D&D 5E The Ranger: You got spellcasting in my peanut butter!

[evileeyore]

I'm afraid you've lost me completely. Are you complaining that the ranger doesn't need skill or that he does?

My compliant is "Rangers get all these cool benies without needing the Proficiency".

It makes sense to me that between two unskilled characters the one with the greater natural aptitude is superior.

Which one is that again? The with the attribute bonus or the one with the class perk?

Again, I don't view classes as existing so I don't care if it says ranger on the character sheet. If Bob's character is a Ranger with no outdoors skills, and Sally is playing a fighter with survival and Nature, I'm listening to Sally's character. She's got the chops.

Unless they are Tracking a simple set of tracks. At which point Bob so outclasses Sally it's fundimentally insane. But the moment those tracks cross a stream... Bob is lost (unless he's a 5th level Ranger, then he can't get lost in the wilderness, no matter how bad his Survival penalties are).

The above sentence is predicated on last playtest info and me kvetching to kvetch.

I wasn't in the late playtest so my only source for the current Ranger is the leaked alpha.

Yeah, in the last Alpha he had a magical Auto-Track Simple Things No Skill Need Apply ability.

Conversely I haven't seen the leaked Alpha, I do recall an earlier playtest with Favored Terrain, so I see where you're coming from.

 

[Tony Vargas]

One of the things the rules need to do is ensure that when Wonder Woman complains, "Is there anything Batman can't do with those stupid Batarangs?" there is an answer. Saying "No, Batman can do anything with his Batarangs, but he only throws them three times a day because, well, he just does" is no kind of answer. The Batman player will quite reasonably say, "Well, what if I do throw a fourth Batarang today? What happens then?"

Hero System has a really good solution to that problem (probably because it started as a superhero game and had to address such things right off the bat): it doesn't tell you how your powers work, you decide. So if you decide your character only carries 3 throwing weapons, he gets a limitation (cost break in the point-build system) for only having three available to throw. If you decide you can go pick them up and use them again, the limitation is reduced. Want to carry a 4th? The cost goes up, just fill in the difference with exp.

You can't pretend your powers don't make sense to you, because you made them, and you can change them.

 

[Remathilis]

I think I realize WHY I like the spells vs. "supernatural" ranger*

According to TWSNBN, rangers at 2nd level get two spell choices. Some of their spells are very obvious magic (alarm, fog cloud, hail of thorns) but some are very "low" magic (cure wounds could be herbcraft, hunter's mark and longstrider are self-buffs representing ranger-craft). This gives me the option to do a more "low magic feeling ranger or a high-magic/druidic one (or mix). Further,, if a new spell comes out, I can just take it, I don't need to revise the ranger class to include it.

Just for a further example: The Alpha gives a 20th level ranger 11 spells known and up to 5th level spells slots. Lets build a "low magic" ranger:

1. Cure Wounds (represents Herbcraft)
2. Hunter's Mark (ranger combat skill)
3. Longstrider (moving with supernatural speed in all terrains)
4. Find Traps (near supernatural sense of ambush)
5. Hunter's Veil (Wilderninja)
6. Nondetection (A ranger is only found when he wants to be)
7. Speak with Plants (The markings on this tree tells of danger)
8. Freedom of Movement (No bonds shall hold me)
9. Locate Creature (My tracking is nearly supernatural: "A hobbit lay here")
10. Commune with Nature (I can sense the world's ebb and flow)
11. Swift Quiver (I'm never without an arrow)

All of them can represent a near mystical bond with the earth and/or training beyond common woodsmen.

* At the very least, you need supernatural ability to make a ranger. A woodsman with only mundane skill is just a fighter with the outlander background.

 

[mestewart3]

Favored Enemy, Favored Terrain, 4 Skills, Expertise, Fighting Styles,
disengage/movement bonus actions. Dex/Str saves

 

[Remathilis]

Favored Enemy, Favored Terrain, 4 Skills, Expertise, Fighting Styles,
disengage/movement bonus actions. Dex/Str saves

Sounds like a variant rogue. Easy enough to house rule.

 

[Gradine]

Those who want to play a Ranger without fiddling with Vancian casting will unfortunately need to wait for the DMG, but I'm sure that book will have the answer to that problem.

Those who want to play to play a mundane outdoorsman with archery or two weapon fighting have the Fighter with appropriate background (and maybe a handy feat or two).

The Ranger (sans 4e core) has always been magical though, and for a very good reason that hasn't really been discussed. It's kind of the 900 pound gorilla in the room.

In D&D, regardless of setting, the natural world is inherently magical.

I'm sure Grizzly Adams always appreciates the name checking, but he doesn't really apply here, primarily because he operates in the real world. The real natural world doesn't have mischievous fey and dangerous aberrations and herbs with mystical healing properties (well depending on how sufficiently advanced you view pharmacology). D&D does. For the Ranger to exhibit mastery over the natural world, they need to be able to interact with every aspect of it, including the magical aspect. This is why the Ranger has magic.

From what I've seen, this edition has given the Ranger more unique magic, rather than just being Druid-lite. I'm pretty happy with it, myself.

3.5 didn't even get a magic-free Ranger in Unearthed Arcana, which the 5e DMG is shaping up to look a lot like. It's not something I would expect to see outside of homebrew, but then 5e seems the most homebrew friendly edition.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In D&D, regardless of setting, the natural world is inherently magical.
This is why the Ranger has magic.

By that logic, all classes should have magic. The battlefield of the D&D world is full of caster artillery, magic weapons, units of zombies animated by necromancers, stinking clouds, alchemical catapult payloads - so of course the fighter has magic. The underworld is rife with magical traps, alarm spells, illusions, black market spell components, and hot magic items that may be cursed, so, of course, the rogue has magic.

The Ranger (sans 4e core) has always been magical though, 3.5 didn't even get a magic-free Ranger in Unearthed Arcana.

The 3.5 'Scout' was prettymuch a non-magical Ranger.

 

[Minigiant]

Well to me, rangers have to be spell casters in 5e as past level 6, every thing in the wilderness is magical.

Fey
Magical beasts
Dragons
Giant animals
Animals with templates
Casters of monster races
Loner wizards
Evil druids

And unlike 4e, rangers aren't walking blenders and turrets. Or 1e where a ranger OHKOs everything.

 

[Gradine]

By that logic, all classes should have magic. The battlefield of the D&D world is full of caster artillery, magic weapons, units of zombies animated by necromancers, stinking clouds, alchemical catapult payloads - so of course the fighter has magic. The underworld is rife with magical traps, alarm spells, illusions, black market spell components, and hot magic items that may be cursed, so, of course, the rogue has magic.

The 3.5 'Scout' was prettymuch a non-magical Ranger.

I'll rephrase. The Ranger doesn't just have magic because it helps him do his job better. He has magic because he's a master of the natural world, and in D&D magic and nature are inextricably linked. Certainly in ways that martial prowess or run of the mill skullduggery and magic are not.

You got me on Scout, but then, that was a non-core splat.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'll rephrase. The Ranger doesn't just have magic because it helps him do his job better. He has magic because he's a master of the natural world, and in D&D magic and nature are inextricably linked. Certainly in ways that martial prowess or run of the mill skullduggery and magic are not.

How are magic and nature inextricably linked and not magic and battle or magic and civilization. There are gods of nature, but there are gods of war and gods of civilization, too. There are /very rare/ magical creatures in the wilderness, but magical creatures infest dungeons and cities, too, and any general who can scrounge any such beings up will certainly employ them in battle if he can. Likwise, in civilization and in warfare, people concentrate their greatest accomplishments and most fiendish ingenuity - certainly including magic of every type they can possibly command.

And are barbarians - born & raised in the wilderness - also magical, then? Actually, there are two barbarian builds, aparently one that rages the other that uses magical totems. It'd be wrongbadfun to have both a martial and a 'gish' Ranger why, exactly?

You got me on Scout, but then, that was a non-core splat.

It was the PHII.

Well to me, rangers have to be spell casters in 5e as past level 6, every thing in the wilderness is magical.

Are you suggesting that the wilderness morphs and becomes more magical based on the level of the adventurer traveling through it?