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

[Tales and Chronicles]

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.

On a side note: I made sure to put Find Steed and Greater Steed on the Ranger spell list. Riding a fey-type Dire Wolf is pretty spot on for rangers!

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

No it… isn’t? There’s a lot more to being a ranger than having a high bonus to nature and survival checks.

Like what? Spells? Spell-less rangers are basically rogues/fighters. I don't get wanting to reinvent the archetype. Magic is technology in D&D (and honestly works more reliable than my cell coverage). There's no good reason for a character built on self-sufficiency not to have it.

If fighters got more non-combat abilities, like they should, a wilderness warrior subclass should suffice. As is, the ranger's exploration abilities are ribbons. You could give them straight up to the fighter, and it would be balanced.

 

[Minigiant]

Are you implying that rangers can't craft mundane snare traps because there is nothing in their class mechanics that specifically discusses snare traps?

Any reasonable DM should adjudicate favorably for any PC Ranger looking to set a snare trap via mundane means.

The design decision for 5e was to make things like this simple. A rule for every possible action leads us down a path which one might find... er... makes things very un-5e, IMO.

I'm saying most DM have no experience in natural adventure, man hunting, nor outdoorsmanship. So with no guidance, you are setting most DMs up to fail as they have to make stuff up with no knowledge.

What kinds of traps can a 1st level ranger craft?

What kinds of traps can a 3rd level ranger craft?

What kinds of traps can a 6th level ranger craft?

What kinds of traps can a 12th level ranger craft?

What kinds of traps can a 17h level ranger craft?

Those are the Tiers in 5e. The issue with the Non-spell-casting is the community cannot agree on nonmagical feats of nature lore, hunting skill, and survival knowledge. We do agree mostly on spells and we have guidance, tables, and manuals on spells. So WOTC used spells.

We can't even agree on which level a ranger should be able to flawlessly tame a wild animal.

 

[niklinna]

I played Pathfinder 2e briefly, where base Rangers have no pets or spells. There are no formal subclasses as in 5e, but the feats generally fall under thematic categories (as in the chart below), and many have prerequisites, so you often end up with implicit subclasses; even if you don't have to fill out a given feat tree, or theme, you're usually leaving yourself weaker. For example, if you get an animal companion, you're practically obligated to take the upgrade feats to keep your pet viable in combat.

Anyhow, I'm not arguing that Pathfinder 2 solved this better—I really didn't enjoy having to sift through all those feats. But I figured I'd drop the chart to show the sorts of functional areas a optional 5e Ranger might want customization options for. As @Charlaquin pointed out, the Warlock model is kind of like this, with Patrons being the thematic subclasses, Pacts being a hybrid between subclass & class feat (distinguished by being mutually exclusive), and Invocations basically being class feats.

Maybe you could give an option to drop spell slots from the Ranger and instead provide Invocations/class feats (what would those be called for a Ranger, anyhow? Specialties?). You could even replace particular subclasses like Beast Master that way (with a basic pet plus some upgrades, so it can grow in power over time). Some Specialties could even provide individual spells (or functional non-magic equivalents), just like some Invocations do, usable at will, per rest, or what have you.

(Hm, totally off-topic, but now I am thinking of a Twofold Pact Invocation for Warlocks, where you could get a familiar and a book of shadows...if you really wanted to spread yourself that thin.)

 

[niklinna]

Yeah, I helped with a ranger re-write over on the GITP forums, and that was the basic structure we ended up with (but 'Hunter' rather than 'Archer'). Put spellcasting in its own subclass, and that opens up a lot of design space for the main job.

Link please!

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I've always found it odd that while the inspiration for the ranger class was clearly Aragorn, the iconic D&D ranger has of course for many many years now been Drizzt. And while it's been a long time and there's many of the later books I haven't read, to the very best of my knowledge Drizzt was never written as casting spells other than those that came inherently to him as a drow. The quintessential D&D ranger doesn't even cast ranger spells.

I'm with @Charlaquin on this one.

LOTR and D&D fiction are incredibly unrepresentative of the D&D game. Mostly because easy access to magic, and healing/resurrection magic in particular, is narratively unsatisfying to read/watch, as the stakes from combat are reduced significantly. "It's a bummer Boromir died. That cost us some diamond dust and a whole third level spell to get him back. Now we have to budget and eat hard tack. THANKS BOROMIR. "

Tabletop D&D is it's own genre.

 

[niklinna]

LOTR and D&D fiction are incredibly unrepresentative of the D&D game. Mostly because easy access to magic, and healing/resurrection magic in particular, is narratively unsatisfying to read/watch, as the stakes from combat are reduced significantly. "It's a bummer Boromir died. That cost us some diamond dust and a whole third level spell to get him back. Now we have to budget and eat hard tack. THANKS BOROMIR. "

Tabletop D&D is it's own genre.

I dunno, Order of the Stick got quite a lot of mileage out of Roy's death that one time. (Oops, spoiler.) But then they handwaved it the next time a PC died, so.... (Oops, another spoiler.)

 

[Composer99]

I dunno if they contribute here as well, but someone over at Giant in the Playground in another prolonged "what to do about 5e rangers" thread mentioned that, in the context of the theme of Favoured Enemy and similar features, an ideal approach per that person was to have benefits that were broadly applicable, but worked very well for dealing with a specific enemy.

For instance, if you had combat features related to dealing with favoured enemies, and one of yours was dragons, you might have a feature that triggered when you hit a flying creature with a ranged weapon attack, forcing it to make a saving throw or fall prone (thus falling out of the air). This works against any flying enemy (maybe not ones that can hover), but is clearly a dragon-slaying move.

 

[Bill Zebub]

LOTR and D&D fiction are incredibly unrepresentative of the D&D game. Mostly because easy access to magic, and healing/resurrection magic in particular, is narratively unsatisfying to read/watch, as the stakes from combat are reduced significantly. "It's a bummer Boromir died. That cost us some diamond dust and a whole third level spell to get him back. Now we have to budget and eat hard tack. THANKS BOROMIR. "

Tabletop D&D is it's own genre.

You say that with levity, but you are spot on. I never find it persuasive when somebody argues game design by quoting fiction.

 

[niklinna]

I dunno if they contribute here as well, but someone over at Giant in the Playground in another prolonged "what to do about 5e rangers" thread mentioned that, in the context of the theme of Favoured Enemy and similar features, an ideal approach per that person was to have benefits that were broadly applicable, but worked very well for dealing with a specific enemy.

I like this approach. Link please!

For instance, if you had combat features related to dealing with favoured enemies, and one of yours was dragons, you might have a feature that triggered when you hit a flying creature with a ranged weapon attack, forcing it to make a saving throw or fall prone (thus falling out of the air). This works against any flying enemy (maybe not ones that can hover), but is clearly a dragon-slaying move.

And just to riff on the dragon favored enemy:

• Proficiency/advantage on saves vs. breath weapons.
• Features that kick in for lair effects that affect terrain/movement.
• Features that kick in for tail & wing attacks.

All things that not just dragons have, but that all (or maybe most) dragons do have.