D&D (2024) Ranger 2024 is a bigger joke than Ranger 2014:

[Rocker26a]

I could easily see Ranger developing their own particular spells that can be cast from stealth. Like Hunter's Mark.

Just not every spell. That's game breaking.

Anyone's free to disagree of course, but I don't think keeping it locked to just the Ranger spells (and those considered Ranger spells via subclasses) would be that big of a deal. It's a neat thing Rangers can do to keep up their stealth edge in close quarters/get an advantage against a more full fledged spellcaster, etc. but they can't pass that benefit on to other spell lists they multiclass into (unlike a Sorcerer's Metamagic or similar).

When a Ranger is hiding in the thicket, stalking some poachers moving through their forest, it should be fine that they can cast Jump to get up to the canopy without breaking stealth. But they wanna cast Shield of Faith from their Cleric multiclass when they're up there? Then they've gotta make a judgement call.

If you vehemently disagree/think that's too much, could make it a variant rule instead, similar to the Additional Spells from Tasha's. It's something I've got in my homebrew that I discussed in another thread a while ago, the idea that there's a core set of spells every Ranger ought to get without counting against their total. Somewhat inspired by that "all warlocks should just get eldritch blast for free" thing. Could use that sorta framework? "Rangers get these specific spells when they reach these levels, and when they cast them with a Ranger spell slot they require no components: Hunter's Mark, Pass Without Trace", etc. Maybe that's a workable compromise for a DM that doesn't want to open up the whole Ranger list?

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I don't get why the entire Ranger class should get something akin to permanent subtle spell because ONE aspect of their existence is... stalking? What about every spellcaster theme that leans into illusion, subtlety, and charm? If a spell is supposed to be sneaky overall, it shouldn't have the Verbal component in the first place.

I'd be fine if there were specific Ranger spells with Somatic-only components for specific stalking purposes, used like magical ranger signs/hand signals when hunting. For example, Pass Without Trace and Hunter's "Mark". I'd be ok if a sneaky character had a class ability, or could choose a feat, that gave them a limited ability to cast spells silently X times/long or short rest. But not all their magic should be subtle.

I subscribe to the thought that VSM Components (like clearly enunciated magic for Verbal Components), are an inherent balance factor for spellcasting. Magic has a manifestation too. Magic Weapon makes the weapon emanate an obvious magical aura. Subtle spellcasting can exist, but should be rare and limited and specific to theme.

 

[Scott Christian]

Once we play this ranger in a long campaign, then we can judge.

 

[Rocker26a]

I don't get why the entire Ranger class should get something akin to permanent subtle spell because ONE aspect of their existence is... stalking?

The stealth breaking bit isn't the only angle in this discussion, for me anyway. Some players dislike the idea of a Ranger muttering or gesticulating to cast spells from a flavour perspective, even outside of the mechanical implications. I see it a lot in Ranger discussions, some seem to dislike Ranger as a spellcasting class on that basis moreso than the spells themselves.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

The stealth breaking bit isn't the only angle in this discussion, for me anyway. Some players dislike the idea of a Ranger muttering or gesticulating to cast spells from a flavour perspective, even outside of the mechanical implications. I see it a lot in Ranger discussions, some seem to dislike Ranger as a spellcasting class on that basis moreso than the spells themselves.

I like Rangers getting "primal" spellcasting, but that is because I accept the canon that the multiverse of D&D has lots of magic in it. Base races cast spells as part of their inherent function.

I don't play Harn.

But I understand the desire to have a spell-less ranger. Or a spell-less bard. Or an invocation-only warlock. I'm glad if a lot of 3rd parties create balanced, fun, spell-less rangers. I as a DM would likely allow them at my table as long as they weren't obviously busted (which should be less of a problem in the new paradigm of flexibility and effectiveness that the 2024 classes embrace).

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

You're treating magic and spellcasting as entirely homogenous, it's like an extension of that point "well why doesn't everyone in a fantasy setting learn magic", not everyone can. Not everyone has learned the right lessons, not everyone can apply the right lens... And even if something does click into place for you, that's only one approach amongst many. A Wizard is different to a Cleric is different to a Bard. And so for the half casters and beneath. "oh well these classes flatly know more about/practice more magic so they should have access to every practice" doesn't scan.

Perhaps the reason the ranger is just a half-caster is that they spend so much effort on learning to cast quietly. If wotc didn't hate rangers they could introduce a feature like: "The ranger can call upon the power of nature with barely a whisper. The verbal component of your spells can't be heard by other creatures unless you want them to"

 

[Scott Christian]

Perhaps the reason the ranger is just a half-caster is that they spend so much effort on learning to cast quietly. If wotc didn't hate rangers they could introduce a feature like: "The ranger can call upon the power of nature with barely a whisper. The verbal component of your spells can't be heard by other creatures unless you want them to"

The ranger casting without verbal components (or somatic) is an old idea. The difficulty with bringing it up as a problem right now is - we don't know how it may interact with other class abilities. And since everyone likes to complain (or cheer) about the min/max multi-class combination, then we shouldn't be judging until we see gameplay.

 

[mellored]

t should be fine that they can cast Jump to get up to the canopy without breaking stealth.

I don't see an issue with quiet jump, or probably most other exploration spells.

Easy enough to make it that way if rangers had invocations.

It's quiet attacks, especially repeatable ones, that is not good.

 

[Rocker26a]

Perhaps the reason the ranger is just a half-caster is that they spend so much effort on learning to cast quietly.

Yeah that's a nice way of considering it. I tend to contextualize it along the lines of "spellcasting to a Ranger is like Displacement is to a Displacer Beast, or Teleporting is to a Blink Dog, it's as natural and instinctual as any magical ability is for any other magical creature, because that's fundamentally what a Ranger is.", but I like that context as well.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I am really wondering what that strong ability/change is, that treantmonk hinted at.