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

[bganon]

I'd think a Ranger using all their slots for spamming Hunter's Mark would be essentially "non-magical" as far as anyone in the game world would be concerned.

The playtest had Primeval Awareness, too, which was another "barely magical" use for spell slots.

 

[Xodis]

It most certainly does not! D&D is not an abstract strategy game. If this logic applied to D&D, there would be no need for "rulings over rules." Chess doesn't need a DM.

At its core, D&D is a game of pretend. It's not all that different from when one kid says "I'm Batman!" and another says "Well, I'm Wonder Woman!" and they start fighting imaginary criminals. The rules exist to help the kids decide what happens when the imaginary Joker throws imaginary razor-edged playing cards at Batman. When the kids start debating whether Batman can dodge the playing cards, the rules offer a common ground and a set of tools with which to reach an answer. Sometimes, strict adherence to the rules produces silly results, in which case the kids can say "That's silly" and ignore them. This is one of the reasons Rule Zero was invented. But in most cases the rules provide decent answers.

Because the rules are tools for answering questions about the fiction, however, they can't be separated from it. When the rules say that Batman can only throw 3 Batarangs per day, that is a statement about the fictional world. It shouldn't be necessary for the kids to dream up ad hoc rationalizations for why Batman is choosing not to throw any more Batarangs. The rules have no authority over what Batman chooses to do, only over the results of his decisions.

If Batman was the only one playing this game it would be fine, but since Batman can do everything with his Batarangs, the rules are there to make sure that Wonder Woman can still play and enjoy herself.

Add Superman to the equation, "I can CHOOSE to shoot laser eyes unlimited times per day. Im faster than everyone too, so I hit Joker with Laser Eyes and defeat him."
Batman "Hey I was going to hit him with a Batarang!"
Superman "No worries, I handled it."
Batman "What am I suppose to do then?"
Superman "You can watch me beat all the other guys....wait, I'm too fast so you can't actually see it."
Batman "Guess I'll go home since you can do everything and Batman isn't special anymore."
...thats why there are limits on stuff.

 

[Andor]

The main issue as I see it is this: We all have ideas in our head about what a given class should be. And to a degree everyone is going to find something about some class that doesn't match what the given person wants that class to be. I for one, don't like rage focus of barbarians. I've never seen going into a berzerker rage as the defining act of a barbarian type character in any fantasy fiction. Often they are the most level headed and cold in their violence. So I have to deal with barbarians being explicitly rage focused in 5E. What are my options?

Yup. And my solution to this is the same as my solution to the Ranger issue and it's based on the same idea.

There's no such things as classes. I think this is more true for 5e than for any previous edition of D&D, even 3e. Inside the game world no one has any idea what classes are. The trappings of some classes are visible. Membership in a Druidic or Knightly Order. Divine Grace. Spell Casting. But even then they don't necessarily mean what you think they mean.

A member of the Druid order might be a druid, or a ranger, or a green knight. A professional travelling enchanter might be a wizard, or he might be a fighter with the Ritual Caster feat. A Guy in full plate on Unicorn with the symbol of Kord on his shield might be a Paladin. Might be a tempest Cleric. Might be a fighter with the acolyte background who bought or befriended a Unicorn. Might be a Ranger who picked up Full plate proficiency. If those guys met would they think they were different classes? Or would they just think Kord gave them different gifts?

I remember during the leadup to 3e I played in a promo game at a con. The party were all members of the same 'barbarian' tribe. Only one was the Barbarian class. Another was a Fighter, another was a Ranger, I forget the other two classes. Hell, I think I posted on EnWorld about the game at the time. At any rate the point was that this was like a revelation to us at the table. Class <> Fluff. A Barbarian with a temper is a Barbarian. A Barbarian who fights in a disciplined style in a Fighter. A woodsy Barbarian is a Ranger. All Barbarians, all different classes. 15 years and 2.5 editions onwards I'm surprised that some people still are trapped in the old 1e/2e mindset where a class was all you were or could do.

 

[evileeyore]

You don't have to be good at something to know how to do something others can't.

Arguably you would then be better at doing something than the person who can't do that thing. Those are called skills....

I know how to solder plumbing but I am not good at soldering larger diameter pipe cleanly.

So your argument is that at some point you who can solder a pipe should somehow gain the ability to "know how best to lay pipe" over say the guy who has been plumbing all his life (and in game mechanics actually put the skill Crafting: Plumber on his sheet)?

That's what the Ranger is doing. He's becoming the "best at this" without even needing the Proficiency or Ability scores...

Plenty of sports players have bad fundamentals but are really good at one thing.

Which is again arguably that they are really skilled at that one thing.

A ranger can know the procedure for all the ranger stuff. He just sucks at most of it.

Except he actually does these things better with no skill than the person whom has the skill... because why? He went to Ranger Academy? And flunked out of Stealth 101, Survival 101, and his mandatory Athletics courses?

And he gets these abilities later in life? Has he been fulfilling his mandatory continuing education credits or something? Ranger (K)Night School?

BARGLE!?!?!?!

Every experienced ranger knows how to move, attack, and hide. Every ranger however does not automatically know how to predict the weather, train a wild dog, or actually hide well.

And that's what I'm laughing at 5e over. The Ranger who can have an actual penalty to Stealth gets a handful of really neato Stealth (and other) based abilities because... eh... Master of Stealth?

Someday someone will come along and make a D&D game I really like. And most of you will hate it.

 

[evileeyore]

If Batman was the only one playing this game it would be fine, but since Batman can do everything with his Batarangs, the rules are there to make sure that Wonder Woman can still play and enjoy herself.

Add Superman to the equation, "I can CHOOSE to shoot laser eyes unlimited times per day. Im faster than everyone too, so I hit Joker with Laser Eyes and defeat him."
Batman "Hey I was going to hit him with a Batarang!"
Superman "No worries, I handled it."
Batman "What am I suppose to do then?"
Superman "You can watch me beat all the other guys....wait, I'm too fast so you can't actually see it."
Batman "Guess I'll go home since you can do everything and Batman isn't special anymore."
...thats why there are limits on stuff.

You know there are game systems that allow for the Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit to play together and be comparative.



D&D is not one of them.

 

[skotothalamos]

You don't get that? Really? I think it's always kind of been a thing. Let's look at the Ranger:

1E - No spells until 8th level - which was very far into many campaigns.
2E - No spells until 8th or 9th level, I forget. Again, very far into many campaigns and it was a very small bit of magic (everyone would have quite a few magic items etc. by then).
3.XE/PF - Default was spells from between 4th to 6th level (depending on WIS), but a lot of people disliked this and both 3.XE and PF have no-spellcasting variant Rangers (several in the case of PF, dunno how many for 3.XE).
4E - Ranger does not cast spells. Some powers seem magic-y, and a couple are obviously magic, but all of those can be chosen, or not chosen.
5E - Ranger cast spells from 2nd level, many features of Rangers from previous editions have outright become spells.

Just to be a pedantic completionist, 4e has a Ranger build that gains a daily spell at 2nd level, and keeps gaining more magic as it levels. It's the Essentials build.

 

[Xodis]

You know there are game systems that allow for the Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit to play together and be comparative.



D&D is one of them.

I disagree about D&D being one of them, and a game Angel Summoner is on equal footing with BMX Bandit, is a game I don't want to play.

 

[Andor]

And that's what I'm laughing at 5e over. The Ranger who can have an actual penalty to Stealth gets a handful of really neato Stealth (and other) based abilities because... eh... Master of Stealth?

Someday someone will come along and make a D&D game I really like. And most of you will hate it.

Actually I think what you're showing is that you can choose to make a character who has internal contradictions, because you chose to build him that way. You can do that in pretty much any system.

And really what's happening is that you're not building a character who's good at stealth/survival/whatever despite himself, you're building a character who really knows one area. The Jim-Bob the Forest ranger you describe is only adept in his favored terrain. He's good because he knows the area, not the skills. The guy who actually has stealth and survival is good anywhere.

 

[Dausuul]

If Batman was the only one playing this game it would be fine, but since Batman can do everything with his Batarangs, the rules are there to make sure that Wonder Woman can still play and enjoy herself.

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?"

Instead, the rules must set some reasonable limits on what a Batarang-throw can do, such that it doesn't completely outclass what a Lasso of Truth can do.

Add Superman to the equation, "I can CHOOSE to shoot laser eyes unlimited times per day. Im faster than everyone too, so I hit Joker with Laser Eyes and defeat him."
Batman "Hey I was going to hit him with a Batarang!"
Superman "No worries, I handled it."
Batman "What am I suppose to do then?"
Superman "You can watch me beat all the other guys....wait, I'm too fast so you can't actually see it."
Batman "Guess I'll go home since you can do everything and Batman isn't special anymore."
...thats why there are limits on stuff.

That's why the rules say nobody gets to play freakin' Superman.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's probably already been said, but, yes, a non-spell-casting Ranger could probably be done well enough as a Fighter with the right Background and maybe an appropriate Feat.

For a spellcasting Ranger, just use that same Fighter with Druid multi-class.


The spellcasting Ranger could be viewed as in the game for nothing more than the sake of Tradition and perhaps those not using MCing or Feats.