D&D 5E Why are non-caster Ranger themes so popular?

[Scribe]

OR....the ranger could have spell-like actions that aren't called "spells" and thus can't be counterspelled.

Heresy.

In all seriousness, I think its just another preference thing. I can see the logic, but I just dislike 'magical' things, being non-magical.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, this. A spell-less ranger could always have a caster subclass, or you could multiclass.

OR....the ranger could have spell-like actions that aren't called "spells" and thus can't be counterspelled.

I don’t even care that much if they can be counterspelled. I just want the ranger’s tricks to feel grounded in their affinity for the natural world, instead of the product of magic words and gestures. Call it magic if you must, but make it folk magic instead of sorcery. They’re called rangers, not magicians.

 

[Minigiant]

That quote is literally describing a preternaturally talented frontiersman.

Yes. But it is secondary.
The very first sentence states that they are hunters of monsters. The monster in D&D happen to be in the frontier, not in cities like WOD.

And D&D monsters are often crazily supernaturnal and magical.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes. But it is secondary.
The very first sentence states that they are hunters of monsters. The monster in D&D happen to be in the frontier, not in cities like WOD.

And D&D monsters are often crazily supernaturnal and magical.

Ok? The ranger doesn’t need to have spells to do that. Unless you’re suggesting every non-spellcasting class is ill-suited to fighting monsters, which… well, that may arguably be true in some editions, but most would consider that a bug.

 

[Minigiant]

Ok? The ranger doesn’t need to have spells to do that. Unless you’re suggesting every non-spellcasting class is ill-suited to fighting monsters, which… well, that may arguably be true in some editions, but most would consider that a bug.

D&D has way too much magical spells and monster features that can only be countered with magic. If they have counters at all.

If anything D&D rangers doesn't have access to enough magic.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I think there was a tendency from WotC in later playtests to have most ''resources using'' features be spells or magical. One good example would be Hunter's Mark; why is this a spell? Same with Snare; why does making a damned noose trap require a spell slots?

Nowaday, we have more different types of features, even highly magical ones, not using spell slots (ex: the rune knight, arcane archer etc).

I think mixing the hunter's features and the monster hunter's features as part of the main ranger chassis (with a healthy dose of the new features from Tasha's) would be the best way to do a spell less ranger.

 

[Charlaquin]

D&D has way too much magical spells and monster features that can only be countered with magic. If they have counters at all.

If anything D&D rangers doesn't have access to enough magic.

So, yes, your argument is that non-casters are unsuitable for fighting monsters. I can only say that I strongly disagree, and cannot imagine enjoying myself in a game where you had to play a caster to be effective in combat.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

If anything D&D rangers doesn't have access to enough magic.

I could see that.

Maybe, just like the Bard, Ranger could become a fullcaster with a mix of primal and arcane magic, mostly utility spells made to hunt, track, and counter the mystical beasts of your average D&D settings.

Then bring back the Warden from 4e as the 1/2 caster equivalent of that new ranger.

 

[Charlaquin]

I could see that.

Maybe, just like the Bard, Ranger could become a fullcaster with a mix of primal and arcane magic, mostly utility spells made to hunt, track, and counter the mystical beasts of your average D&D settings.

Then bring back the Warden from 4e as the 1/2 caster equivalent of that new ranger.

Oh, god, please no!

 

[Minigiant]

So, yes, your argument is that non-casters are unsuitable for fighting monsters. I can only say that I strongly disagree, and cannot imagine enjoying myself in a game where you had to play a caster to be effective in combat.

No. My argument is that D&D uses some problematic spells and monster features which require spells to counter efficiently.

Since rangers are supposed to fight monsters alone or in small groups, they need spells to do the things they are expected to do unless they have a network of allies, an army, or a patron to back them up.