|
(Note: basically everything I'm about to say applies almost as well to paladins.)
There are several issues that crop up with ranger spellcasting, but they all basically stem from the following factors: rangers get too few spells, too late, at too low a level, for them to be worthwhile. The vast majority of ranger spellcasting is relevant only inasmuch as it allows them to use wands (as wands, at least, can be used more than once a day). There are a few utility spells that see occasional use - a midlevel party without a druid or bard can sometimes find a use for animal messenger, for instance - but as a primary melee combatant, ranger spellcasting quite simply goes by the wayside too often.
Some later WotC supplements offer spells that can help with this situation to a certain extent, but as those spells are outside Paizo's purview, it would be nice to have something in Pathfinder that addresses the matter. Some possible solutions (which might or might not be compatible with one another, depending on how much improvement is needed):
* Spontaneous spellcasting, possibly from the entire ranger spell list (similar to the way a warmage or beguiler works). Having to choose a specific spell to slot when you only have a total of one a day essentially means you've wasted the effort in prepping it - the odds that you'll need it are pretty slim.
* Swift-action spellcasting, either through a class feature or a rewrite of ranger spells (the former would be simpler). It's almost impossible to find a ranger spell worth taking the action to cast it in the SRD, because as a martial class, the ranger needs to be taking the fight to the enemy as quickly as possible, and the party cleric or arcanist will have better buffs available anyway.
* More and better ranger spells, probably ranger-only spells. This is the route that WotC took, and it helped immensely. Ranger-only spells could be balanced against the class level that they become available to rangers in particular, rather than full-casting classes (much as bards get irresistable dance as a 6th level rather than 8th level spell), making them more worth the time it takes to cast them.
* More spell slots, so that rangers can cast longer and have a better chance of using the spells they prepare.
* Full caster level progression. The current half-level-as-caster-level renders even the few somewhat-reasonable spells noticably weaker than the spells their full caster allies have available. Not only are, say, 9th level rangers limited to casting just 2nd level spells (when their wizard, cleric, and druid allies have 5th level spells to toss around), but their spells don't even work as well as their allies'! At least the bard has a caster level that actually keeps up with class level...
I agree with almost all of this. I don't think all of these suggestions should be implemented, likely any single one would be a huge help.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I agree with almost all of this. I don't think all of these suggestions should be implemented, likely any single one would be a huge help.
I would agree certainly with the spontaneous casting angle. They have so few spells that it makes it almost meaningless when they have to prepare unless they know exactly what awaits them.
As to caster level, why not just set caster level at ranger level -3. At the point when they get spells, they are 1st level casters, and they go up from there.
Not that I would mind them having full caster level either, but if it's good for paladins and turn undead, why not for paladin and ranger spellcasting?
The SRD Prestige Ranger was an excellent fix for that: they started as fighter/druids (typically) and increased spellcasting at 1/2 thereafter. I've made a 1st draft converted Prestige Ranger for Pathfinder:
PRESTIGE RANGER (HD: d10)
Requirements: Base Attack Bonus: +4; Skills: Knowledge (nature) 2 ranks, Survival 4 ranks; Feats: Endurance, and either Rapid Shot or Two-Weapon Fighting; Spellcasting: Must be able to cast calm animals as a divine spell.
Level / Class Features / Spells Per Day
1st / 1st favored enemy, hunter’s bond, track, wild empathy / --
2nd / Combat style feat, woodland stride / +1 level of existing class
3rd / Swift tracker / --
4th / 1st favored terrain / +1 level of existing class
5th / 2nd favored enemy
6th / -- / +1 level of existing class
7th / Combat style feat / --
8th / Camouflage / +1 level of existing class
9th / 2nd favored terrain / --
10th / 3rd favored enemy / +1 level of existing class
11th / Quarry / --
12th / Combat style feat / +1 level of existing class
13th / Hide in plain sight / --
14th / 3rd favored terrain / +1 level of existing class
15th / 4th favored enemy / --
|
Perhaps rangers (and paladins) could be given a choice on whether to be a caster or not. I never liked the half-casters, it felt very tacked-on to me. Spellcasting doesn't seem in-flavor for rangers. Backwards compatibility means it can't be nixed entirely (which I would be for), but I think their spellcasting should be upgunned and they should be given an option to do something else, if they wish.
* More and better ranger spells, probably ranger-only spells. This is the route that WotC took, and it helped immensely. Ranger-only spells could be balanced against the class level that they become available to rangers in particular, rather than full-casting classes...
I like rangers and I've a fair amount of experience playing as one. Really, the best solution (i.e. the simplest) is this one. With a few more spells the ranger is fine in the casting department. Regularly I'd play with a decent compliment of spells, all from books besides the PHB, with cures being the sole exception. Add maybe 5 - 10 spells at levels 1&2, and 3 - 7 spells at levels 3&4 and all is good.
As for what kinds of spells, I'd suggest looking at the Ghostwalk book for ideas (although some of the ranger spells from the book were re-prints from Forgotten Realms supplements, I think). I think they need spells tied to their favored enemy (granting further bonuses), spells tied to their skills (bonuses to stealth, survival, etc.) and some plant related spells - all too often rangers are only associated with animals.
Full caster level might be worth considering, but the paladin needs that more than the ranger - unless the ranger gets more spells like (similar to) 'dispel magic' which require caster checks.
Peace,
tfad
The best fix, in my opinion, is simply to give the ranger Ranger Specif Spells, like Holy Sword of the Paladin.
As mentioned, WoTC went that way, and if you take a look at Spell Compendium, you can see MANY spells that are exclusive to the ranger, and I can't conceive a ranger that would favor other spells in the place of those, since they were created balanced of the level he would gain them.
I think that simply making some spells for the ranger would solve this problem and bury it once and for all.
Note: I HATE spellcasting rangers, but MY hate should not translate in my opinions about making PF better.
|
|
The best fix, in my opinion, is simply to give the ranger Ranger Specif Spells, like Holy Sword of the Paladin.
The biggest problem with this solution, which I agree with the other posters is for the most part the best option, is that Jason is already looking a space crunch in the core book, which makes writing several new ranger spells simply not a good idea. Anybody got any suggestions on how to approach this?
One idea I was thinking about would be to have already established spells have special text for rangers that would improve them somehow... Another option would be "swift" versions of spells, because they don't take up much room (you list the differences between the standard version and the swift one, and that's it).
The best fix, in my opinion, is simply to give the ranger Ranger Specif Spells, like Holy Sword of the Paladin.
As mentioned, WoTC went that way, and if you take a look at Spell Compendium, you can see MANY spells that are exclusive to the ranger, and I can't conceive a ranger that would favor other spells in the place of those, since they were created balanced of the level he would gain them.
I think that simply making some spells for the ranger would solve this problem and bury it once and for all.
I agree that this is by far the best solution. However, I don't think they are going to be able to build a reasonable set of new spells for the ranger for the pathfinder beta. Page limits, time constraints, and other factors make this unlikely.
Note: I HATE spellcasting rangers, but MY hate should not translate in my opinions about making PF better.
Well right now you can probably just run a ranger and never cast spells and you won't be missing much. I tend to use longstrider a lot since it's duration is long enough and the fast movement goes along well with the ranger theme.
I like the ranger as is.
It has just enough spell not to be totally dependent on "full-time spellcasters", but not enough to steal their show. My feelings are the same for the paladin.
That being said, I kind of wished that ranger and druid levels would stack for the purpose of spellcasting. Same goes for the paladin/cleric combo.
The biggest problem with this solution, which I agree with the other posters is for the most part the best option, is that Jason is already looking a space crunch in the core book, which makes writing several new ranger spells simply not a good idea. Anybody got any suggestions on how to approach this?
Perhaps there are some other spells we can add, from the Druid and Cleric lists? Maybe even the Wizard/Sorcerer lists?
tfad
This one option would surely take little space... But I think that including more spells could be a little headache.
But then, maybe, it's because I'm sleepy.
Now, someone said about swift spells, like Swift Fly and the other ones, right? I think it would be nice too, since the ranger don't want to spend one turn casting.
since the ranger don't want to spend one turn casting.
Actually, as a ranger player, I've always been okay with spending an action on casting a spell. That's a great place to use my mammoth hide modifier and if the spell you're casting is a good one, then, hey, it's okay. It wouldn't be fair to be able to do everything at once and I'd rather have a decent selection of spells than the ability to cast some less interesting ones at speed.
Just some thoughts,
Peace,
tfad
|
|
Actually, as a ranger player, I've always been okay with spending an action on casting a spell. That's a great place to use my mammoth hide modifier and if the spell you're casting is a good one, then, hey, it's okay. It wouldn't be fair to be able to do everything at once and I'd rather have a decent selection of spells than the ability to cast some less interesting ones at speed.
Though we may be getting ahead of ourselves here (this might well be a discussion that should be reserved for the Spell forum, when it comes along), which spells are you willing to burn an action on?
Though we may be getting ahead of ourselves here (this might well be a discussion that should be reserved for the Spell forum, when it comes along), which spells are you willing to burn an action on?
Camouflage/Mass Camouflage
Hunter's MercyBottomless Hate (really needs a new name)
Any Cure
Plus at higher levels
I smell your fear (again needs a new name)
Tree Stride
Polymorph self
Wind Wall
Non-detection
Some of those spells are from other WotC books and some got lost in the change from 3.0 to 3.5 (for no reason I can fathom) - but again the problem is solved the same way, by giving the Ranger more spells to chose from.
Damn, I do love the ranger-class....
Peace,
tfad
Now we have a different approach at things. Your selection of spells points at one direction, when the direction I saw my players going was the one towards the combat spells that made the ranger very mystic...
|
|
Now we have a different approach at things. Your selection of spells points at one direction, when the direction I saw my players going was the one towards the combat spells that made the ranger very mystic...
I'd very much like to see both be options, actually. Long duration or utility spells on one side, combat-enhancement spells on the other...
Hmm... most of those are non-core, and are also mostly hour/level or 10 min/level durations.
Polymorph self disappeared entirely in the transition from 3.0 to 3.5, but I could easily see putting beast shape and plant shape on the ranger list...
Camoflage is based on a psionic power and can easily be ported from that power. The rest are non-core but good. Ranger spells are one of the main reasons I'm hanging on the my spell compendium.
I like Beast Shape as a ranger spell. Beast Shape I-III would be a good 2nd-4th level ranger spells. Maybe Elemental Body as a 4th level ranger spell.
Yeah, beast shape and plant shape need to be in there. I'm a bit too busy to sit down and go through my books with a fine tooth comb right now, but, let's face it, any new spells in any direction would be welcome. Except perhaps evocations, let's keep it flavored!
Different directions is one of the reasons this playtest is great - things you would've never thought of on your own or in your own group keep pop'n up. I'm keeping several note pads open as I browse the boards. You never know when a future house rule will rear it's head.
Peace,
tfad
The problem with Ranger spells is that they are too weak, mostrly linked to plants and animals, maybe too much ( ranger is not a druid, after all).
I understand the flavour of nature, but ranger is a fighter as well and has very few combat spells ... and plants and animal related spells are too dependent fron the terrain ... most of them cannot be used outside forest ... compared to ranger's, Paladin's spell are quite stronger... besides, the idea of 'caster level half of ranger level) makes even the few decent spell quite weak ( example Barskin, cast at 12 level give +5 natural armor bonus to a druid, but only +3 to a ranger ...)
We should remember that casting spells for ranger is not without cost, after all ... to cast spell, a ranger has to use points for wisdom, points that he could have used for strenght or costitution instead, so is not fair to reduce ranger spells just to flavour .. they are few and low level, but they should be usefull everywhere,
I also belive that caster level should be better set at Ranger level - 3, instead of half of ranger level
The problem with Ranger spells is that they are too weak, mostrly linked to plants and animals, maybe too much ( ranger is not a druid, after all).
I understand the flavour of nature, but ranger is a fighter as well and has very few combat spells ... and plants and animal related spells are too dependent fron the terrain ... most of them cannot be used outside forest ... compared to ranger's, Paladin's spell are quite stronger... besides, the idea of 'caster level half of ranger level) makes even the few decent spell quite weak ( example Barskin, cast at 12 level give +5 natural armor bonus to a druid, but only +3 to a ranger ...)
We should remember that casting spells for ranger is not without cost, after all ... to cast spell, a ranger has to use points for wisdom, points that he could have used for strenght or costitution instead, so is not fair to reduce ranger spells just to flavour .. they are few and low level, but they should be usefull everywhere,
I also belive that caster level should be better set at Ranger level - 3, instead of half of ranger level
I agree, some nice archery or TWF spells would be an excellent addition to the ranger's list. And as you say, spellcasting has prereqs.
It's interesting, I know the ranger is the favored class of the elf but the Dwarf and the Half-Orc should make better ranger spellcasters due to their wisdom bumps (also better at tracking and perception)... possibly better rangers than elves :)
Yeah, beast shape and plant shape need to be in there.
I totally agree with these. In 3.0 I played a high level ranger that was the body guard of a druidess. The polymorph self spell allowed him to travel in eagle form when she choose to fly. These are great utility spells which should be added to the ranger spell list.
Doug
Some more ranger spell suggestions.
1st level:
Disguise self
Obscuring Mist
Produce Flame
Faerie Fire
Spider Climb
2nd level:
Pyrotechnics
Heroism
Tiny Hut
Swift Haste (I know it's not open but the only difference is the casting time and targets - Self only swift casting)
Swift Blur (Doesn't exist but it's self explanatory)
Darkvision (Self Only)
3rd level:
Phantom Steed (Very much in the flavor of the class IMO)
Stoneskin
Freedom of Movement (Move from 4th to 3rd)
Non-Detection (Move from 4th to 3rd)
4th level:
Greater Heroism
True Seeing
Find the Path
Maybe it's too much a blast from the past, but what about bringing some scrying spells into the Ranger list? Clairvoyance/Scry. That would fit the activities of some ranger groups.
I know I've been insistent on this in other thread, but I just would not like seeing Rangers as Paladins with bows / twin blades instead of blessed swords. To me, the class has felt more of a subterfuge, wilderness expert than of a "holy nature warrior".
I would go for adding some more utility spells: Produce Flame, Faerie Fire, Spider Climb, Tree Shape.
A good combat oriented spell would be Rage (kinda fits wilderness connections); I could see Bull's Strength in the Ranger list too. Blur would also make sense. Create Water is also strangely absent. Misdirection fits rangers' subterfuge side as shifty guys.
Again in combat, given Rangers' ability as sharpshooters, offering them True Strike would also make sense.
I know I've been insistent on this in other thread, but I just would not like seeing Rangers as Paladins with bows / twin blades instead of blessed swords. To me, the class has felt more of a subterfuge, wilderness expert than of a "holy nature warrior".
This is how I like to think of them also, spells that enhance their stealth and recon capabilities are good.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Maybe it's too much a blast from the past, but what about bringing some scrying spells into the Ranger list? Clairvoyance/Scry. That would fit the activities of some ranger groups.
I know I've been insistent on this in other thread, but I just would not like seeing Rangers as Paladins with bows / twin blades instead of blessed swords. To me, the class has felt more of a subterfuge, wilderness expert than of a "holy nature warrior".
I would go for adding some more utility spells: Produce Flame, Faerie Fire, Spider Climb, Tree Shape.
A good combat oriented spell would be Rage (kinda fits wilderness connections); I could see Bull's Strength in the Ranger list too. Blur would also make sense. Create Water is also strangely absent. Misdirection fits rangers' subterfuge side as shifty guys.
Again in combat, given Rangers' ability as sharpshooters, offering them True Strike would also make sense.
All excellent suggestions for the Ranger spell list. I like all of em.
Also, thanks for the blast from the past. Sure, why shouldn't rangers be able to spy on folks. Scry as a 4th level Ranger spell? Why not?
Clairvoyance/Scry. Produce Flame, Faerie Fire, Spider Climb, Tree Shape. Blur would also make sense. Create Water is also strangely absent. Misdirection. Offering them True Strike would also make sense.
I'm with you all the way.
Some more ranger spell suggestions.
1st level:
Disguise self
Obscuring Mist
Produce Flame
Faerie Fire
Spider Climb2nd level:
Pyrotechnics
Heroism
Tiny Hut
Swift Haste (I know it's not open but the only difference is the casting time and targets)
Swift Blur (Doesn't exist but it's self explanatory)
Darkvision (Self Only)3rd level:
Phantom Steed (Very much in the flavor of the class IMO)
Stoneskin
Freedom of Movement (Move from 4th to 3rd)
Non-Detection (Move from 4th to 3rd)4th level:
Greater Heroism
True Seeing
Find the Path
I have no problems with the 1st level suggestion. Swift Haste may be a bit too much as a buffing spell and definitely steps on the arcane caster's toes. Heroism and Greater Heroism are good spells especially if the party does not have a bard. Tiny Hut is a brilliant suggestion since it medigates the temperature problems while being in difficult terrain. My bard took it just to prevent hypothermia while in the underdark. Phatom Steed is a much needed addition and fits well with the class. I would rather see Greater Scrying instead of True Seeing.
All and all some good suggestions.
Doug
I have no problems with the 1st level suggestion. Swift Haste may be a bit too much as a buffing spell and definitely steps on the arcane caster's toes. Heroism and Greater Heroism are good spells especially if the party does not have a bard. Tiny Hut is a brilliant suggestion since it medigates the temperature problems while being in difficult terrain. My bard took it just to prevent hypothermia while in the underdark. Phatom Steed is a much needed addition and fits well with the class. I would rather see Greater Scrying instead of True Seeing.
All and all some good suggestions.
Doug
Thanks... Swift haste is again not mine but I think it's appropriate. I corrected it above, it should be self only which makes it much less a step on the wizard's toes thing and more appropriate for 2nd level ranger.
Tiny Hut is a brilliant suggestion since it medigates the temperature problems while being in difficult terrain. Phatom Steed is a much needed addition and fits well with the class.
Again, I agree. Lots of really good suggestions here.
Swift haste also seems like a solid, logical addition to me -- and as pointed out, personal range and a 1-round duration don't encroach on the wizard.
I have been thinking for a while now that the ranger list needs a small amount of expansion. The beast shape spells (at the very least) seem like probable additions.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Please no. While don't mind rangers having spells, I prefer if stay more flashy spells like changing shapes or controlling the elements. I like how ranger's spell list mostly are buffs and outdoor stuff that you almost explain that due ranger knowledge of outdoors vs. magic.
If the Cleric is to be the very good healer, as some pointed in other topics, wasn't the druid to be the shapechanger? Don't get me wrong, I like the beast shape, but...shouldn't the druid be the Transformer?
Wouldn't maybe one or two spells related to combat style per spell circle be more rangerlish and less druidish? One spell for two weapons and one for archery at each circle are only 8 spells. Not much, I think, and will probably help a lot.
Note: Plus, when (if ever) pf introduce more ranger combat styles, it was just the matter to make four new spells too, dedicated to that style, and the ranger would becomer even more versatile.
While I don't use spellcaster ranger, I saw reasoning on people saying why it should keep spellcaster.
But..."core" ranger shapeshifting...that's the fun of being a druid. Be the Optimus Primal...
Some more ranger spell suggestions.
1st level:
Disguise self
Obscuring Mist
Produce Flame
Faerie Fire
Spider Climb2nd level:
Pyrotechnics
Heroism
Tiny Hut
Swift Haste (I know it's not open but the only difference is the casting time and targets - Self only swift casting)
Swift Blur (Doesn't exist but it's self explanatory)
Darkvision (Self Only)3rd level:
Phantom Steed (Very much in the flavor of the class IMO)
Stoneskin
Freedom of Movement (Move from 4th to 3rd)
Non-Detection (Move from 4th to 3rd)4th level:
Greater Heroism
True Seeing
Find the Path
Good list - I would lose Haste though. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be able to cast it as a ranger, but it doesn't feel all that 'rangery' to me. Add in the beast and plant shape spells at 4th level, plus a little scrying and we're good to go!
Oh, and excellent call on Phantom Steed - I'd never thought of it until now and you're right, it's just perfect!
Peace,
tfad
If the Cleric is to be the very good healer, as some pointed in other topics, wasn't the druid to be the shapechanger? Don't get me wrong, I like the beast shape, but...shouldn't the druid be the Transformer?
The cleric is the healer but other people cast healing spells. The druid is the shape shifter and others can use the polymorph spells... what's the problem? Rangers with this wouldn't hold a candle to the druid's shifting ability. Sorcerers and wizards also get the beast shape spells.
Wouldn't maybe one or two spells related to combat style per spell circle be more rangerlish and less druidish? One spell for two weapons and one for archery at each circle are only 8 spells. Not much, I think, and will probably help a lot.
I don't see the ranger spells as necessarily combat oriented. I think combat oriented spells are nice but there should be some focused on the ranger's survival abilities and stealth/ espionage/ infiltration abilities. Beast shape is a good espionage/ scouting ability.
While I understand your point, I simply can't agree so simply.
See my reasoning, but first, my reply is not meant to offend. Many posters have the tendency of being offended with a reply, and I'm just saying that because I want to be clear. Now, the reasoning.
If you think that the Ranger is to the Druid as the Paladin is to the Cleric...
Clerics turn undead, paladin do it weaker. Druids have animal companion, rangers do it weaker. Clerics have spells that heal and buff, paladins have it weaker. Druid have spells of nature, ranger have it weaker.
Now, clerics have domains, paladin no. Paladins have "paladin's combate style" specific spells (holy sword, bless weapon, some from spell compendium).
Then, druids can shapeshift, rangers no. It makes sense that the rangers then should have more "ranger's combat style" specif spells,
(Now now, please, I understand that this is just SIMPLE reasoning. There's no need to subvert this into the many possible arguments. It's just how I came to think why there should be more combat style spells)
As you, I don't think that the ranger should have only combat spells, but this idea is not just because of combat, if you think carefully. It is about making the combat styles more special, more remarkable. Something like the mentioned Holy Sword or Bless Weapon, if you think of it.
If you think that the Ranger is to the Druid as the Paladin is to the Cleric...
I don't see it this way at all. From my perspective the druid is more or less the protector of the natural world. Druids gain their powers from nature and use them.
Rangers are foresters, hunters, scouts, and infiltrators. They are good in natural environments but they do not necessarily derive their power from nature. Look at Aragorn, was he a protector of nature? Aragorn used his ranger skills not to forward some nature based agenda but to help rebuild his kingdom. I look at rangers from this perspective and feel that the class should not be shaped based on it's relationship to the druid but based on how to make it most effective at those things.
Actually, what with the changes to the Paladin's spellcasting (Charisma instead of Wisdom), I think a small boost of sorts to the Ranger's spellcasting ability isn't a bad idea either. However in this case, instead of changing the casting stat (which makes less sense here anyhow), let's go a bit more radical and change the actual spellcasting style itself!
I like the suggestion someone made about making the ranger a spontaneous spellcaster. Their list is small enough anyways, it could work like the warmage's list; so you wouldn't even have to pick spells. This would provide a level of flexibility and a "naturalistic" approach to rangers that makes for a nice contrast to that of druids.
|
|
Couple of points:
Ranger as a spontenious caster:
Great, really gives the Ranger a chance to use those spells, as many of them are very situational and, unlike dungeoneering, you never know exactly where you'll end up traveling overland.
Ranger with natural connection vs. Ranger who uses nature:
Where does the Ranger get his divine spells from without some sort of natural connection? And if much like many evil clerics the Ranger gets spells from the natural connection but chooses to use the spells for his own agenda shouldn't the spell selection still reflect "natures goals" for the Ranger instead of pure "utility'.
I don't feel strongly about either of my points, I just wanted to put them out there for thought.
Tsc..anyway... just give the ranger some more ranger-specif spells, whatever they are, and call it a day, please.
No-spellcasting ranger won't do for PF.
Spontaneous caster Ranger seems great to me (might even apply this on the RARE rangers of my game world that are spellcasters), but if they would apply this on PF I would be VERY surprised.
So just give them some more spells, maybe some combat style ones, like WotC was doing, and call it a day I say.
Why won't a non-spell-casting ranger work for PF? It would be different to a spell-casting one, obviously, but what makes it fail?
|
|
Why won't a non-spell-casting ranger work for PF? It would be different to a spell-casting one, obviously, but what makes it fail?
Backwards compatibility, mostly. It's essentially dead in the water as the new default. As an option it has more promise, but not in a core book - it's the sort of thing that goes best in a splat or other product release somewhere down the line.
What if the Ranger was to start out with a base spell list and as the class gains favored terrain special abilities it also gained spell that complimented that terrain. This could work sort of like the Cleric, with its domain powers.