...it might be worth it, since it's an out-of-combat thing, but might not be worth it ENOUGH that every ranger would take it.

[djreynolds]

Both the ranger and the paladin..... should've been high level archetypes.

Seriously, classes at 13th level could choose the mantle of paladin or ranger.

And then you would have a scouty ranger, weaponry type ranger, etc.

A 12th level battlemaster fighter or champion could become a ranger at 13th level, a bard could become a ranger as a sign of their taking real interest in exploring the wilds.

I remember in 1E that to become a paladin or ranger, you had to roll really well and if you didn't you played the basic fighter.

Heck you could even just make ranger and paladin a feat you would select.

[Kane0]

Probably the best way to make it something that you don't just automatically cast every time you're not dealing with your favored terrain or enemy would be to make it take Concentration. This might also make it TOO weak, though; I'd have to review what favored enemies give you. FAvored terrain...it might be worth it, since it's an out-of-combat thing, but might not be worth it ENOUGH that every ranger would take it.
I've already 'brewed a bunch so it won't be too bad. 1st level slot to swap your FE for an hour without concentration, since you can change it as part of the feature during a long rest and it doesn't provide combat benefits ala revised ranger. Favored terrain won't even factor in since I don't use that at all. Maybe even make it a ritual, if I ever get around to a Ranger subclass that utilises them.


Both the ranger and the paladin..... should've been high level archetypes.

Seriously, classes at 13th level could choose the mantle of paladin or ranger.

And then you would have a scouty ranger, weaponry type ranger, etc.

A 12th level battlemaster fighter or champion could become a ranger at 13th level, a bard could become a ranger as a sign of their taking real interest in exploring the wilds.

I remember in 1E that to become a paladin or ranger, you had to roll really well and if you didn't you played the basic fighter.

Heck you could even just make ranger and paladin a feat you would select.

Putting aside the 'then we will just end up going back to fighting-man/thief/mage' argument, don't you think that's a little late? Most play happens in Tiers 1 and 2, and waiting for level 13 to actually take up your character concept would feel pretty terrible when most other concepts are fleshed out by level 5 or so. Also 'becoming the explorer guy' at level 13 when the party has teleportation and other high-end capabilities available seems a bit lacking.

[GlenSmash!]

Putting aside the 'then we will just end up going back to fighting-man/thief/mage' argument, don't you think that's a little late? Most play happens in Tiers 1 and 2, and waiting for level 13 to actually take up your character concept would feel pretty terrible when most other concepts are fleshed out by level 5 or so. Also 'becoming the explorer guy' at level 13 when the party has teleportation and other high-end capabilities available seems a bit lacking.

Indeed. If I had to wait to level 13 to realize a concept, I would never get to play that concept.

[Willie the Duck]

Both the ranger and the paladin..... should've been high level archetypes.
Seriously, classes at 13th level could choose the mantle of paladin or ranger.
And then you would have a scouty ranger, weaponry type ranger, etc.
A 12th level battlemaster fighter or champion could become a ranger at 13th level, a bard could become a ranger as a sign of their taking real interest in exploring the wilds.
I remember in 1E that to become a paladin or ranger, you had to roll really well and if you didn't you played the basic fighter.
Heck you could even just make ranger and paladin a feat you would select.

Much like the Gish concept, there are about a zillion ways that this could have been handled. Exclusively through backgrounds, as a fighter archetype (high level, or select-at-3rd), or as a separate class. The classes themselves could be the 1:2 casting/2-attacks-at-5th-but-not-more things we got, or 1:3 casters, or not casters at all (or something like they each got the equivalent of ritual caster feat for druid or cleric, respectively).

About the only thing that I couldn't have seen happening was a genuine retread of how it worked in AD&D, where it was an additional perk* for having rolled high on your stats, beyond what the stats directly gave you. D&D has been moving away from that model for far too long.
*That's not quite the whole story, as both of them did have vague downsides, such as altering the followers you got at name level and whom you could associate with, but on a pure individual-character level, they were almost pure upgrade from fighter.

[djreynolds]

For the most part forum members are correct that the game is played in tier 1 and 2, and in this aspect the ranger is at least a serviceable class.

But this is the "class" everyone seems to have a gripe about, and IMHO it is legitimate

The new rangers like gloomstalker I think captures the ranger feel somewhat, and the hunter's level 3 and 7 perks are unique.

Hopefully, I hear there is new play testing of the class and perhaps some changes to come.

The issue really stems, IMHO, that the use of natural explorer is often a few dice rolls and then its over, you've gotten the party from A to B. That's it, your big spotlight is a few dice rolls.

I'm not sure what players really want out of the ranger, and myself included.

Are they the master of skills? The master of archery? The master of the wild? No.

But if split the rangers aspects into spells, skills, and combat and players could select this as a title/feat.

13th level was just theoretical what if.

[Trickery]

For the most part forum members are correct that the game is played in tier 1 and 2, and in this aspect the ranger is at least a serviceable class.

But this is the "class" everyone seems to have a gripe about, and IMHO it is legitimate

The new rangers like gloomstalker I think captures the ranger feel somewhat, and the hunter's level 3 and 7 perks are unique.

Hopefully, I hear there is new play testing of the class and perhaps some changes to come.

The issue really stems, IMHO, that the use of natural explorer is often a few dice rolls and then its over, you've gotten the party from A to B. That's it, your big spotlight is a few dice rolls.

I'm not sure what players really want out of the ranger, and myself included.

Are they the master of skills? The master of archery? The master of the wild? No.

But if split the rangers aspects into spells, skills, and combat and players could select this as a title/feat.

13th level was just theoretical what if.

You know, some of the Ranger's unique features are unusable or of a content-avoiding nature (avoiding difficult terrain in travel, never being lost, etc.). Maybe updating those features to be more usable and easier to understand would fix the class in the players' eyes.

And I do think Hunter's Mark ought to be a class feature and not a spell, if for no other reason than that it shouldn't require concentration for a Ranger to maintain it. They need that boost to keep up with Paladins.

[Willie the Duck]

The issue really stems, IMHO, that the use of natural explorer is often a few dice rolls and then its over, you've gotten the party from A to B. That's it, your big spotlight is a few dice rolls.

This is the biggest issue, separate from other issues of power and the like. The edition did not make either wilderness exploration, nor the ability to negate challenges of travelling in the wilderness, interesting.

[Tanarii]

Right. In fact, this came up interestingly in the game. The monk, without consulting he ranger or the guide, made a map of the first leg of their journey. So I was also rolling his survival to see if he correctly interpreted the direction they were going. This led to his map folding back on itself strangely a couple of times. It was a challenge for me to draw up for his player.
Wait, the player wasn't drawing the map?

I feel like I'm cheating when I whiteboard a line and box flowchart for players instead of making them draw it. And I always found it funny when I played AL and someone looked over at me and said something along the lines of "wait, are you actually drawing a map?" Mapping is a lost art, even just the basics. (And I have to say the blank ToA map for players made me shiver a bit at the awesome the first time I saw it.)

[Mith]

Putting aside the 'then we will just end up going back to fighting-man/thief/mage' argument, don't you think that's a little late? Most play happens in Tiers 1 and 2, and waiting for level 13 to actually take up your character concept would feel pretty terrible when most other concepts are fleshed out by level 5 or so. Also 'becoming the explorer guy' at level 13 when the party has teleportation and other high-end capabilities available seems a bit lacking.

To be fair, I don't think a Fighter/Thief/Mage triad is terrible. Take this and make Paladin/Monk/Cleric a "Clerical Triad', Barbarian/Ranger/Druid a 'Wilds Triad', with Bards being a go between.

Sorceror, Warlocks, and Psionics are systems built around a "Boon/Invocation" system where you spend levels to gain abilities separate from your class, keyed off of different mental ability scores (off the top of my head: Sorc = Wis for Introspection of inborn talent, Warlock = Cha for bargaining, Psion = Intellect). These subsystems are more different augmentation methods to abilities with a few direct abilities, so any "main class" could see a use for them.

Hmmm, I think I have my own homebrew system more in mind now...

[Segev]

Wait, the player wasn't drawing the map?

I feel like I'm cheating when I whiteboard a line and box flowchart for players instead of making them draw it. And I always found it funny when I played AL and someone looked over at me and said something along the lines of "wait, are you actually drawing a map?" Mapping is a lost art, even just the basics. (And I have to say the blank ToA map for players made me shiver a bit at the awesome the first time I saw it.)

For he wilderness, it would have been near impossible for me to communicate the direction meaningfully to him.

He did make his own map of the one dungeon they’ve been in.

[Tanarii]

For he wilderness, it would have been near impossible for me to communicate the direction meaningfully to him.
Wasn't this the ToA hex map? Shouldn't it just be: You tell him the terrain of the hex he actually enters, he fills it in on the one he thinks he is in.