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

[Charlaquin]

Okay, if the fact that the term “spell slot” is used makes the Ranger too magical, regardless of how supernatural or mundane the abilities fueled by them are, how about;

Survival Points. You get around 1/level, like Ki on Monks, and you can use them to fuel special abilities. You get some automatically, and some come from Favored Terrain/Enemy and other class choices. Let’s call them Wilderness Knacks.

For those of us who see the Ranger’s basic identity as fundamentally magical, some Wilderness Knacks are supernatural, and some straight up give you spells you can cast by spending 1/Survival point per spell level.

This would create a very unique class, that accommodates all three preferences.

@Charlaquin @Greg K what you think? All currently magical class features would be a decision point, possibly on a warlock style chassis where Knacks are chosen like Invocations. Seem fair?

I’m not the biggest fan of nebulous power points, but it’s an ok compromise.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I’m not the biggest fan of nebulous power points, but it’s an ok compromise.

I mean, other than two separate classes, I don't see any other way to give everyone what they want.

I'm curious, what is it that the Scout Rogue lacks that you'd want from a Ranger?

I'd be fine with taking the competences of the scout rogue and building that out into a new expert class, and I want to completely rewrite the Ranger anyway.

IMO, the Ranger and Scout/Woodsman/Survivalist are just not the same concept, and I can't quite wrap my head around a non magical Ranger in a world full of magical dangers.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I can't really see any good alternative to power points,if spell slots aren't on the table. Does the game benefit from another "at-will except where any given specific feature has it's own unique refresh clause" class?

@Charlaquin I actually would love to actually figure something out here that works. I don't think that there is a satisfying way to have one class have a choice between a mostly at-will set of class features, and the spellcasting trait, so I think some manner of resource is needed, but if spell slots and power points result in disinterest, I'm not sure where to go. Something like superiority dice only works, IMO, if it can't ever be used to fuel casting spells, so it would have to be something where you choose "Survival Dice" or Spellcasting, which I really don't like.

I think that if Rangers get the ability to learn stuff like making traps and poultices and calming and befriending animals (and potentially then monstosities and other bestial monsters as you level), it should be in a way that you don't have togive up all spellcasting to get access to. For the same reasons I don't like the idea of choosing between spellcasting and a main class pet.

Perhaps if we can figure out a way without spell slots to allow the rangers that want to cast spells to do so, and build the class in a more rogue/warlock chassis rather than monk/warlock?

I toyed with the idea, just now, of having Wilderness Knacks as I said upthread, that allow you to gain different class features and build the Ranger you want, and simply having some give you "you can cast XYZ spell 1/SR, or 1/LR" depending on the power of the spell, but frankly I think that would be very hard to balance and make satisfying.

Perhaps 2 classes is the way to go. Perhaps the Rogue should have had more Ranger in it's DNA from the start of the edition.

 

[ECMO3]

I think part of the problem is similar to that of a ranger and paladin. The ranger and paladin has jobs. The arcane halfcaser would have to have a role in society as well.

The issue is many people don't want to roleplay the occupations of the "advanced classes"

I am not sure what you are talking about when you say "occupations" a fighter can be a slaver or a soldier or a noble or part of the local mafia or own a trading company. A Rogue, Wizard or Cleric can do all those things too.

Most PCs have the occupation of "adventurer" or "hero" althous some venture out into similar society-type jobs and don't see a class really having much bearing on that.

At level 11, between the cleric, paladin, and wizard and your piles of gold, you shouldn't be worried about level 1 exploration threat.

At level 11, you should be dealing with level 11 exploration threats like hurricane, voidstorms, random dinosaur packs, and paraelemental difficult terrain.

To start with there are plenty of broke 11th level adventurerers. That aside, this only further amplifies my point. If your 11th level party is going through a wilderness with hurricanes they are going to be even worse off without a Ranger or similarly inclined high-survival PC.

With bounded accuracy a first level ranger is going to be better at it than any of your 11th level characters.

 

[Charlaquin]

I can't really see any good alternative to power points,if spell slots aren't on the table. Does the game benefit from another "at-will except where any given specific feature has it's own unique refresh clause" class?

I mean, if it suits the class’s narrative, then yes.

@Charlaquin I actually would love to actually figure something out here that works. I don't think that there is a satisfying way to have one class have a choice between a mostly at-will set of class features, and the spellcasting trait, so I think some manner of resource is needed, but if spell slots and power points result in disinterest, I'm not sure where to go.

Something like superiority dice only works, IMO, if it can't ever be used to fuel casting spells, so it would have to be something where you choose "Survival Dice" or Spellcasting, which I really don't like.

I think that if Rangers get the ability to learn stuff like making traps and poultices and calming and befriending animals (and potentially then monstosities and other bestial monsters as you level), it should be in a way that you don't have togive up all spellcasting to get access to. For the same reasons I don't like the idea of choosing between spellcasting and a main class pet.

Honestly, from the way you talk about this, I don’t think there’s a way to satisfy both sides here. One group doesn’t want to cast spells as a ranger, but they want to get something else cool in its place. The other group doesn’t want to have to give up spellcasting to get whatever other cool things the ranger can do. There’s just no way to satisfy both of those desires that isn’t going to be a compromise no one is truly happy with. And thus, we have the 5e ranger.

Perhaps if we can figure out a way without spell slots to allow the rangers that want to cast spells to do so, and build the class in a more rogue/warlock chassis rather than monk/warlock?

If spellcasting as a subclass option is off the table, then I think modeling the ranger after the warlock is probably the least-bad way to go. Instead of invocations you could have wilderness knacks or whatever, and instead of spell slots you have… some sort of power point. It’s not my favorite solution, but like I said, it’s an ok compromise. At least with the warlock model it’s effectively an encounter resource instead of a daily one. And, you could make it feel less power point-y if you tied its default use to something (maybe a Hunter’s Mark type feature), and then your wilderness knacks could allow you to spend “uses of” that ability to do something else (which could include casting certain spells) instead, like how the UA wildfire druid could spend “uses of wildshape” to summon a pet. I don’t think it’s ideal for anyone, but under the parameters you’ve laid out, I think it’s the least bad option.

I toyed with the idea, just now, of having Wilderness Knacks as I said upthread, that allow you to gain different class features and build the Ranger you want, and simply having some give you "you can cast XYZ spell 1/SR, or 1/LR" depending on the power of the spell, but frankly I think that would be very hard to balance and make satisfying.

Perhaps 2 classes is the way to go. Perhaps the Rogue should have had more Ranger in it's DNA from the start of the edition.

I don’t think a rogue subclass is capable of satisfying the folks who want a non-spellcasting ranger, any more than a spellcasting subclass for the non-spellcasting ranger would be for the folks who want a spellcasting ranger. I don’t like the idea of two classes that are basically the same but one casts spells and the other doesn’t any better though.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm curious, what is it that the Scout Rogue lacks that you'd want from a Ranger?

I mean, like, any wilderness/survivalist-related abilities that aren’t just +x on a subset of d20 rolls would be nice for a start.

IMO, the Ranger and Scout/Woodsman/Survivalist are just not the same concept, and I can't quite wrap my head around a non magical Ranger in a world full of magical dangers.

I get what you mean, being really good at tracking, in and of itself, doesn’t make a ranger. That’s exactly why a fighter with the outlander background or a scout rogue don’t scratch the ranger itch. If it’s just “the same survivalist stuff anyone can do but with higher numbers,” it doesn’t feel ranger-y. The ranger needs to be able to do things, actively, that make them more than just a real good lumberjack. And I get that that’s what spellcasting satisfies for some.

The problem for many others though, I think, is the vibe of D&D’s magic. Saying “abracadabra” to make the plants grow doesn’t feel like doing ranger things, even though some of the effects on the ranger spell list, do. Hunter’s Mark, Cordon of Arrows, Flame Arrows, Pass Without Trace, Longstrider, Speak With Animals; these are all effects that feel right for the ranger to be able to do. But being spells makes them feel wrong. It’s too ungrounded, too wizard-y, or at best druid-y. The ranger should be able to do these things because they’re preternaturally gifted at what they do, not because they know the right magic words.

 

[Scribe]

I mean, if it suits the class’s narrative, then yes.


Honestly, from the way you talk about this, I don’t think there’s a way to satisfy both sides here. One group doesn’t want to cast spells as a ranger, but they want to get something else cool in its place. The other group doesn’t want to have to give up spellcasting to get whatever other cool things the ranger can do. There’s just no way to satisfy both of those desires that isn’t going to be a compromise no one is truly happy with. And thus, we have the 5e ranger.

If spellcasting as a subclass option is off the table, then I think modeling the ranger after the warlock is probably the least-!-: way to go. Instead of invocations you could have wilderness knacks or whatever, and instead of spell slots you have… some sort of power point. It’s not my favorite solution, but like I said, it’s an ok compromise. At least with the warlock model it’s effectively an encounter resource instead of a daily one. And, you could make it feel less power point-y if you tied its default use to something (maybe a Hunter’s Mark type feature), and then your wilderness knacks could allow you to spend “uses of” that ability to do something else (which could include casting certain spells) instead, like how the UA wildfire druid could spend “uses of wildshape” to summon a pet. I don’t think it’s ideal for anyone, but under the parameters you’ve laid out, I think it’s the least bad option.


I don’t think a rogue subclass is capable of satisfying the folks who want a non-spellcasting ranger, any more than a spellcasting subclass for the non-spellcasting ranger would be for the folks who want a spellcasting ranger. I don’t like the idea of two classes that are basically the same but one casts spells and the other doesn’t any better though.

I think if the subclass was at level 1, you could satisfy both, especially if there was multiple caster lines off the non caster base.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think if the subclass was at level 1, you could satisfy both, especially if there was multiple caster lines off the non caster base.

I agree that would be the best solution, but like @doctorbadwolf said, they don’t want to have to give up spellcasting to have a pet or whatever (and I assume Find Familiar wouldn’t cut it for them).

 

[Scribe]

I agree that would be the best solution, but like @doctorbadwolf said, they don’t want to have to give up spellcasting to have a pet or whatever (and I assume Find Familiar wouldn’t cut it for them).

They decided they don't want me to see what they say.

You could have the pet be part of the base class, and then lean into or away from it in subclasses, but I doubt a reboot is on the table for the 50A version anyway.

 

[Charlaquin]

They decided they don't want me to see what they say.

You could have the pet be part of the base class, and then lean into or away from it in subclasses, but I doubt a reboot is on the table for the 50A version anyway.

Oh, no, I definitely don’t think they’re going to redo the ranger for 50AE. I think the best us spell-haters can hope for is a new feature rangers can spend their spell slots on other than spells. I think we’re mostly theorycrafting here, or maybe giving some folks ideas for their homebrew.