Paizo - Please consider converting Rangers to spontaneous casters in 2e

[N N 959]

Obviously we don't know how Rangers will work in 2e, but I strongly recommend that Rangers be allowed to spontaneously cast their spells if their spell list is similar to 1e. Why?

In 1e, Rangers can prepare very few spells. This compels players to choose spells that have a high likelihood of being used e.g. gravity bow, lead blades, resist energy. But the Ranger spell list is filled with tons of interesting and setting specific spells, that are never used because the Ranger can't know in advance that something like cloak of shade will be needed. One time I was going to prep campfire for a PFS scenario and the GM said, don't bother. I've a played an Archery Ranger through 10 levels in PFS. I've probably cast the same three spells the entire time. I've got a Sword and Board Ranger through 5, and yup, the same three spells (LB's for GB). Sure, I can buy wands (at least in PFS) to do the 1st level spells, but that doesn't help because many Ranger spells are often utility based and it's a crapshoot that something like clear grove is going to be needed. I'll bet the same is true for the vast majority of players. In fact, just now, I did a survey of all the Rangers everywhere throughout time, and to-date, no one has cast sculpted cape, ever. Not even when the spell was playtested.

Allowing a Rangers to cast any spell on their list, will accomplish several goals:

1) It will dramatically improve the character's sense of being prepared and able to handle whatever the situation throws at him or her;

2) Concurrently, it will foster more creative problem solving. I would love to be able to use residual tracking to identify a killer, but I would never think to prepare that ahead of time when a Ranger only gets one 1st level spell until 9th level, maybe two if you spend the ability points or cash to raise Wisdom

Yes, I imagine Rangers might get spell points or something, but the change that's needed is access to the entire spell list, not necessarily more spells.

3) Greater chance to burn off combat spells. Opening up access to the entire spell list will dramatically increase the chances the Ranger will burn a spell to do something outside of combat. This means Ranger's will have more meaningful decisions in when/which spells they cast. As things stand in 1e, I don't even bother reviewing Ranger spells. I am not going to prepare anything but the combat spells unless the GM bold face tells me I should have X spell ready, and what are the chances of that?

4) Ranger's need some spell support. Hunter's get more spells, at level 1, and have access to both Druid and Ranger lists up to level 6. A Ranger is going to be lucky if he can even get 4th level spells. By the time a Ranger is eligible for one 1st level bonus spell, the Hunter has twelve spells, including six level 1 spells.

Spell casting is a really neat part of what a Ranger can do, but the 1e system has constrained them to mere fraction of the spell list outside of wands and scrolls. Wands and scrolls just aren't very Rangerish, imo.

Yes, I'm expecting Ranger's will cast more spells in 2e, but I'd rather they get access to their entire spell list (just kidding, I want more spells too!) It would be an order of magnitude improvement, imo, for a Rangers to be able to actually use more than a fraction of spells on their entire list. Full access would help differentiate their casting from Druids and Hunters.

[Jester David]

I think I'd prefer rangers without spells as the default with options that let you opt into spells, such as archetypes.

[Nox Aeterna]

Full access to pick and cast anything you want from the entire list?

There isnt a single class in this entire system that has such absurd thing and i highly doubt rangers, or any other for that matter, will get such a thing.

Spontaneous casters know be default few spells, that is the trade for being able to cast any they do know at any time. Even a arcanist must still pick a few that it can then cast any of.

Even if this were to be possible, the ranger list would be gutted so hard it would become a fraction of what it is in PF1 to make up for any spell at any time.

[N N 959]

Jester David wrote:

I think I'd prefer rangers without spells as the default with options that let you opt into spells, such as archetypes.

This would just lead to dumping Wisdom. I strongly vote against your suggestion. If you don't want to cast spells, play a Slayer.

[Unicore]

I think a great compromise would be for the majority of the cool not-combat ranger spells to be moved to rituals, and for rangers to be able to use their nature proficiency to do these rituals.

[N N 959]

Nox Aeterna wrote:

Full access to pick and cast anything you want from the entire list?

There isnt a single class in this entire system that has such absurd thing and i highly doubt rangers, or any other for that matter, will get such a thing.

It's hardly "absurd" when the class gets it's first spell at level 4 (assuming you haven't dumped Wisdom) and its 2nd 1st level spell at level 9 (ignoring bonus spells...which aren't going to be a part of 2e). You're also forgetting that a Ranger's caster level is Class level -3.

What's actually "absurd" is that the Ranger has this huge list of spells that no one uses because the spells aren't generally useful compared to at least having a Resist Energy or Lead Blades available and the Ranger has to pick them in advance. Prepared spells makes more sense when you get a lot of them. It's totally retarded when you get one spell for the fast majority of a player's career playing a Ranger. Clerics and Druids also get spontaneous conversion to heal and summon nature's ally because the prep'd spell system is so constraining. It was screw-up by WotC to impose that on Paladin's and Rangers.

2e isn't going to change the fact that most players won't get past level 10, so Paizo can fix the almost trivial nature of Ranger spell capability which, right now, is simply a conduit for wand/scroll use.

[N N 959]

Unicore wrote:

I think a great compromise would be for the majority of the cool not-combat ranger spells to be moved to rituals, and for rangers to be able to use their nature proficiency to do these rituals.

While that might be an interesting idea, it creates a lot of extra overhead:

1) Unless you're doing the same thing for Druids and Hunters, you run the risk that Rangers will get far fewer spell options in future content.

2) The rituals can't be time prohibitive. If you need to cast Glide to jump off a cliff and escape, you probably don't have an hour, let alone 10 minutes, to do a ritual.

3) "non-combat" isn't actually a category of spells in the book. I'm not sure every spell can be neatly identified as purely combat vs non-combat.

However, I suppose the mechanic could be all the spells could have a rituals version and that would allow the player to decide which are useful out of combat. So, anything that allows a Ranger to pull from the list of spells as needed, is a huge step in the right direction.

[Unicore]

N N 959 wrote:

While that might be an interesting idea, it creates a lot of extra overhead:

1) Unless you're doing the same thing for Druids and Slayers, you run the risk that Rangers will get far fewer spell options in future content.

2) The rituals can't be time prohibitive. If you need to cast Glide to jump off a cliff and escape, you probably don't have an hour, let alone 10 minutes, to do a ritual.

3) "non-combat" isn't actually a category of spells in the book. I'm not sure every spell can be neatly identified as purely combat vs non-combat.

However, I suppose the mechanic could be all the spells could have a rituals version and that would allow the player to decide which are useful out of combat. So, anything that allows a Ranger to pull from the list of spells as needed, is a huge step in the right direction.

Having any one class have complete access to its entire spell list is such much overhead for a GM that it is campaign killing. If the idea behind giving the ranger full access to their spell list is so that they can pull stunts like glide out of their hat, if they haven't already cast gravity bow or lead blades by the time they are trying to escape, you might as well just invest a feat in scribe scroll and have one of every spell that feels necessary tucked away. Having ritual versions of every spell sounds like a nightmare from design perspective, especially if the idea behind rituals was to get some magic out of the "spell" category, and break down the association of Spells=Magic.

[Unicore]

My suggestion was for a lot of the tracking, weather reading, communing with nature type spells to be pulled off the spell list and moved to rituals that a druid wouldn't have to prep in advance, but be able to work when necessary. This fits a lot closer to the mold of Aragon type of ranger in my mind.

[PossibleCabbage]

I feel like no class for which "casting spells" is not a major focus on what they do in a given day should have to prepare spells. It's just an additional mental hurdle for the 5 spells a level 9 ranger gets to cast.

[N N 959]

Unicore wrote:

Having any one class have complete access to its entire spell list is such much overhead for a GM that it is campaign killing.

Not even remotely. Rangers get ONE spell at 5th level and don't get a second until 9th.

Even if we throw in Wisdom bonuses, you're talking about TWO spells at 5th level. That's it. But now, instead of automatically going lead blades, the GM can throw something interesting out there and the Ranger can have an answer...maybe twice a day. Even at 20th level they're only getting 4 1st level spells.

Quote:

If the idea behind giving the ranger full access to their spell list is so that they can pull stunts like glide out of their hat, if they haven't already cast gravity bow or lead blades by the time they are trying to escape, you might as well just invest a feat in scribe scroll and have one of every spell that feels necessary tucked away.

So you're acknowledging that the current rules allow a Ranger to have one of every spell (via scrolls) and the world hasn't ended?

Look, trying to assert this idea is game-unbalancing is flat ridiculous. Choking on it just because no other class can do it, isn't a compelling reason when no other class is so incredibly restricted in its spell use, or operates under a mechanic that was intended for a completely different class and style of caster. The current system is totally stupid. Just because someone put it in the game and Paizo didn't change it, doesn't mean it isn't still totally stupid.

Quote:

Having ritual versions of every spell sounds like a nightmare from design perspective, especially if the idea behind rituals was to get some magic out of the "spell" category, and break down the association of Spells=Magic.

Don't agree. The fact that a Ranger could spend ten minutes do X or use magic to do X in a standard action, seems to be in-line with having rituals in the first place. Paizo wants to commute the utility of spells to classes that are not full casters and don't get umpteen 1st level spells. It makes total sense to all Ranger or Paladins to take X minutes to get the same functionality in a non-magic version that would normally come from a spell.

[N N 959]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like no class for which "casting spells" is not a major focus on what they do in a given day should have to prepare spells. It's just an additional mental hurdle for the 5 spells a level 9 ranger gets to cast.

Amen. It's completely nonsensical that a non-full casting class has to have a praying ordeal to gain a single spell. As I said, WotC stuck this on Rangers/Paladins as part of the Divine casting paradigm without really thinking about it.

[Nox Aeterna]

Well, play the way you want mate. I know there is 0% chance i would ever give this to any player in PF1 and considering how now there are only 4 spell lists and thus ranger/paladins would draw from druids/clerics lists in PF2 i doubt my feedback in the playtest will be favor of this.

Casting any spell of the list at any time to me is just insane, but hey, who knows, maybe enough people agree with you in the feedback to see change.

[N N 959]

Unicore wrote:

My suggestion was for a lot of the tracking, weather reading, communing with nature type spells to be pulled off the spell list and moved to rituals that a druid wouldn't have to prep in advance, but be able to work when necessary. This fits a lot closer to the mold of Aragon type of ranger in my mind.

I don't see any reason to invent a category to restrict spells. If the non-combat spells are on the Ranger list, then it was intended the Ranger should be able to you know....actually use the spell at some point in his or her career? The way 1e works, that essentially never happens unless you're going to carry around a haversack full of scrolls. Decidedly un-Aragonish.

Your original idea has a lot of merit, just make them all available via ritual that takes at least 1 minute and the combat/non-combat issue automatically sorts itself out.

Truthfully, I think wand use and scroll use by a Ranger were kind of a silly, but we can easily see how WotC didn't really think about separating spell lists from wand usage. Paizo didn't figure that out until Investigators, and even there, Investigators don't actually cast spells. So still, the paradigm has remained.

[N N 959]

Nox Aeterna wrote:

Casting any spell of the list at any time to me is just insane, but hey, who knows, maybe enough people agree with you in the feedback to see change.

Dude, Rangers get ONE spell at CL -3. How in god's name is ONE 1st level spell a day "insane"?

Even at 20th level, we're talking three, maybe four, 4th level spells. How is that even in the same universe of insane compared to what full casters are doing?

Sorry, there's no way this is making Ranger's more combat dangerous than they already are, it would probably make them less capable in combat because a lot more of them are going to be using spells to do cool things that they never got to do in 1e.

[QuidEst]

That’s mythic spellcasting. I don’t think it’s reasonable to give them that (slowing play and putting off new players). It’s taking the simplest caster and making them the most complicated. That seems like a bad idea to me, especially for something as minor as spells not seeing use.

[Quandary]

The issue the OP identifies is very true, and the limitation of Ranger casting (spell levels/slots) make directly applying "vanilla" casting limitations excessively limiting. Taking a different approach so that Rangers can shine in their own way and purported spell diversity translates into actual spell diversity seems like good design to me. The idea spell lists should be relevant to actual casting, and not just "oh, at least you can use wand of that easily" seems in tune with P2E's over all approach IMHO.

The idea to require a (10 minute?) Ritual to change spell known seems like very viable approach to me. In a way I guess that is more like Arcanist casting, but I think the extremely limited 4-spell-level casting here is even MORE appropriate application of it. In fact, riffing off of "Rituals" (something anybody can do), seems appropriate starting point for a 4-level i.e. weakest possible caster, i.e. their minimal spell slots exist to let them get more out of Rituals than normals. D&D is game of exceptions, so the idea that Ritual system would be "extendable" by quickened mechanic allowing it to also be used in-combat (1-3 action casting) seems obvious now that I think about it. Truly non-time-motivated uses would probably still best be covered by "vanilla" Rituals, but point of using them to swap spells known is the spell is available for quick casting in-combat or more time-sensitive out-of-combat utility usage.

[N N 959]

QuidEst wrote:

That’s mythic spellcasting. I don’t think it’s reasonable to give them that (slowing play and putting off new players). It’s taking the simplest caster and making them the most complicated. That seems like a bad idea to me, especially for something as minor as spells not seeing use.

You're right. Allowing the entire list of spells would slow the game down. But if they are going to do something similar with rituals, maybe they already have a solution.

Still, Paizo needs to address the stupidity that WotC put on Rangers/Paladin casting. The 1e set-up is completely moronic.

[QuidEst]

N N 959 wrote:

QuidEst wrote:

That’s mythic spellcasting. I don’t think it’s reasonable to give them that (slowing play and putting off new players). It’s taking the simplest caster and making them the most complicated. That seems like a bad idea to me, especially for something as minor as spells not seeing use.

You're right. Allowing the entire list of spells would slow the game down. But if they are going to do something similar with rituals, maybe they already have a solution.

Still, Paizo needs to address the stupidity that WotC put on Rangers/Paladin casting. The 1e set-up is completely moronic.

Well, my guess is that the CL penalty is gone, they get cantrips, spells per day gets a bump up, their lists are greatly expanded, their spell DCs are way better than before, and they get casting at third or fifth level now.

[N N 959]

QuidEst wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

You're right. Allowing the entire list of spells would slow the game down. But if they are going to do something similar with rituals, maybe they already have a solution.

Still, Paizo needs to address the stupidity that WotC put on Rangers/Paladin casting. The 1e set-up is completely moronic.

Well, my guess is that the CL penalty is gone, they get cantrips, spells per day gets a bump up, their lists are greatly expanded, their spell DCs are way better than before, and they get casting at third or fifth level now.

Honestly, now that Unicore reminded me that 2e is going to make utility spells available via ritual, I am would rather see less "magic" and expanded ritual ability. And I would gladly give up wand and scroll use for a commensurate improvement in rituals use.

Admittedly, my concept of a Ranger is definitely influenced by LOTR, so I'm not enthralled with it feeling more like a caster.

[ChibiNyan]

I just pick Hunter to get deep access to the mighty Ranger Spell list.

[N N 959]

Quandary wrote:

The idea to require a (10 minute?) Ritual to change spell known seems like very viable approach to me

It hadn't occurred to me that a Ritual could be used to change the spell. If so, 10 minutes would be prohibitive. I could see 1 minute for spell level. Remember, if we keep the 1e equivalent, we're talking about essentially one or two spells a day or whatever is comparable in 2e.

[thflame]

Vancian magic should die in a fire.

For clarification, I mean the "fire-and-forget" style. I'm okay with spell slots, but I am NOT okay with I have to prepare a spell multiple times if I want it multiple times.

Even DnD has made steaks out of that sacred cow at this point and "appeal to tradition" is a terrible argument for keeping it anyway.

As far as Rangers, I always imagined them as a sort of Rogue/Fighter hybrid (like the Slayer) and less of a Fighter/Druid hybrid (which Hunter does MUCH better).

If the PF2 Ranger ended up being a renamed Slayer (or even Hunter), I'd be cool with that.

[Boomerang Nebula]

I think it would be interesting if Rangers only cast spells via rituals. They could have other abilities for in combat.

[Unicore]

Quandary wrote:

The idea to require a (10 minute?) Ritual to change spell known seems like very viable approach to me. In a way I guess that is more like Arcanist casting, but I think the extremely limited 4-spell-level casting here is even MORE appropriate application of it. In fact, riffing off of "Rituals" (something anybody can do), seems appropriate starting point for a 4-level i.e. weakest possible caster, i.e. their minimal spell slots exist to let them get more out of Rituals than normals. D&D is game of exceptions, so the idea that Ritual system would be "extendable" by quickened mechanic allowing it to also be used in-combat (1-3 action casting) seems obvious now that I think about it. Truly non-time-motivated uses would probably still best be covered by "vanilla" Rituals, but point of using them to swap spells known is the spell is available for quick casting in-combat or more time-sensitive out-of-combat utility usage.

I was suggesting it was a headache for the GM because the player is going to want to have the whole ranger spell list on them at all times and slow down game play, when it really isn't necessary because there is a reason that rangers cast one spell all the time, it is the best, and if the other spells are cool to you for situation usage, 25 gp for a scroll isn't a big deal.

BUT...

For the second edition, I would also like to see the "I have a scroll for that" type of spells all become rituals, because functionally, that is pretty much what they are now anyways, magic that has a set cost that your carry around as a back up.

I am sorry if I made it sound like I was attacking the OP idea. I was just trying to say that I think the game design we have seen thus far already accommodates the general purpose of the OP, without doing something that would set a bad precedent for casters spontaneously casting off of an entire spell list.

[Mathmuse]

Unicore wrote:

I was suggesting it was a headache for the GM because the player is going to want to have the whole ranger spell list on them at all times and slow down game play, when it really isn't necessary because there is a reason that rangers cast one spell all the time, it is the best, and if the other spells are cool to you for situation usage, 25 gp for a scroll isn't a big deal.

I haven't had problems with one of my players using a skald's Spell Kenning.

Advanced Class Guide, Skald wrote:

Spell Kenning (Su): At 5th level, a skald is learned in the magic of other spellcasters, and can use his own magic to duplicate those classes' spells. Once per day, a skald can cast any spell on the bard, cleric, or sorcerer/wizard spell list as if it were one of his skald spells known, expending a skald spell slot of the same spell level to cast the desired spell. A spell cast with spell kenning always has a minimum casting time of 1 full round, regardless of the casting time of the spell.

At 11th level, a skald can use this ability twice per day. At 17th level, he can use this ability three times per day.

[Captain Morgan]

The current design allows you to have some of this already, doesn't it? You just leave spell slots open, then when you find a non-combat need for one, pray for 15 minutes and get it. I'm cool if they just convert those situations to rituals.

[Meophist]

I think it could be good if some of the partial casters like the Rangers instead get spell point spells which they can choose to learn.

[AnimatedPaper]

Meophist wrote:

I think it could be good if some of the partial casters like the Rangers instead get spell point spells which they can choose to learn.

Agreed. Make the most obvious choices spell point driven, and leave the more niche stuff rituals as others have suggested. Same for Paladins and, when we get there, Bloodragers and Mediums.

[Cole Deschain]

N N 959 wrote:

This would just lead to dumping Wisdom. I strongly vote against your suggestion. If you don't want to cast spells, play a Slayer.

... but a Ranger is not a Slayer, and it's more than spellcasting that distinguishes them. Nor is "dumping Wisdom" a thing a Perception and Survival-intensive class should do anyway.

Spellcasting may have been part of the class from day one, but which Pathfinder Ranger archetype runs away from the field in terms of popularity and use? The friggin' Skirmisher, which actually isn't all that great on a nuts and bolts level. Still. Years after Slayers came online.

So I "strongly vote against" your assertion that spell use in in some way inherently intrinsic to playing a Ranger, and I really hope PF2 gives us the option to disregard it entirely.

Now, with that said...

IF we're sticking spells to our wilderness warriors, I'd like it to be a bit more distinct from being a sort of tepid version of the druid list than it is now. Not sure spontaneous casting is the answer- Rangers have always struck me as more trained than intuitive- and the idea of focusing on rituals is actually kind of neat.

[N N 959]

Cole Deschain wrote:

So I "strongly vote against" your assertion that spell use in in some way inherently intrinsic to playing a Ranger, and I really hope PF2 gives us the option to disregard it entirely.

You can vote against it all you want, but Ranger's have had spell use since AD&D. So regardless of its actual effectiveness, it is part and parcel to what helps separate it from Fighters and Barbarians, and is a neat alternative to the Paladin. Allowing Rangers to disregard spell use as anything more than an archetype would be stupid if 2e is going to have Slayers.

From a fluff angle, it isn't specifically spell-use that defines Rangers, its their ability to tap into Divine powers. That is/should be a non-trivial part of the lore and mystic of Rangers.

Quote:

Spellcasting may have been part of the class from day one, but which Pathfinder Ranger archetype runs away from the field in terms of popularity and use? The friggin' Skirmisher, which actually isn't all that great on a nuts and bolts level.

Yeah...perhaps you should read the title of that thread "Your Top 5 Archetypes." Emphasis mine. That thread is talking about the the most popular "archetypes." That doesn't mean the Skirmisher is more popular than the straight-up Ranger, not by a long shot.

Spell-use is a HUGE part of what I enjoy about Rangers. Add to that the benefits of Wand use to make up for the dirth of spell casting, Paizo has to make sure it doesn't screw-up one of the most iconic classes in the genre.

Quote:

IF we're sticking spells to our wilderness warriors, I'd like it to be a bit more distinct from being a sort of tepid version of the druid list than it is now. Not sure spontaneous casting is the answer- Rangers have always struck me as more trained than intuitive- and the idea of focusing on rituals is actually kind of neat.

Well, I have no real issue with the Druid spell list, in and of itself. Would I like Ranger focused spells? Yes and no. The idea is that the Ranger's spell-use comes from learning something about Druidic powers, not that the Ranger is a natural born spell-caster.

On Rituals, I think we might agree. Mechanically, I could live without "magic" per se, but I from a fluff perspective, I do like that Rangers have something concrete in common with Druids.

Personally, I find the Hunter class to be annoying. It's a hybrid of two Subtypes. The name is, imo, not appropriate. It doesn't make sense for a "hunter" to be using more magic than a Ranger. They should have called the class "Nature Guardian" or something.

[Ryan Freire]

I'd honestly like to see them (or an archetype) that works like alchemists via herbal infusions. Basically leveraging resonance and their knowledge of nature to create supernatural effects and poisons.

Edit: similarly i'd like to see paladins use resonance for divine effects via prayer/blessings etc rather than a full spell list similarly to the 1ed archetypes that give up spellcasting, warrior of light and tempered champion style.

[PossibleCabbage]

If I recall correctly, they did say that "some classes get to cast even more" which presumably does not include the former "full casters" of the Wizard, Cleric, Druid, and Sorcerer (who get plenty of casting but whether it's "more" is debatable). A obvious inclusion would be the Bard, but the bard is not plural.

Moreover, the Monk, Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue would only vacuously be "can cast even more" since those classes don't get spells, and the Alchemist can cast even less (since it went from an ersatz spellcaster to not a spellcaster).

Which sort of suggests to me that Paladins and Rangers are going to be even more magical than their PF1 counterparts.

[N N 959]

Captain Morgan wrote:

The current design allows you to have some of this already, doesn't it? You just leave spell slots open, then when you find a non-combat need for one, pray for 15 minutes and get it. I'm cool if they just convert those situations to rituals.

It does, and yet, I've never actually seen anyone use this: Cleric, Druid, nor Ranger. The problem for Rangers is that you get so few spells, you're not going to leave your one or two spells slots open when there are spells you can prepare that you might need in combat e.g. Resist Energy, Barkskin, Darkvision. And once prepared, the spells can't be undone.

Plus, 15 minutes in-game, is fairly prohibitive.

[Cole Deschain]

N N 959 wrote:

You can vote against it all you want, but Ranger's have had spell use since AD&D. So regardless of its actual effectiveness, it is part and parcel to what helps separate it from Fighters and Barbarians, and is a neat alternative to the Paladin. Allowing Rangers to disregard spell use as anything more than an archetype would be stupid if 2e is going to have Slayers.

It's as relevant as your "vote" (which is where I got the term) that Slayers are in some way the answer to, "but what I want to be a wilderness hardcase survivor WITHOUT magic."

Especially since all I spoke up for was the option to ditch it without resorting to an archetype.

But since you think I'm calling for some sort of ban... how is it integral to their baseline concept? It really isn't. It's a silly, goofy afterthought.

Recall when Rangers had to be Good-aligned? Back in the AD&D days?

I sure do, and MAN was it stupid. "Because it's always been this way" is not a good reason to do anything.

Quote:

From a fluff angle, it isn't specifically spell-use that defines Rangers, its their ability to tap into Divine powers.

Not always- they debuted with arcane magic. Then it got changed to Druid-lite. And has been grandfathered in ever since.

Quote:

Yeah...perhaps you should read the title of that thread "Your Top 5 Archetypes."

1. Since I posted in that thread, I most certainly did- along with every single post in it. I don't appreciate your implication that I'm in some way ignorant of the nature of a thread I directly linked.

2. If the archetype that pointedly removes spells is the hands-down favorite for a given class, that speaks volumes about how the spell use of the class is perceived, doesn't it? If everybody likes the archetype for ditching spell use, then ditching spell use should probably be an option they consider baking in from day one in the new edition.

Quote:

Spell-use is a HUGE part of what I enjoy about Rangers.

... Why? I mean this, sincerely- what thematic itch does it scratch?

The "tapping into Divine powers" bit is almost never emphasized in the presentation of Rangers beyond having spells in their stat blocks.

I'm genuinely surprised you see it as in some way integral to what they are.

Quote:

Add to that the benefits of Wand use

Something we already know is getting toned down for PF2, so...

And speaking of PF2... it sounds like many classes are going to be more a la carte, with feats falling out of everyone's ears in terms of design. Having Ranger spell use be one option, while expanded combat styles or dirty tricks are another seems like it's viable under this design.

Quote:

Well, I have no real issue with the Druid spell list, in and of itself. Would I like Ranger focused spells? Yes and no. The idea is that the Ranger's spell-use comes from learning something about Druidic powers, not that the Ranger is a natural born spell-caster.

On Rituals, I think we might agree. Mechanically, I could live without "magic" per se, but I from a fluff perspective, I do like that Rangers have something concrete in common with Druids.

Having Rangers and Druids share rituals would cover the cultural sharing aspect quite nicely, I think. And certainly, any spell use we feel obligated to slap onto our wilderness martials should play to their theme.

Quote:

Personally, I find the Hunter class to be annoying. It's a hybrid of two Subtypes. The name is, imo, not appropriate. It doesn't make sense for a "hunter" to be using more magic than a Ranger. They should have called the class "Nature Guardian" or something.

On this we agree entirely. I feel kind of bad for the Hunter- the idea of someone more ranger than druid and more druid than ranger isn't an AWFUL one, but... "animal companion plus heavy magic use and fighting better than a non-wildshaped druid" is... well, I dunno what I'd name it, but...

[Ryan Freire]

Hunter is great, the spell levels required provide all the necessary druid buff spells for their animal companion.

Y'all just dont like BM hunter :P

[N N 959]

Cole Deschain wrote:

how is it integral to their baseline concept? It really isn't. It's a silly, goofy afterthought.

In AD&D? Because it was something you aspired too. It gave a martial the class a mystical/occultist aspect that, when mixed with the wilderness aspect, was completely unique.

Quote:

Recall when Rangers had to be Good-aligned? Back in the AD&D days?

Yes, made total sense and I personally feel it was a mistake to get rid of alignment restrictions.

Quote:

"Because it's always been this way" is not a good reason to do anything.

Except when "this way" was integral to what made the thing worth doing.

Quote:

Not always- they debuted with arcane magic. Then it got changed to Druid-lite. And has been grandfathered in ever since.

Not sure what you mean by "debuted?" The AD&D PHB gave Rangers "Druidic" spells first and then Magic-User spells a few levels later. So in AD&D, Rangers were always more strongly and deeply connected with Druid magic.

Quote:

If the archetype that pointedly removes spells is the hands-down favorite for a given class, that speaks volumes about how the spell use of the class is perceived, doesn't it?

Not, not even close.

1) That's a poll on a thread, hardly definitive on the reality of the situation;

2) Let's pretend that poll is representative. At best, it says that the other Ranger archetypes essentially suck. Many of the Ranger Archetypes are very setting specific. They read more as NPC templates. Alternatively it says the the Skirmisher is too good.

3) Your argument seems to be that because that because the Skirmisher is so popular an Archetype compared to other Ranger archetypes, people really want a spell-less Ranger. No, that's not what it means, it means that people want a Skirmisher, not that they want the Ranger to not have spells.

And honestly, all the Skirmishers that I've seen, were level dipping, kind of what happens with the Ranger class in general.

Colen[quote=NN wrote:

Spell-use is a HUGE part of what I enjoy about Rangers.

... Why?

Because it's precisely that little bit of spell use which creates a world of difference in comparative feel and concept between the Ranger and the other martial classes.

Same with the ability to Track. How often is Tracking ever really used? Like hardly ever in PFS scenarios. Sure, Survival is used a bit, but actually tracking someone via footprints?...the next time I GM a PFS scenario that actually contemplates someone using Survival to track down an NPC will be the first. Nevertheless, if Rangers couldn't track in 2e, it would really kill the genre, imo.

Quote:

I feel kind of bad for the Hunter- the idea of someone more ranger than druid and more druid than ranger isn't an AWFUL one

. I don't feel bad, except that for actual game play, the Hunter animal tricks mechanics is problematic. I just don't get why Paizo had to wedge something in between the Druid and Ranger.

[N N 959]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Hunter is great, the spell levels required provide all the necessary druid buff spells for their animal companion.

Y'all just dont like BM hunter :P

I've seen very few Hunter's in PFS.

[N N 959]

N N 959 wrote:

By the time a Ranger is eligible for one 1st level bonus spell, the Hunter has twelve spells, including six level 1 spells.

Wanted to correct and error in my OP. The Hunter only knows four 1st level spells at level 4.

[Cole Deschain]

N N 959 wrote:

In AD&D? Because it was something you aspired too. It gave a martial the class a mystical/occultist aspect that, when mixed with the wilderness aspect, was completely unique.

All right, now what does that have to do with a Ranger?

Quote:

Yes, made total sense and I personally feel it was a mistake to get rid of alignment restrictions.

1. How and why? What about the Ranger, conceptually, demands it be Good? Aragorn? 'Cause the class hasn't resembled him in a long, long time.

2. What do we gain by forbidding evil bandit lords with favored enemies, skills at woodcraft, and the odd bit of fighting acumen?

Quote:

Except when "this way" was integral to what made the thing worth doing.

You have yet to prove that that's what "made it worth doing."

Moreover... name a fictional ranger who actually uses their D&D/PF-style nature magic- even Drizzt "this is why they all dual-wield now" Do'Urden uses his innate drow magical abilities rather than doing things like casting Entangle or Charm Animals. Aragorn's about as magical as most of the crew in Lord of the Rings. Jack the Giant-Killer (cited in the 2E PHB, as I recall) doesn't use magic at all.

The inspirations for the class don't use magic.

Quote:

Quote:

If the archetype that pointedly removes spells is the hands-down favorite for a given class, that speaks volumes about how the spell use of the class is perceived, doesn't it?

Not, not even close.

1) That's a poll on a thread, hardly definitive on the reality of the situation;

2) Let's pretend that poll is representative. At best, it says that the other Ranger archetypes essentially suck. Many of the Ranger Archetypes are very setting specific. They read more as NPC templates. Alternatively it says the the Skirmisher is too good.

3) Your argument seems to be that because that because the Skirmisher is so popular an Archetype compared to other Ranger archetypes, people really want a spell-less Ranger. No, that's not what it means, it means that people want a Skirmisher, not that they want the Ranger to not have spells.

1. Perhaps, but it's reflective of much of the audience, and about as emblematic a form of feedback as we have available.

2. Incorrect. What that says is that the thing Ranger players are most happy to swap out when they alter the chassis is spellcasting. The Skrimisher's little bag of tricks is hardly what you hear getting talked about when the archetype is discussed.

3. This feels like grasping at straws to me- people choose an archetype, a favored one, that expressly removes spell use. It is favored over the other options which preserve spell use. How can you possibly contend that people don't want a Ranger to have spells? As a corollary, the fine folks at Kobold Press whipped up the "Spell-less Ranger," and it has enjoyed enough cachet that they support it.

Quote:

And honestly, all the Skirmishers that I've seen, were level dipping, kind of what happens with the Ranger class in general.

Your anecdotal experience and mine do not agree. I mean, if we were going to fully credit anecdotal evidence, try this one on: In over twenty-five years, you're literally the first person I've seen passionately defend the need for rangers to cast spells. I'm willing to bet your experience has been different.

Moreover, comparing the Skirmisher with "the Ranger class in general" and stating an equivalent value is essentially proving my point for me.

Quote:

Because it's precisely that little bit of spell use which creates a world of difference in comparative feel and concept between the Ranger and the other martial classes.

Except it really isn't. Again, look at the prototypes for the Ranger-

They Track.
They're canny wilderness survivors.
They're tough in a scrap (either melee, or, more typically in fiction, as archers).
Many of them have some sort of favored enemy they're extra savvy about bringing down.

The spells have always felt like, "eh, we need something to make them even more kewl at higher levels, what have we got?"

Of the existing things Rangers do in PF1, tracking, sneaking, fighting, favored enemies and favored terrains are far more iconic of what makes the class jitter and jive than slinging a few parlor tricks around.

Now, by all means, they should keep the ability to learn some mojo- at no point have I stated that they shouldn't.

All I am asking for is to build the option not to into the base class.

[Captain Morgan]

N N 959 wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

The current design allows you to have some of this already, doesn't it? You just leave spell slots open, then when you find a non-combat need for one, pray for 15 minutes and get it. I'm cool if they just convert those situations to rituals.

It does, and yet, I've never actually seen anyone use this: Cleric, Druid, nor Ranger. The problem for Rangers is that you get so few spells, you're not going to leave your one or two spells slots open when there are spells you can prepare that you might need in combat e.g. Resist Energy, Barkskin, Darkvision. And once prepared, the spells can't be undone.

Plus, 15 minutes in-game, is fairly prohibitive.

Eh... Resist Energy isn't something I'd prep unless I had evidence I would need it, Barkskin is less relevant if I have an amulet of natural armor, and Darkvision isn't needed if I already have it racially OR don't think I'll be sneaking around in the dark.

The combat stuff that springs out at me is Gravity Bow, which is still only for a subset of rangers and isn't mandatory, and Instant Enemy, which really just fills your 3rd level slots and maybe makes you get some Pearls of Power.

Where as literally every situation you list in your opening post is one that PROBABLY allows for 15 minutes. Heck, Clear Grove has a 10 minute casting time. If I already wreck stuff in combat and have a better caster than me to throw around stuff like Barkskin or Resist Energy, and only get one or two castings a day... I'd rather have them available for niche utility over burning them to be slightly better in one combat. Especially if my spell list provides more unique options for the former. Lots of classes can do Resist Energy, but very few can do Residual Tracking.

I think we both want the Ranger to feel like Batman here and always be prepared. I just think it is already possible to get that done with the rules as written, without meaningfully compromising my combat ability. I'm not morally opposed to something that makes this a little easier, like Rituals or a smaller list of spontaneous options. Your mileage may vary.

[N N 959]

Cole Deschain wrote:

Quote:

Yes, made total sense and I personally feel it was a mistake to get rid of alignment restrictions.

1. How and why? What about the Ranger, conceptually, demands it be Good? Aragorn? 'Cause the class hasn't resembled him in a long, long time.

2. What do we gain by forbidding evil bandit lords with favored enemies, skills at woodcraft, and the odd bit of fighting acumen?

You'll have to ask Gary Grygax, but he's dead. You're also forgetting that a Ranger could not be Lawful.

1. All of that contributes to the roleplay and the mindset of the character. Apart from a Chaotic or Neutral mindset befitting a loaner in the woods, Ranger's are obviously meant to be minor foils to the lawfulness and rigidity of Paladins (in AD&D).

2. Because evil lords are bent on doing evil things, not learning woodcraft, and fighting Giant class monsters. You also have to remember that in AD&D, you had to be trained. Unlike modern RPGs where you just automatically acquire skills in a profession despite having no one in a 1000 miles to teach you. Who would want to train an evil lord how to be a Ranger?

Quote:

You have yet to prove that that's what "made it worth doing.

Rangers are rated one of the most popular classes in AD&D. I don't have to prove anything, the popularity of the class since its inception speaks for itself. The promise of "Druidic" magic is what establishes the supernatural bond with nature. You take that out, then just play a Slayer.

Quote:

Moreover... name a fictional ranger who actually uses their D&D/PF-style nature magic- even Drizzt "this is why they all dual-wield now"***The inspirations for the class don't use magic.

Flawed argument. Name fantasy movies where we see actual Clerics? Lord of the Rings doesn't have them. Healing magic and the trope of healing damage after a battle simply didn't exist in fantasy literature prior to D&D inventing the mechanic.

Quote:

1. Perhaps, but it's reflective of much of the audience, and about as emblematic a form of feedback as we have available.

That doesn't mean it isn't misinformation. People who post on the Internet are representative of.....people who post on the Internet. It would be folly to make corporate decision based on people posting in threads unless your market is only people posting on threads. 50% of a thread may have people complaining about something when in actually, 95% of your customers are completely happy and don't bother to post.

Quote:

2. Incorrect. What that says is that the thing Ranger players are most happy to swap out when they alter the chassis is spellcasting. The Skrimisher's little bag of tricks is hardly what you hear getting talked about when the archetype is discussed.

The only thing different between a Ranger and Skirmisher is the little bag of tricks.

Quote:

3. This feels like grasping at straws to me- people choose an archetype, a favored one, that expressly removes spell use. It is favored over the other options which preserve spell use. How can you possibly contend that people don't want a Ranger to have spells?

Because the decision is about trade-offs. People want the Hunter tricks, that doesn't mean they don't want spells, it means that they think getting nearly double the Hunter Tricks vs 1st level spells is worth it.

Let's be honest, the forums are dominated by min/maxers when it comes to talking about builds. It's not exactly a surprise to see people who are making that trade-off, here posting about it. However, I don't think I've seen a single Skirmisher in five years of playing PFS. I'll wager it's because the inability to use 1st level heal CLW is too much of a handicap.

Quote:

In over twenty-five years, you're literally the first person I've seen passionately defend the need for rangers to cast spells.

1) I'm open to the idea of rituals in place of spells. 2) Most people are level dipping 2 levels of Ranger to get FE bonus and Combat Style and then moving on, so they don't even see spells. Zen Archers are considered better Archers and Lore Wardens are even more popular as archers. What would people care about spell use on the forums if they aren't making it past level 2?

Quote:

The spells have always felt like, "eh, we need something to make them even more kewl at higher levels, what have we got?"

You mean like every ability that kicks in at high level? Once again, I don't think you're appreciating the cachet that spell use grants. But that's fine.

[N N 959]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Eh... Resist Energy isn't something I'd prep unless I had evidence I would need it,

RE is, in my PFS experience, one of the most useful and used spells I've cast outside Gravity Bow and Lead Blades. RE has saved my rear-end and my companion's life on a number of occasions.

Quote:

Barkskin is less relevant if I have an amulet of natural armor, and Darkvision isn't needed if I already have it racially OR don't think I'll be sneaking around in the dark.

Only a few races get Darkvision, so let's not pretend everyone has got it. I'd much rather have the an extra feat and skill point as a Human than Darkvision which I can get in spell.

Quote:

The combat stuff that springs out at me is Gravity Bow, which is still only for a subset of rangers and isn't mandatory, and Instant Enemy, which really just fills your 3rd level slots and maybe makes you get some Pearls of Power.

There are several other combat spells that simply don't even get looked at: Falcons's Aim, Abundant Ammunition, Feather Step. Yes, you can get wands for all those, but combat is so short in PF that the battle will be over before you manipulate more than two wands.

Quote:

Where as literally every situation you list in your opening post is one that PROBABLY allows for 15 minutes.

It's not the actual IC time, it's the OOC psychology. For reasons I can't explain, players don't want to spend lots of IC time doing stuff. People get antsy about Taking 20 on Percpetion. Some of it has to do with people not wanting to waste buffs, but some of it is the OOC sense of simply wasting time. GMs tend to get annoyed, IME as well.

[Captain Morgan]

N N 959 wrote:

Quote:

Where as literally every situation you list in your opening post is one that PROBABLY allows for 15 minutes.

It's not the actual IC time, it's the OOC psychology. For reasons I can't explain, players don't want to spend lots of IC time doing stuff. People get antsy about Taking 20 on Percpetion. Some of it has to do with people not wanting to waste buffs, but some of it is the OOC sense of simply wasting time. GMs tend to get annoyed, IME as well.

Eh... I don't really share that experience. Maybe I just play with completionists but my players love to take their time if there isn't a ticking clock based objective. And even if it is an issue, I'm pretty hesitant to offer a substantial buff for a problem that is really just psychological or can be fixed with some scrolls.

Or: you can make all these arguments for the cleric and their spell list too. The cleric has more spell slots to allocate around (although far less in PF2) but has tons of spells that are too situational to prep without advance warning and is far more reliant on their spells to do their core job than the ranger is. I don't really see a need to give a cleric spontaneous access to their entire list, despite this.

[MidsouthGuy]

Personally I'm hoping casting spells becomes optional for the Ranger. I have never liked that Rangers get spells, and every time I've played one I've found a 3rd Party spell-less variant. Rangers should be expert survivalists, amazing hunters, and deadly in a skirmish without having to resort to magic to be good at what they do.

[QuidEst]

I'm over here, hoping that Ranger loses their mandatory-metagaming favored enemy feature. "Guess what creatures the GM will throw at you, or waste your signature ability" is terrible.

Ahem.

Carry on.

[Captain Morgan]

QuidEst wrote:

I'm over here, hoping that Ranger loses their mandatory-metagaming favored enemy feature. "Guess what creatures the GM will throw at you, or waste your signature ability" is terrible.

Ahem.

Carry on.

Certainly some truth there, but it feels iconic as hell. It seems to work OK in APs where player's guides give suggestions for favored enemies and terrain, but not in homebrew games.

[Meophist]

Favoured enemy feels like it can do better as maybe an archetype feat.

[N N 959]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Or: you can make all these arguments for the cleric and their spell list too. The cleric has more spell slots to allocate around (although far less in PF2) but has tons of spells that are too situational to prep without advance warning and is far more reliant on their spells to do their core job than the ranger is. I don't really see a need to give a cleric spontaneous access to their entire list, despite this.

What now?

Clerics GET spontaneous conversion to Cure spells, so they can always provide healing if necessary, on top of channeling. What's more, the vast majority of Cleric spells are generally useful: Protection from X, Lessor Restoration, Bless, Bull's Strength, Daylight. There are tons of Cleric spells that you can pick and expect them to be useful in combat or out of it.

And getting back on point, you're actually proving mine. Clerics could actually make use of open spell slots, and I've never seen PC's make use of it. Why? Because something about taking 15 minutes to prep a spell doesn't seem to be an attractive option compared to the downside of not having a spell on demand.

[N N 959]

QuidEst wrote:

I'm over here, hoping that Ranger loses their mandatory-metagaming favored enemy feature. "Guess what creatures the GM will throw at you, or waste your signature ability" is terrible.

Ahem.

Carry on.

I will admit that 3.5's version of the Ranger's bonus vs Giant class bonus has never seemed well executed. In PFS, one is penalized for not taking Human at level 2. And you're right, if the campaign doesn't feature our FE, then the feature is a total waste.

What's more, it's precisely the set up that encourages people to meta-game dip. I would be interested to see the concept reworked so it's a little more useful and less exploitable.