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

[doctorbadwolf]

Ah, the "park ranger" ranger archetype. Nice!

I mean, nice goof, but it's genuinely something that is a big part of the archetype, and would make the class stand out. If Pass Without Trace were a Ranger Class feature, instead of Hide In Plain Sight, we'd be on our way to a good Ranger without spells.

But likewise, let the ranger shoot arrows into a cliff face to give the whole team a bonus to athletics checks to climb and checks or saves to avoid falling while climbing. Let the ranger coordinate scouting and keeping watch, giving everyone a bonus to perception. Let them set a hidden camp that is comfortable but hard to find or spot. Let them increase travel speeds without risking exhaustion. Let them remove a level of exhaustion from someone else during a short rest, and cook food that gives THP or restored extra HP during a short rest.

Then give them stuff like the Hunter Ranger's level 3 features, but with more choices, and let them pick more at later levels. Then give them abilities learnt from rangering in different enviroments, that are useful more broadly than in a given environment.

Combine all that with a limited resource, which might as well be spell slots so that those of us who want spells on our ranger don't have to give up a subclass to have that, and a simple list of features that use that resource, with stuff like poultices that heal a bit and give some other benefit, traps, creature type specific poisons (dragon, fey, etc, but also huge or larger creature, flying creatures, etc.) that deal damage and impose some manner of debuff, weird stuff like when Aragorn listened to the ground and was able to identify two hobbits walking in a group of orcs from miles away, and the ability to befriend an animal and at-will ability to communicate simple ideas with animals.

Boom. You've got an excellent Ranger that does things no one else does, has an easily understood role in 2 of 3 pillars at least, and certainly we could find some Insight/Perception/knowledge/ based things for the Ranger socially.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Bypassing resitance/immunity is too supernatural/mystic for my taste.

What if it's done via "poisons"? So a troll's bane poison stops a creature's regeneration, and maybe causes it to take 1d4 acid damage when it takes damage from a weapon attack. It's a poison that causes the blood to produce an organic acidic compound. Another bane might decrease movement speed and interfere with flight. Another might allow the ranger to either make attacks that bypass a resistance, or use a bonus action to allow an ally to make attacks that bypass resistance.

Also, if you haven't already said, why shouldn't the Ranger be supernatural or mystic at all? It seems to me that it would be pretty weird for the Ranger to be completely mundane.

 

[Greg K]

What if it's done via "poisons"? So a troll's bane poison stops a creature's regeneration, and maybe causes it to take 1d4 acid damage when it takes damage from a weapon attack. It's a poison that causes the blood to produce an organic acidic compound. Another bane might decrease movement speed and interfere with flight.

Is regeneration resistance/immunity? No, it is a form of healing, so no issue. However, I don't want the Ranger randomly pulling out the ability. Preparing a set few poisons on a short or long rest is fine.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Is regeneration resistance/immunity? No, it is a form of healing, so no issue. However, I don't want the Ranger randomly pulling out the ability. Preparing a set few poisons on a short or long rest is fine.

I was giving several examples. More important to me is the question I added after posting, which is why would the Ranger be fully mundane?

To elaborate, doesn't the ranger protect the common folk from the wilderness, and the sacred places of the wilderness from civilisation, in a world where the wilderness includes sentient plant creatures with magical abilities, displacer beasts, ettercaps, giant spiders, all manner of fey, and like...places of powerful magic? I guess I just don't understand why a ranger in such a world wouldn't be armed with magic of their own. No spells I can grok, since for many people that's wizard business. No magic from external sources, I can also grok, and I'd be all for describing Ranger magic as something they cultivate in themselves, gain via fey ritual to bind themselves to the land, animistic ecstatic rituals to commune with and gain symbiotic relationships with the spirits of nature, or whatever else. But no magic at all just seems...really strange, to me.

 

[Nefermandias]

A background only gives you a couple of proficiencies and one mostly-fluff ribbon. Feats eat up a highly limited character building resource. But a class can trade in some of the fighter stuff that a survivalist character really doesn’t need (like heavy armor) for stuff that actually serves the archetype (like natural explorer and primeval awareness).

Also, feats are optional.

 

[Faolyn]

Also, if you haven't already said, why shouldn't the Ranger be supernatural or mystic at all? It seems to me that it would be pretty weird for the Ranger to be completely mundane.

One of the problems is that there's already so many spellcasting classes, and the purely martial classes have either core features or archetypes that are also spellcasters or otherwise magical. So having a nonmagical ranger would help to tip the balance the other way--especially when they can (or are supposed to be able to) already do cool yet completely mundane things.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

One of the problems is that there's already so many spellcasting classes, and the purely martial classes have either core features or archetypes that are also spellcasters or otherwise magical. So having a nonmagical ranger would help to tip the balance the other way--especially when they can (or are supposed to be able to) already do cool yet completely mundane things.

I just can't get behind making major class design decisions based on wanting there to be more or less magic or mundane classes in the game as a whole.

Just like if I didn't think that there was a lot of thematic and mechanical space being unexplored or just not done well in the swordmage archetype, I wouldn't support adding it to the game just because arcane doesn't have a half-caster.

I'm all for a variant feature suite that gives the option to replace spellcasting in a fluid manner, but to me, the mundane ranger is just a scout, and a scout is a subclass concept at best. Heck, I'm all for more features for the ranger, especially at lower levels, that are cool but not explicitly magical.

But I think the model of a ranger I spelled out previously (I think in this thread?) would actually do spell and spell-less ranger without making either unsatisfying for most players, but I can't see any way to accommodate "no magic at all in the base class" folks without making the ranger into something that most ranger players won't have any interest in.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And given that non-caster is a common request, the spellcasting should be an option. I have always just wanted an option that lets you trade the Spellcasting feature for other things.

I'm curious what you think of my idea to, rather than trade the spellcasting class feature whole sale, learn things that aren't spells that can be fueled by spell slots? Ie, poultices and bane poisons and traps and the like.

 

[Greg K]

I'm curious what you think of my idea to, rather than trade the spellcasting class feature whole sale, learn things that aren't spells that can be fueled by spell slots? Ie, poultices and bane poisons and traps and the like.

I like the idea of poulitces and such, but I, personally, woud not want them fueled by spell slots.

 

[ECMO3]

This is a phenomenon I like to call "Fighter Erosion." In past editions, every time a Fighter could have potentially done something other than just stab people with a sword

In 5E a fighter can be a lot more flexible than it was in 1E or 2E, people just don't want to play them that way.

Rune Knight for example can offer any two of the folowing at 3rd level:
1. Advantage on Slight of Hand and Deception
2. Expertise in any tool proficiencies
3. Advantage on Animal Handling and Intimidation
4. Advantage on Insight.

At 7th level you can add a third one of those selections or advantage on Arcana checks.

Take some appropriate ability scores and proficiencies through backgrounds, races or feats you have a VERY versatile character that can do a lot more than just "stab people with a sword" .... although they can do that pretty well too.

For some reason people playing fighters just don't do this, they would rather invest everything in Constitution and either Strength or Dex and take either ASIs or strictly combat feats and then complain that they are not good out of combat.

In 5e, a spell-less ranger could be a Fighter Subclass, or perhaps more accurately a Rogue Subclass that focused on wild living instead of city living.

I think the Scout subclass already is that isn't it?