D&D 5E The Ranger

[Psikerlord#]

No. It's not.

It's available as familiar. Not an animal companion.

A warlock familiar, not a normal Find Familiar spell I think

 

[Antz7766]

Just went over the Find Familiar spell and I believe that's correct. It's just a familiar that takes on an animal form, and they provided the list of possible forms in the spell description, though it still gets telepathy.

 

[CKO]

My DM let me use pseudodragon because I got a 28 on my trinket roll, and the theme is really cool.

 

[Gadget]

I think the thing that surprised people the most about the Ranger in this edition (outside the 'Beastmaster' archetype), is that they went with a more spell casting focus than has been the trend over the last few editions. However, I think, upon further reflection, this was a easy way to give Rangers a lot of flavorful and powerful class abilities that are more Ranger focused. The spell list is no longer a hodge podge of semi-random spells left over from other classes' spell lists, put a collection of focused, and cool abilities that suite a variety of Ranger styles. Some of the spells are low key enough to be flavored as hyper-tracker/hunter abilities rather than overt magic. I think 4e burned the designers on giving 'magical' abilities to more martial oriented classes, so they just lumped many Ranger class features in as spells to avoid excessive complaints about artificial limitations on martial abilities.

 

[doctorhook]

I think the thing that surprised people the most about the Ranger in this edition (outside the 'Beastmaster' archetype), is that they went with a more spell casting focus than has been the trend over the last few editions. However, I think, upon further reflection, this was a easy way to give Rangers a lot of flavorful and powerful class abilities that are more Ranger focused. The spell list is no longer a hodge podge of semi-random spells left over from other classes' spell lists, put a collection of focused, and cool abilities that suite a variety of Ranger styles. Some of the spells are low key enough to be flavored as hyper-tracker/hunter abilities rather than overt magic. I think 4e burned the designers on giving 'magical' abilities to more martial oriented classes, so they just lumped many Ranger class features in as spells to avoid excessive complaints about artificial limitations on martial abilities.

I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion--that 5E rangers are extra-magical to avoid the "What can a martial character do?" question--but I think your premise is spot on. The ranger concept has fluctuated a lot between editions, and 5E leaves the ranger looking a little confused compared to 4E, where the ranger was virtually non-magical. (3E/3.5E had the ranger and the scout classes, and 4E's "ranger" was a lot closer to the scout.)

 

[Raith5]

I think the thing that surprised people the most about the Ranger in this edition (outside the 'Beastmaster' archetype), is that they went with a more spell casting focus than has been the trend over the last few editions. However, I think, upon further reflection, this was a easy way to give Rangers a lot of flavorful and powerful class abilities that are more Ranger focused. The spell list is no longer a hodge podge of semi-random spells left over from other classes' spell lists, put a collection of focused, and cool abilities that suite a variety of Ranger styles. Some of the spells are low key enough to be flavored as hyper-tracker/hunter abilities rather than overt magic. I think 4e burned the designers on giving 'magical' abilities to more martial oriented classes, so they just lumped many Ranger class features in as spells to avoid excessive complaints about artificial limitations on martial abilities.

Agree with this: this was one of those design choices which was marking a clear demarcation from the previous edition. I have always loved rangers but I never really grokked the spell casting ranger even in 1e/2e days. So I just passed over the 5e ranger. For me it is a flavour thing: having spells to find traps or pass without a trace makes as much sense as Rogues having to cast a spell to open a lock. I just think that a ranger having to cast a spell like good berry could be better flavoured as a herbalism ability, etc. But I guess you could play the ranger spells as an inherent ability of some kind.

 

[gweinel]

Agree with this: this was one of those design choices which was marking a clear demarcation from the previous edition. I have always loved rangers but I never really grokked the spell casting ranger even in 1e/2e days. So I just passed over the 5e ranger. For me it is a flavour thing: having spells to find traps or pass without a trace makes as much sense as Rogues having to cast a spell to open a lock. I just think that a ranger having to cast a spell like good berry could be better flavoured as a herbalism ability, etc. But I guess you could play the ranger spells as an inherent ability of some kind.

Exactly my thoughts. I really detest the flavour of 5e ranger. He is too magical for my taste. Also, the beastmaster, a favored character archetype (as summoner or a druid with animal companion) is not fun to play, for me at least. It is funny, because one of the thing that they advertised is the support of multiple playing style. I think, at the start, and as far i know from the infos regarding DMG, it is not supported neither the classical summoner (wizard or druid) nor the aragorn-style ranger.

 

[Sigbjorn_86]

Agree with this: this was one of those design choices which was marking a clear demarcation from the previous edition. I have always loved rangers but I never really grokked the spell casting ranger even in 1e/2e days. So I just passed over the 5e ranger. For me it is a flavour thing: having spells to find traps or pass without a trace makes as much sense as Rogues having to cast a spell to open a lock. I just think that a ranger having to cast a spell like good berry could be better flavoured as a herbalism ability, etc. But I guess you could play the ranger spells as an inherent ability of some kind.

From what I can tell, giving almost every class some form of spellcasting was an attempt to replicate 4E's powers in the absence of any unified AEDU-type system. Rather than give each class separate, class-specific mechanics, the designers gave most of the classes some form of spellcasting and rolled the 4E-style powers into them. This is most evident in the Paladin and Ranger classes. Unfortunately for the ranger, the designers rolled too many class features into spellcasting, so different pillars compete against each other for resources. Hopefully this is an oversight, since it would be akin to asking a Rogue, "Do you want to Sneak Attack or pick locks today?"

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I'm really not a fan of ranger spellcasting, but I have to admit that the fighter and rogue do a good enough job of doing what a 4e-style martial ranger does that a 5e ranger eith no magic might be a bit redundant for the PHB1.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I have always liked the ranger class.

However, the 5e ranger was the first class that I read in the book which was 'meh'. Every other class, I want to play a PC with each of the classes and subclasses - they are all so excellent and flavourful!

The ranger was just 'meh' though. Favoured enemy has become essentially worthless, and favoured terrain even more so. If those had been abilities that rangers get in every terrain, it would be great, but as it is - so circumstantial.

"Wow, this forest is really thick. Good job we hired a ranger to help us find our way"
"Sorry mate, I'm a swamp ranger. I don't know woods. Or mountains. Or anything else. In swamps I'm your man though!"

Or do people planning a long overland trip have to hire a whole bunch of rangers?
"Right, we've got our mountain ranger, our forest ranger, our grasslands ranger. Where is the swamp ranger?"
"Oh, he was hired by some people earlier who were heading for the Great Forest. They didn't ask him too many questions first"

5e rangers are the only big 5e disappointment for me.