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

[doctorbadwolf]

Though there is one problem with that: What if I chose to pick a Ranger because I really want to do this wilderness adventure stuff and be good at it? But if it turns into an after-thought after a few levels... I might feel like my character's niche is irrelevant.

I don't know if there is a solution to it, because once you fight dragons and demons more or less regularly, should adventures in the wild still matter? Or is there a way to reframe the wilderness to have something relevant with tracking, foreaging and so on even at high levels?

Other things you never seem to grow out off - Fighters always have to fight. Rogues always have locks to pick and traps to disable and sneak around. Wizards always need their spells and they become even more defining at higher levels, because suddenly you might be able to fly or teleport or turn rock to mud. But the "ranging" part of the Ranger that distinguish him from the Barbarian, Fighter or Rogue seem to stop making sense.

I think this is why a core aspect of the Ranger should be the ability to calm and befriend beasts from level 1, monstrosities in tier 2, creatures native to the material plane with an int of 4 or lower in tier 3, and any creature with an int below 4 in tier 4. So like, there would be demons and such that the high level ranger can calm and turn to their side.

There is other stuff we could do to make the Ranger's niche relevant when the team is fighting Demon Princes and ancient dragons, but that's a big one.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I gotta say, I prefer the ranger to have some kind of supernatural/uncanny abilities, but even so I don't find the logic of the preceding pages arguing why they must have it to be very...well, logical.

 

[Minigiant]

Though there is one problem with that: What if I chose to pick a Ranger because I really want to do this wilderness adventure stuff and be good at it? But if it turns into an after-thought after a few levels... I might feel like my character's niche is irrelevant.

I don't know if there is a solution to it, because once you fight dragons and demons more or less regularly, should adventures in the wild still matter? Or is there a way to reframe the wilderness to have something relevant with tracking, foreaging and so on even at high levels?

Other things you never seem to grow out off - Fighters always have to fight. Rogues always have locks to pick and traps to disable and sneak around. Wizards always need their spells and they become even more defining at higher levels, because suddenly you might be able to fly or teleport or turn rock to mud. But the "ranging" part of the Ranger that distinguish him from the Barbarian, Fighter or Rogue seem to stop making sense.

Thats not a problem.
I've explain this already.

Nature exploration upgrades over time. But in D&D because the community refuses to upgrade via tools, nature exploration upgrades via spells.

 

[Undrave]

I'm not sure.

To me, both need to be half casters within their own domains.

Otherwise, they are fighters?

Ranger could arguably not even be class but a fighter subtype layered on top.

Augh... not everything mundane has to be a Fighter subclass!

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, it got pruned off and made into it's own class. From Rogues to Rangers to Barbarians to Warlords.

I'm perfectly fine with the Barbarians being a Primal Spirit powered class instead of a boring 'guy who gets angry'. It has way more depth now with its Primal flavor.

As for Warlord, I'm perfectly find with it becoming part of the Fighter... IF it's the dominant half. The Fighter doesn't have anything anymore, but it USED to be the guy who would get a keep and followers... so folding the 'mundane leader of men' back into the Fighter and making it its core concept would be way more fun. You can add dumber subclasses for those who think "I attack!" is fun.

 

[Scribe]

Augh... not everything mundane has to be a Fighter subclass!

True, a few folks have provided some detail around this and I've reconsidered my view on it.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think this is why a core aspect of the Ranger should be the ability to calm and befriend beasts from level 1, monstrosities in tier 2, creatures native to the material plane with an int of 4 or lower in tier 3, and any creature with an int below 4 in tier 4. So like, there would be demons and such that the high level ranger can calm and turn to their side.

There is other stuff we could do to make the Ranger's niche relevant when the team is fighting Demon Princes and ancient dragons, but that's a big one.

I was thinking about some similar things. My version would probably look like:
- Base class can "calm" beasts, in the sense of turning hostile creatures non-hostile, but they still wouldn't be allies. I.e., you could persuade a guard dog to let you past, but not to fight for you.
- Once calmed, also some kind of Insight skill with beasts, where you can glean information by studying them. I.e., you make a roll, and if successful you get to ask the DM some questions, and the DM adjudicates whether or not answers are available. E.g, "Is the animal's master at home?" Or, "Has the squirrel seen any orcs pass this way?" Etc.
- Base class could also tame a single 1 HP beast as a pet, basically like a familiar.
- A pet subclass would let you tame more powerful beasts as pets
- I like your idea of expanding it to monstrosities at higher levels, but for demons (or dragons?) I think I'd put those in specific sub-classes. It doesn't make sense to me that every ranger would have influence over demons, but that's just my own aesthetic preference.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I was thinking about some similar things. My version would probably look like:
- Base class can "calm" beasts, in the sense of turning hostile creatures non-hostile, but they still wouldn't be allies. I.e., you could persuade a guard dog to let you past, but not to fight for you.
- Once calmed, also some kind of Insight skill with beasts, where you can glean information by studying them. I.e., you make a roll, and if successful you get to ask the DM some questions, and the DM adjudicates whether or not answers are available. E.g, "Is the animal's master at home?" Or, "Has the squirrel seen any orcs pass this way?" Etc.
- Base class could also tame a single 1 HP beast as a pet, basically like a familiar.
- A pet subclass would let you tame more powerful beasts as pets
- I like your idea of expanding it to monstrosities at higher levels, but for demons (or dragons?) I think I'd put those in specific sub-classes. It doesn't make sense to me that every ranger would have influence over demons, but that's just my own aesthetic preference.

It’s not that Rangers have influence over demons, it’s that their knowledge of bestial creatures, ie those that run on instinct and hormones rather than conscious thought, is sufficient to eventually be able to manipulate even extraplanar bestial creatures.

also, the idea is to give the base class scaling abilities related to the basic Ranger concepts that remain useful at high levels and expand/upgrade to those epic themes and contexts.

 

[MarkB]

It’s not that Rangers have influence over demons, it’s that their knowledge of bestial creatures, ie those that run on instinct and hormones rather than conscious thought, is sufficient to eventually be able to manipulate even extraplanar bestial creatures.

also, the idea is to give the base class scaling abilities related to the basic Ranger concepts that remain useful at high levels and expand/upgrade to those epic themes and contexts.

Not everyone wants to play a pet class though, so having the taming baked into the base class feels like a non-starter.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It’s not that Rangers have influence over demons, it’s that their knowledge of bestial creatures, ie those that run on instinct and hormones rather than conscious thought, is sufficient to eventually be able to manipulate even extraplanar bestial creatures.

also, the idea is to give the base class scaling abilities related to the basic Ranger concepts that remain useful at high levels and expand/upgrade to those epic themes and contexts.

Yeah, I get the scaling issue. Maybe if the ability could only be used on creatures within a specific (but low) Intelligence range?

Looking through the lists of Monstrosities, those with low Intelligence "feel right" to me, in terms of Rangers grokking them, and the more intelligent ones not as much. Same with Fiends (although fewer candidates.)

P.S. Although I still think I'd want a sub-class specific to Dragons that extended these abilities to that type, despite their Intelligence. I just love it thematically. (Gotta admit I also liked that recent sub-class from WotC.)

 

[Bill Zebub]

Not everyone wants to play a pet class though, so having the taming baked into the base class feels like a non-starter.

That's why I think it should be "influence", with "taming" in the sub-class.

E.g., you can persuade the Owlbear to not attack you, and maybe even to attack somebody else. But it's not going to join you as a companion.