mach1.9pants
Hero
I disagree, from 3E on (and this edition) Barbarian = Berserker. Yes nature stuff but RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE is the Barbarians point of difference
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E The Ranger: You got spellcasting in my peanut butter!
- Thread starter Andor
- Start date
I disagree, from 3E on (and this edition) Barbarian = Berserker. Yes nature stuff but RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE is the Barbarians point of difference
Psikerlord#
Explorer
Ah damn youre right. All barbs rage in 5e dont they. Hmm.
ZombieRoboNinja
First Post
Let me say first off that I would prefer the ranger have a different resource system for his abilities, because I hate spell slots.
That said, I can think of plenty of strong martial archetypes that COULD get a full class write up with abilities just as unique and iconic (from a flavor perspective) as a martial ranger. A knight who excels at mounted combat and courtly manners; a swashbuckler with acrobatic fighting technique and a rapier wit; a master tactician; and so on. In fact, a lot of those hold together a whole lot better than the "iconic" D&D ranger who is good at tracking and dual wielding (for some reason) and being really racist against specific types of monsters. But those all get tucked into fighter and rogue for the same of simplicity and modularity. In fact, the only reason the barbarian and monk escape that fate is that they have their own tradition within D&D. (Which is to say, anything in the 3e PHB got a free pass.)
And you know what? It's fine by me that there aren't 30 martial classes in 5e. That encourages them to make the classes they do have more thematically flexible, rather than trying to come up with mechanical gimmicks for a bunch of similar classes. If the martial ranger as a full class is a casualty of that approach, I'm fine with it.
That said, I can think of plenty of strong martial archetypes that COULD get a full class write up with abilities just as unique and iconic (from a flavor perspective) as a martial ranger. A knight who excels at mounted combat and courtly manners; a swashbuckler with acrobatic fighting technique and a rapier wit; a master tactician; and so on. In fact, a lot of those hold together a whole lot better than the "iconic" D&D ranger who is good at tracking and dual wielding (for some reason) and being really racist against specific types of monsters. But those all get tucked into fighter and rogue for the same of simplicity and modularity. In fact, the only reason the barbarian and monk escape that fate is that they have their own tradition within D&D. (Which is to say, anything in the 3e PHB got a free pass.)
And you know what? It's fine by me that there aren't 30 martial classes in 5e. That encourages them to make the classes they do have more thematically flexible, rather than trying to come up with mechanical gimmicks for a bunch of similar classes. If the martial ranger as a full class is a casualty of that approach, I'm fine with it.
It is skill plus.
The Ranger (and to a greater extent the rogue) are classes that real on mechanically enforced skill rules.
Rangers don't just have high survival, stealth, and nature, it class class features that explain what it can do with survival , nature, and stealth skills.
The rogues just doesn't have high Stealth, Sleaight of hand, and deception, it has class features that
explain What it can do with stealth, sleight of hand, and deception.
The real issue is D&D is unusually afraid to have high level appropriate skill use without using spells.
The Ranger (and to a greater extent the rogue) are classes that real on mechanically enforced skill rules.
Rangers don't just have high survival, stealth, and nature, it class class features that explain what it can do with survival , nature, and stealth skills.
The rogues just doesn't have high Stealth, Sleaight of hand, and deception, it has class features that
explain What it can do with stealth, sleight of hand, and deception.
The real issue is D&D is unusually afraid to have high level appropriate skill use without using spells.
Mouseferatu
Hero
While I disagree that barbarian is the best way to go for spell-less ranger, the barbarian class is amazingly adaptable if you're willing to reflavor the rage. Not any sort of mechanical change, just descriptive.
For instance, one character I'm planning to build as soon as I have the PHB is a monk--not the D&D-style monk, I mean like the guys with the tonsures; historical European monk.
He doesn't like to fight, and he only uses a quarterstaff to do so. When he must, however, he is suffused with righteous faith, the power of his gods--or his faith in them--granting him resistance to damage, greater accuracy and strength, etc.
Mechanically, barbarian. In terms of flavor, appearance, or anything recognizable in-character, about the furthest thing from barbarian.
Which is a long way of saying, you probably could do a spell-less ranger with the barbarian. As I said, I don't think it's the only way, or even the best way, but it's doable.
For instance, one character I'm planning to build as soon as I have the PHB is a monk--not the D&D-style monk, I mean like the guys with the tonsures; historical European monk.
He doesn't like to fight, and he only uses a quarterstaff to do so. When he must, however, he is suffused with righteous faith, the power of his gods--or his faith in them--granting him resistance to damage, greater accuracy and strength, etc.
Mechanically, barbarian. In terms of flavor, appearance, or anything recognizable in-character, about the furthest thing from barbarian.
Which is a long way of saying, you probably could do a spell-less ranger with the barbarian. As I said, I don't think it's the only way, or even the best way, but it's doable.
Gradine
The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
So play a Ranger that never casts spells.
Burn your spell slots on class features and Hunter's Mark (hey, it was non-magical in 4e), and hunt, and track and leave no trails to your heart's content.
If you can successfully play a 3.5 Rogue without ever using Sneak Attack once (which I have), you can successfully play a 5e Ranger without casting spells.
Burn your spell slots on class features and Hunter's Mark (hey, it was non-magical in 4e), and hunt, and track and leave no trails to your heart's content.
If you can successfully play a 3.5 Rogue without ever using Sneak Attack once (which I have), you can successfully play a 5e Ranger without casting spells.
AverageCitizen
Explorer
I was actually thinking something like this. But in that case you are kind of shooting yourself in the foot in terms of versatility.
Also, I used to hate ranger spells, but really they have been getting better over the last few interations. Rangers feel a lot more... rangery... than they used to.
AverageCitizen
Explorer
According to the most recent playtest, they get 2 first level spells per day at level 3. They don't get cantrips.
