D&D 5E 5th edition Ranger: Why does every class have to have it's own schtick?

[Jessica]

Such as? I don't recall Strider ever ensnaring an orc with vines that sprout from his weapon, or turning his skin to tree bark, or breathing underwater.

How about the instances of Rangers in fiction that came about since the Lord of the Rings where said Rangers summon animals or ensnare people with arrows or using magical traps? Original sources don't just refer to Lord of the Rings but may include fiction that has developed since that has in turn influenced our current idea of what Rangers are. I don't imagine that the Peers of Charlemagne cast magic spells, but magic spells are tied heavily to most modern interpretations of what a Paladin is.

The same argument could be made for any nonmagical class. In Pirates of the Caribbean, Jack Sparrow uses an overturned boat to walk underwater in flagrant defiance of the laws of buoyancy. Does that mean he's effectively cast the underwater breathing spell? And should all rogues thus get spellcasting and put that spell on their list?

If it's something that becomes standard in our perception of Rogues then yes. D&D keeps a lot of non-magical classes(with the primary exception of the Monk) tightly restricted to "realism" while giving carte blanche to magical classes to break realism. If our concept of Rogues was less shady person who stole things and stabbed people in the back and more like fictional ninjas/shadowdancers/MMO rogues then we would probably have a similar issue where you either give Rogues a class features list a mile long or give them a list of spells and spellcasting ability to mimic what supernatural abilities fiction clearly has them doing. D&D culture seems to have decided that (non-EK) Fighters and (non-AT) Rogues are heavily restricted by the rules of realism, so for now we don't have Rogues doing what some Rogues are capable of doing in fiction. Until we have a major revolution in the game/culture that allows for all "non-magical" classes to be supernatural to some extent either via popular interpretation or rules, then we are stuck in this rut of having to shoehorn in spellcasting(or some other magical resource system like ki) into most classes that we determine surpass the bounds of "realism". Because of the hidebound nature of our community, I don't expect any major changes to occur in either regards to D&D rules or D&D culture until many of the old school players are dead and buried.

 

[Mephista]

I'm honestly getting sick of the whole Aragorn arguments. Its like you can't expect concepts to evolve or grow past one thing? I mean, hells. Aragorn is more paladin than ranger anyways! And its not like there's not other inspirations behind the Ranger class.

 

[Xeviat]

It's going to be hard to please everybody. I do think the ranger should have spells and an animal companion as base. I think there should also be a Scout Rogue subclass and a Hunter Fighter subclass to cover the nonmagical rangers. I do feel like classes need to have their own thing, and an animal companion would definitely be it's own thing. For those who don't want an animal companion on the ranger, I'd have a "passive" companion option (like a hawk or something that can't be targeted), giving sensory benefits or something instead of combat benefits.

By putting each of the divisive ranger things into a subclass, you're going to run into people who are then not able to do things with the class. I want magic and a pet on the ranger; I can do that with the current Beast Master.

As for the current beast master, as long as you pick the "right" companion, your damage is not lower than the standard ranger "EXCEPT" for the lack of hunter's mark on the pet. In my games, I've reordered some of the companion features and gave them share spells from the get go (I made an animal companion spell, like find familiar, that the beast master buffs, like the chain warlock).

 

[Xeviat]

As for ranger's and spells, I think the ranger has spells for the same reason that the Bard and Paladin have spells: both tradition and because they are the fantastic interpretations of real world archetypes. The knight in shinning armor didn't have spells. Traveling minstrels didn't have spells. Woodsmen didn't have spells. But the mythology attributes supernatural powers to them, and those translate to spells in D&D. Few people ask for a spell-less bard or a spell-less paladin; both could be done with a subclass for the fighter and rogue.

 

[Corpsetaker]

This isn't WoW and not everyone wants to play Drizzt so pets should not be standard.

I would give the Ranger combat bonuses with Favoured Enemy, I would give the class Superiority dice like the fighter but give them Ranger only options.

 

[S'mon]

How about the instances of Rangers in fiction that came about since the Lord of the Rings where said Rangers summon animals or ensnare people with arrows or using magical traps? Original sources don't just refer to Lord of the Rings but may include fiction that has developed since that has in turn influenced our current idea of what Rangers are. I don't imagine that the Peers of Charlemagne cast magic spells, but magic spells are tied heavily to most modern interpretations of what a Paladin is.



If it's something that becomes standard in our perception of Rogues then yes. D&D keeps a lot of non-magical classes(with the primary exception of the Monk) tightly restricted to "realism" while giving carte blanche to magical classes to break realism. If our concept of Rogues was less shady person who stole things and stabbed people in the back and more like fictional ninjas/shadowdancers/MMO rogues then we would probably have a similar issue where you either give Rogues a class features list a mile long or give them a list of spells and spellcasting ability to mimic what supernatural abilities fiction clearly has them doing. D&D culture seems to have decided that (non-EK) Fighters and (non-AT) Rogues are heavily restricted by the rules of realism, so for now we don't have Rogues doing what some Rogues are capable of doing in fiction. Until we have a major revolution in the game/culture that allows for all "non-magical" classes to be supernatural to some extent either via popular interpretation or rules, then we are stuck in this rut of having to shoehorn in spellcasting(or some other magical resource system like ki) into most classes that we determine surpass the bounds of "realism". Because of the hidebound nature of our community, I don't expect any major changes to occur in either regards to D&D rules or D&D culture until many of the old school players are dead and buried.

I find these "culture" arguments quite shocking on the one hand, but on the other yes I
have seen this "Fighters can't have nice stuff" thing. What gets me is that we are talking about a very abrupt shift in gamer culture with the release of 3e D&D in 2000. Before then the idea that Fighters couldn't eg use wands of fireballs would have been laughable - Unearthed Arcana says they can! Likewse the idea that Paladins and Rangers are defined by spellcasting must be a 2000/3e thing. The 3.0 Ranger was quite lame, but then with 3.5e in 2003 it went full Wilderninja. Castles & Crusades released in 2004 has non-casting Paladins & Rangers which I like much better, but C&C was being consciously
retro. 4e D&D had Martial non-casty Ranger, which I also like, but apparently it's the 3.5 PHB which has set the dominant meme of the last 15 years?

 

[S'mon]

Few people ask for a spell-less bard or a spell-less paladin; both could be done with a subclass for the fighter and rogue.

Me! Me! Again, I liked the spell-less C&C Bard and spell-less C&C Paladin a lot. The C&C Bard was kickass, much better than the travelling minstrel (lame) spell slinging rogue of 3e.
The 5e Bard takes it up so far beyond 11 it kinda makes it cool again - it's a better spellcaster
than Sorcerer or Warlock and fits traditional Merlin-type or Gandalf-type wizards better than the
Wizard class does.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

How about the instances of Rangers in fiction that came about since the Lord of the Rings where said Rangers summon animals or ensnare people with arrows or using magical traps?

I repeat: such as?

Original sources don't just refer to Lord of the Rings but may include fiction that has developed since that has in turn influenced our current idea of what Rangers are.

Sure, but this argument doesn't get you where you want to go unless you go further and say that Strider and other nonmagical woodsman characters are not an influence at all. Because strapping spells to the ranger class excludes those characters from the class. But having the base ranger be nonmagical with optional spellcasting includes everybody.

I don't imagine that the Peers of Charlemagne cast magic spells, but magic spells are tied heavily to most modern interpretations of what a Paladin is.

They were devout Christians who prayed to God to give them strength in battle because of their purity and faith. That's explicitly supernatural power. Not analogous to the ranger archetype.

Until we have a major revolution in the game/culture that allows for all "non-magical" classes to be supernatural to some extent either via popular interpretation or rules, then we are stuck in this rut of having to shoehorn in spellcasting(or some other magical resource system like ki) into most classes that we determine surpass the bounds of "realism". Because of the hidebound nature of our community, I don't expect any major changes to occur in either regards to D&D rules or D&D culture until many of the old school players are dead and buried.

It's starting to sound like you've had some bad experiences in this regard. I'm sorry you had them, but please understand that in pushing for explicitly supernatural abilities to be the default you are attempting to impose your preferred playstyle on other groups just as much as whoever soured you so much on "realism" did to you. People who want "realistic" non-magical classes are not having badwrongfun. They have just as much right to play the game their way as you have to play yours. And the way everybody gets what they want is if spells are optional, like they are for the fighter and the rogue.

I mean, hells. Aragorn is more paladin than ranger anyways!

Nope, definitely not a ranger!

Aragorn switched careers sometime around or after the Battle of Helm's Deep. "Put aside the ranger. Become who you were born to be." Fortunately D&D has rules for doing that too.

And its not like there's not other inspirations behind the Ranger class.

Sure, but like I said, a class that outright excludes Aragorn is questionable. Conan is not the only barbarian character, but if the barbarian class had a feature which implied Conan wasn't a barbarian at all, that would be a problem, wouldn't it?

Just because people's PCs died before level 8 doesn't really mean that it isn't a core part of the class.

I have to say, it really does. Would it be okay if wizards didn't get spells until level 8? Of course not, because spells are core to the wizard.

 

[Sacrosanct]

But it did include getting spells as they levelled up. Just because people's PCs died before level 8 doesn't really mean that it isn't a core part of the class. I guess this also means that rangers in 3e all died before reaching level 4. If you want to play a wilderness outlander who doesn't cast spells and/or have a pet, they have the fighter for that.

People might be arguing for spells not to be part of the default ranger class, but I'm arguing that it should be.

This bears repeating again. Level 8 might not seem like a high level now, but in AD&D it was. This context is very important. Yeah, rangers eventually got spells. But most of the actual time spent gaming with them, they didn't have it. Just like thieves casting spells off of scrolls. Sure, they could eventually do it, but it was hardly what people considered a big chunk of their identity. Especially since AD&D had a much higher lethality than modern editions, and many of your PCs did die before they got to high level. I don't think as many 3e PCs died before making it to level 4. This isn't some brief offshoot of the class we're talking about either, but how it was built for the majority of it's entire lifecycle in D&D.

 

[Xeviat]

This bears repeating again. Level 8 might not seem like a high level now, but in AD&D it was. This context is very important. Yeah, rangers eventually got spells. But most of the actual time spent gaming with them, they didn't have it. Just like thieves casting spells off of scrolls. Sure, they could eventually do it, but it was hardly what people considered a big chunk of their identity. Especially since AD&D had a much higher lethality than modern editions, and many of your PCs did die before they got to high level. I don't think as many 3e PCs died before making it to level 4. This isn't some brief offshoot of the class we're talking about either, but how it was built for the majority of it's entire lifecycle in D&D.

That's also implying, though, that everyone started from 1st level and made players restart 1st level characters if their character died.