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, 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/downl...gnVariants.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. 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.