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

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, I could see that. I guess I'd like to see it written in a way that you give up spellcasting completely. I.e., "You do not learn or cast any spells, however you still have your spell slots, which you can use to power the following abilities...."

Yeah, I would prefer that too. I do agree that design that requires you to ignore features is not ideal.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I could see that. I guess I'd like to see it written in a way that you give up spellcasting completely. I.e., "You do not learn or cast any spells, however you still have your spell slots, which you can use to power the following abilities...."

I could totally get behind that. It's an excellent direction for pretty much any subclass of a caster to go in a really flavorful direction.

 

[Campbell]

Prior to learning spell casting in AD&D Rangers lacked any sort of overt supernatural themes. If you never reached 8th level in those editions or if the sudden onset of spellcasting seemed pretty jarring it's easy to see why you might prefer a Ranger without spells based on actual play experience.

Paladins on the other hand started out with quite explicit divine magic even if they lacked spellcasting. In AD&D 2e a paladin started out immune to disease, could lay on hands, could detect evil intent, could cure disease once a week, and had an aura of protection. At 3rd level they could turn fiends and undead. It just kind of felt right to me when they started getting spellcasting earlier.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yeah, I would prefer that too. I do agree that design that requires you to ignore features is not ideal.

I feel the same way about druid and shapeshifting.

 

[Minigiant]

I think this got lost in the scrum. But this? This right here hits the nail on the head.

Not every campaign is chock a block with rakshasa or demons or other critters that are super high magical. Some campaigns focus more on mundane threats where magic and whatnot are not quite so prevalent in the world.

Now, I realize that default 5e is Potterverse where everyone that matters is a caster of some degree. But, allowing for a ranger that follows more the Barbarian route of having a few supernatural abilities rather than an outright spell list simply broadens the archetype and makes it more accessible for other types of campaigns. Note, no one is saying that it should be the only option in the game. It should be an option, not the only option. We have fighters that run the gamut from purely non-caster to half caster, so, why not rangers?

Because 5e designed that if you want a ranger with no spells for your low magic game, you run an outlander fighter uses the bonus feat for magic. Or you play the ranger and take the most mundane spells. It's not like you get many.

Really what is the difference between

1) 4/2 spell slots. hunter's mark, speak with animals, pass without trace, and lesser restoration known

and

2) hunter's mark 3/day, speak with animals 1/day, pass without trace 1/day, and lesser restoration 1/day

and

3) 4/2spell slots. You can use them to fuel subclass features.

Ranger Knight: You know hunter's mark, speak with animals, pass without trace, and lesser restoration

But, the default description of rangers is protectors of the wilderness. What are demons doing in the wilderness? Aren't demons pretty much always found around those who summon them? It's not like you have demons on the random encounter tables for most wildernesses.

To put it another way - demon hunter isn't a typical ranger concept and lies pretty far outside of the expected role of a ranger. To be fair, fiends are on the list of potential favored enemies, but, what would be the favored terrain to go with that? And, frankly, until the party hits pretty high level, have you ever seen a ranger take fiend as a favored enemy?

How many campaigns do you play in where fiends are a common enough enemy that the ranger player is taking Fiends as a favored enemy?

The mystery cults that summon demons and devils are often based in the wilds or a noble's mansion.

So 50% of the time, rangers are first responders to demon or devil invasion.

 

[Hussar]

3) 4/2spell slots. You can use them to fuel subclass features.

Because now, I'm not beholden to existing spells. Just like the Barbarian isn't required to use existing spells in order to fly or grant advantage to allies. With option 3, the sky is the limit. You can create completely unique effects that are specific to the ranger class.

It's very much the route of the Battlemaster for rangers.

Look, again, no one is wanting to take away the baseline ranger, I don't think. What is wanted is the OPTION of a non-specific spell casting (not necessarily no magic, but, a non-caster) ranger for their games.

It's not like it doesn't already exist. The Barbarian and the Battlemaster from the PHB work this way. Artificers aren't all that far off considering how few spells an artificer actually gets. A Battlesmith Artificer makes a pretty good template for a ranger.

Something that I haven't seen talked about in this thread is that a ranger is the fighter class with a pet. Having that animal companion is a pretty strong archetype for rangers - from Drizz't to Beastmaster. And the pet can be a major source of elements that you can use your spell casting slots for. Having your pet Enlarge for a few rounds, for example, isn't a huge deal (call it Rage or some such). There's a boatload of things you could do to tie the ranger to its pet.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Look, again, no one is wanting to take away the baseline ranger, I don't think.

I would if I could. If I had my druthers I'd want the base class non-spellcasting. But I don't expect it to happen so for the most part I don't waste electrons asking for it.

 

[billd91]

But, the default description of rangers is protectors of the wilderness. What are demons doing in the wilderness? Aren't demons pretty much always found around those who summon them? It's not like you have demons on the random encounter tables for most wildernesses.

They’re not protectors of the wilderness. They‘re protects of civilization who operate at and beyond its fringes. And if demons are something that can come out of that wilderness, and there are stories where that makes sense, then it makes sense that a ranger might be a demon hunter. Could be something like the Worldwound in Golarion, or natural spirits turning into or being corrupted by demons inspired by Princess Mononoke. Doesn’t matter. There are infinite varieties in people‘s imaginations.

 

[Mercurius]

One word: Aragorn.

/Thread

In fact, /Everything. All dissolves into the Primal Void, while Aragorn alone exists.

All hail Aragorn! peep the tiny voidlings, as they grow into new forms of life in the Aragorniverse.

 

[Minigiant]

Because now, I'm not beholden to existing spells. Just like the Barbarian isn't required to use existing spells in order to fly or grant advantage to allies. With option 3, the sky is the limit. You can create completely unique effects that are specific to the ranger class.

It's very much the route of the Battlemaster for rangers.

Look, again, no one is wanting to take away the baseline ranger, I don't think. What is wanted is the OPTION of a non-specific spell casting (not necessarily no magic, but, a non-caster) ranger for their games.

It's not like it doesn't already exist. The Barbarian and the Battlemaster from the PHB work this way. Artificers aren't all that far off considering how few spells an artificer actually gets. A Battlesmith Artificer makes a pretty good template for a ranger.

Something that I haven't seen talked about in this thread is that a ranger is the fighter class with a pet. Having that animal companion is a pretty strong archetype for rangers - from Drizz't to Beastmaster. And the pet can be a major source of elements that you can use your spell casting slots for. Having your pet Enlarge for a few rounds, for example, isn't a huge deal (call it Rage or some such). There's a boatload of things you could do to tie the ranger to its pet.

My point is that you would have to redo all of the edition in order to make this work because all of the ranger abilities already exist in spells and here is the rub

WOTC and TSR don't want to make a 2nd system for the same things.

At best you can do what Morrus is doing and shunting the magic and supernatural mostly into a secondary knack system. But you would never be able to do the ranger of

1. no magic ranger
2. low magic ranger
3. moderate magic ranger
4. high magic ranger
5. very high magic ranger

all in the same class and balance them.

That is the crux of the problem. So WOTC told fans who want 1 and 2 to play fighters and rogues and added rules in TCOE for 5.