D&D 5E Why Has D&D, and 5e in Particular, Gone Down the Road of Ubiquitous Magic?

[jayoungr]

That's like saying words have no meaning, because colloquial use can change their meaning.......

But given enough time, colloquial use does change meanings. Saying it doesn't is like saying awful still means "producing awe," or that meat can refer to any type of food, not just animal flesh.

Anyway, my point is that there isn't just one way to do a Ranger. It's far less fixed than many of the other classes, and far harder to pin down as to what the necessary features are. The various editions of D&D have tried out different versions of the Ranger. I reject the idea that the 1E version is intrinsically more valid than the others, although it does have the status of being the original.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

But given enough time, colloquial use does change meanings. Saying it doesn't is like saying awful still means "producing awe," or that meat can refer to any type of food, not just animal flesh.

Anyway, my point is that there isn't just one way to do a Ranger. It's far less fixed than many of the other classes, and far harder to pin down as to what the necessary features are. The various editions of D&D have tried out different versions of the Ranger. I reject the idea that the 1E version is intrinsically more valid than the others, although it does have the status of being the original.

Just because it can change, doesn't mean it should change. Nor that we should encourage the said change. I did not chose the decimation example in vain. I feel the same way about the way i feel about the ranger.

And what makes you think the other classes are more fixated? Today the ranger, tomorrow someone else. It would not be all that surprising if one day the fighter is they guy that argues the most, LOL....

 

[Caliban]

I didn't. I picked a fighter. For the first time in my DnD history, i picked a fighter with an outlander background to be a classical 1E and 2E ranger. I find it a wee bit insulting that a class and background combo represents the class better then the name holder.

Why? Don't get so hung up on the name. If the class/background combination achieves what you want in a wilderness warrior, it doesn't matter what the book calls it.

The class names are just convenient labels. The role the character plays is in your hands.

 

[Sunseeker]

Why? Don't get so hung up on the name. If the class/background combination achieves what you want in a wilderness warrior, it doesn't matter what the book calls it.

The class names are just convenient labels. The role the character plays is in your hands.

While I agree, we have had numerous threads discussing the under-performance of the Ranger in 5E relative to the rest of the game. We know that the current incarnation of the Ranger is lackluster.

Whatever class has the best mechanics to actualize your concept is the one you should use to build, regardless of if it says "cleric", "ranger" or otherwise. But it can still be difficult to actualize a concept when the default presentation is lame.

 

[S'mon]

Some people have a very strong dislike for 4e, and might have a similar distaste for the ranger if it had hunter's mark as a class feature. By moving it to a spell, they gave each individual player the choice to either take it or not.

IME the real effect of making Hunter's Mark, Eldritch Blast etc into chosen spells is that new players don't realise they have to take these to be effective - they probably don't read the description of every cantrip & 0th level spell in their spell lists, they just take what looks cool. I know I play a Paladin, & I certainly haven't read through every spell on his list to work out what I 'should' be doing. The result is nerfed, ineffective PCs, like the Warlock in my online game who took Poison Spray instead of Eldritch Blast. This stuff should be core class abilities, 4e hatred aside. If you need it to make your PC as functional as the other classes, it shouldn't be hidden in spell lists.

 

[Mouseferatu]

While I agree, we have had numerous threads discussing the under-performance of the Ranger in 5E relative to the rest of the game. We know that the current incarnation of the Ranger is lackluster.

No, we know that a lot of people think it is. Not the same thing.

Me? I'm not fond of the beastmaster and think it has problems, but the hunter? Perfectly good and flavorful class/subclass, and a perfectly non-lackluster ranger.

 

[Fanaelialae]

IME the real effect of making Hunter's Mark, Eldritch Blast etc into chosen spells is that new players don't realise they have to take these to be effective - they probably don't read the description of every cantrip & 0th level spell in their spell lists, they just take what looks cool. I know I play a Paladin, & I certainly haven't read through every spell on his list to work out what I 'should' be doing. The result is nerfed, ineffective PCs, like the Warlock in my online game who took Poison Spray instead of Eldritch Blast. This stuff should be core class abilities, 4e hatred aside. If you need it to make your PC as functional as the other classes, it shouldn't be hidden in spell lists.

There's certainly some truth to what you're saying, but I think you're overstating the issue. A warlock doesn't need Eldritch Blast to be a functional character, even if Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast + Hex is the magic formula for maximized DPR. Hunter's Mark isn't a great spell for a melee based Ranger, given that it is concentration based, so its certainly not a necessity for all rangers.

The choice of Poison Spray is simply unfortunate, as that spell is generally considered to be a poor one. A warlock casting Fire Bolt certainly won't have the highest DPR in the party, but he's competent in DPR and does have an extra Invocation that the Agonizing Blast 'lock doesn't. Perhaps he takes Mask of Many Faces instead and acts as the con man of the party, infiltrating and undermining the enemy. He won't be at the top of any DPR meters, but his damage should be adequate and he has other uses as well (which can potentially save the party many more hit points than the "magic formula").

You only "need" it to make your PC effective at dishing out DPR if the other players are optimizing for DPR and you want to keep up with them. If they're optimizing, then it's likely (some would say inevitable) that they will help the new player optimize his character. There's nothing (AFAIK) preventing you from advising your warlock to trade Poison Spray for Eldritch Blast when next he levels. On the other hand, in a more casual game it can be a lot of fun to have non-optimized characters. Characters who might not push the boundaries of DPR, but instead have interesting options for non-combat problem resolution that damage-focused builds won't have. IME, new players are the best for this, since they typically approach the game without any preconceived notions.

 

[jayoungr]

Some people have a very strong dislike for 4e, and might have a similar distaste for the ranger if it had hunter's mark as a class feature. By moving it to a spell, they gave each individual player the choice to either take it or not.

IME the real effect of making Hunter's Mark, Eldritch Blast etc into chosen spells is that new players don't realise they have to take these to be effective ... This stuff should be core class abilities, 4e hatred aside. If you need it to make your PC as functional as the other classes, it shouldn't be hidden in spell lists.

I think there's a different factor at work: I think they wanted to reduce the attractiveness of multiclassing. If attractive abilities are restricted by class, then the only way to get them is to take a certain number of levels in that class. Making them spells, and making it so that every class has access to spells (either baked in or through a feat), exponentially increases the ways to customize a single-classed character.

And it makes things much simpler and more customizable if there's only one type of mix and match feature. They could have "spells" and non-magical "abilities" that every class could choose from, but then you'd have to figure out which capability goes where and how many of each one each class would get. I guess this is what feats used to be for, but they wanted to make feats optional in this edition. Also, making them feats would still leave the problem of how to parcel them out. Say you want to customize your character with four spells and one ability, but at a certain level you have access to three spells and two abilities. Well, then you have to take an ability you don't want for now, and wait for a future level to get that fourth spell.

I seriously doubt it was done just out of 4E backlash; if that were the motivation, they wouldn't have put hunter's mark in the game at all.

Apologies if this has been said before. I haven't read the whole thread.

P.S. Helping newbies is what the "quick builds" are for.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I seriously doubt it was done just out of 4E backlash; if that were the motivation, they wouldn't have put hunter's mark in the game at all.

While I doubt any design decision was made for only one reason, I do doubt that catering to edition-war sentiments was every one of the man ones. But if defusing the rationalizations for the edition war wasn't in there somewhere, I'd be surprised, simply because they could hardly fail to be aware of it, or the amount of ill will it had generated. So, when a 4e-like mechanic was deemed the best fit, it was at least given a non-4e name, preferably a decidedly classic one, like Hit Dice. Where a 4e name was preserved, it was appended to something that didn't have the objectionable qualities of the original. Hunter's Quarry in 4e was a martial class feature, in 5e, Hunter's Mark is a spell, it doesn't have the same impact on the feel of the game.

Other factors that Humter's Mark as a spell may have helped with: It was an easier design to implement, spell mechanics were already in place, so just re-use them. It had built-in flexibility (don't see your ranger as using it? don't ever cast it). It could be cast on any opponent instead of having positioning requirements, supporting TotM and fast combat.

But, one of those, recycling spell mechanics to conserve design resources, is a pretty plausible reason for the pervasiveness of PC casting in 5e.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Hunter's Mark isn't a great spell for a melee based Ranger, given that it is concentration based, so its certainly not a necessity for all rangers.

Why? Don't get so hung up on the name. If the class/background combination achieves what you want in a wilderness warrior, it doesn't matter what the book calls it.

The class names are just convenient labels. The role the character plays is in your hands.

It doesn't (achieve the goal of the wilderness warrior), it's just the next best thing. But despite the cosmetics, the outlander fighter is just an outdoorsy fighter, not a ranger. There are still things the ranger class has that fit the ranger archetype (Land's stride and favorite terrain i.e.). Which means you need to MC. Even if your DM is OK with you MC-ing, it leads to mechanical problems, like stat requirements. That is extra baggage. So no, it's not a solution, not by long shot. And refluffing spells leads into even more mechanical difficulties. And now the paladins seam to take the same road, except they still have the slot to smite conversion to save their face.

BTW, my quarrel with the ranger isn't about how viable the class is in play. I don't think it's a dog. I just don't think it should be the name holder for the type of play it requires.