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

[Bill Zebub]

I could see Rangers having a paladin-like aura that gives themselves and allies within 10' advantage on saves vs. traps. (Really it should only be "large" traps, not trapped locks and books and the like, but that feels too fiddly.). Extending to magical traps at level X, and 30' distance at level Y.

 

[Horwath]

How to describe ranger in the rules simply? that is the problem. Also not stepping on rogues toes, but that could be difficult.

Ranger is a woodsman or guerilla fighter or skirmisher or what ever, so...

Starting skills: Stealth, Nature, Perception, Survival. Ranger get 4 skills, but they are fixed. Unless already having one or more already from background/race/feats/whatever. Then pick from ranger class skills a number of skills that have been doubled.

Ranger is an expert woodsman: expert is best described with, well... expertise. Canny feature from Tasha's is a good variant. Maybe add that you can exchange every instance of Favored foe(levels 1,6,14) for 3 more instances of canny. And/or add extra class skill to canny(as was in UA)

Ranger is also an ultimate tracker. So add advantage for Survival checks used for tracking.

Endurance: Rangers can push themselves above the limit of regular folk. How to describe that? Have rangers halve their effective exhaustion level(round down). So rangers do not have any penalties with 1 level of exhaustion and die only when they suffer 12(effective 6) levels of it.

Environmental adaptation: rangers gain resistance to cold and fire and altitude adaptation.

Superior senses: rangers get darkvision 60ft, then 120ft(or improvement on existing), then see through magical darkness, then gain tremor sense, then blindsight. All can be spread through 20 levels.

Superior stamina: rangers can, if they chose, take benefit of a long rest on a short rest. Once used it cannot be used again until 2 "normal" long rests are completed.

Healing salves: as a part of a long rest ranger can make a number of healing salves equal to proficiency modifier.
they take one minute to apply and heal 2 HP per ranger level. If used during short rest the target regains MAX HP from healing dice.
If used at the start of a long rest target regains ALL HDs on that long rest instead of half and can compete long rest in 6hrs instead of 8(3 for elves).

Elemental weapons: rangers add 1d6 or acid, cold, fire, lightning or thunder damage to their attacks. Later on it is increased to 2d6.

Similar for favored terrain but global: rangers can move overland at fast pace and have no penalty on Stealth and Perception. They can also forage, track, navigate and remain alert to danger at the same time. Drawing a map is still a trait of tool proficiency as described in XGE.


These are not in any order by levels, just suggestions for features instead of spells.


Also, none of the rangers abilities should remove am exploration challenge, just help with resolution: giving an advantage or reducing time investment or giving extra benefit from default resolution.

Auto-success is not fun. Being able to do thing better or with more options or with more beneficial effects if successful is.

 

[Composer99]

If memory serves, Mike Mearls discussed the ranger in one of his Happy Fun Hour videos (no longer up on YouTube), and suggested that perhaps the way forward for the ranger was to have a choice at 1st or 2nd level (probably 2nd if it was using the power curve of the PHB ranger) to specialise in spellcasting, non-spell exploits, or beast mastery.

• If you picked spellcasting, you got the half-caster slot progression;
• If you picked non-spell exploits, you got special abilities that could be supernatural but weren't spells (although I think Mearls focused on combat manoeuvres/exploits in the video?);
• If you picked beast mastery, you got the persistent pet, this time with buffs suitable for having given up half-casting.

Presumably, this version would include subclasses that worked with two specs but not the other one (like a one-third caster for the two specs that aren't casters, or a pet subclass for the two specs that aren't the beast master) and maybe a subclass that would work with any spec (if you could design such a thing).

Personally, were I to go this route homebrewing a ranger, I would merge the non-caster rangers into a single spec, and make having (and upgrading) a beast companion into a thing you got by spending a few class-based build resources (similar to warlock invocations).

Obviously this would be a right pain to balance, but at least it would satisfy both the idea of having a spell-less ranger and a spellcasting ranger. It would leave out those who, for whatever reason, insisted that a ranger could only be one or the other, but you can't please everyone.

 

[MarkB]

It...doesn't have a pet? Like...the concept doesn't even require turning creatures to your side in a fight. It's not normal at all for animals to get into deadly skirmishes, after all.

It is for D&D animals - and you're not just limiting this ability to animals. You're ultimately expanding it to cover a variety of low intelligence creatures.

Seriously, do you not think that the first thing a player whose character has the Befriend Critter feature will do is find the biggest, baddest creature they can track, befriend the hell out of it, and bring it along on their next quest?

 

[Composer99]

It is for D&D animals - and you're not just limiting this ability to animals. You're ultimately expanding it to cover a variety of low intelligence creatures.

Seriously, do you not think that the first thing a player whose character has the Befriend Critter feature will do is find the biggest, baddest creature they can track, befriend the hell out of it, and bring it along on their next quest?

It seems to me that there are two different ways we could be talking about a "pet" class:

• The class supports enabling animals and similar creatures to act in the capacity of hirelings/henchmen, with maybe some additional support from the ranger;
• The class supports an animal companion who is buffed by the ranger's class features in some significant way.

It seems to me, then, that you seem to be working off the former definition? If you are taking the latter definition, then the feature you are critiquing does not make a ranger a "pet" class if it doesn't have a subclass or "pact boon"-equivalent akin to the PHB Beastmaster or UA Beast Conclave.

(Personally, I would say the latter definition is what makes a class a "pet" class, with the caveat that any given ranger can be built not to be a "pet" character.)

 

[Minigiant]

And, therein lies the rub.

Virtually no DM will allow the ranger to craft a trap that is even remotely close to something like the damage of Glyph of Warding. The best trap the Ranger can craft will do, d4, d6 damage and maybe, maybe a chance to restrain with a DC that is probably laughable. So, our 5th level caster can drop a trap that is 1000 times more deadly than anything a 20th level ranger can craft.

I do see @Minigiant's point here. It's not so much that we can't have non-caster rangers but rather that non-casters can never, EVER equal casters.

Look at the PHB ranger's "craft a ghillie suit" feature Hide in Plain Sight.
It takes a whole minute to put on and you can't move in it or it falls off. They get that junk at level 10

Hence my point. Many are imagining the fun of a nonpellcasting ranger from books and movies. Few are imagining the sack of trash that will have level 1 class features as level 10 class features. The low level ranger is a popular archetype. A mid level or high level ranger is a debate. Few are imagining 20 levels of ranger.

And this is before you figure out how to make at least 4 subclasses of it. Archer would be a bad subclass as anyone can be an Archer. Being a spellcasting Archer is what makes Archer Rangers unique. You don't see anyone calling for a Geology Ranger or Botany Ranger. And it would be hard to make those interesting without supernatural abilities or magic.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It is for D&D animals - and you're not just limiting this ability to animals. You're ultimately expanding it to cover a variety of low intelligence creatures.

Seriously, do you not think that the first thing a player whose character has the Befriend Critter feature will do is find the biggest, baddest creature they can track, befriend the hell out of it, and bring it along on their next quest?

What does that have to do with your false claim that this would make a player have to play their Ranger as a pet class?

Edit: and what part of my multiple statements that this wouldn't have to allow taming wild creatures are you not getting? You jumping from what I’ve said to “they’ll take dire bears with them out of the bear’s territory and it’ll be a pet class”. I’ve suggested no such ability.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

Look at the PHB ranger's "craft a ghillie suit" feature Hide in Plain Sight.
It takes a whole minute to put on and you can't move in it or it falls off. They get that junk at level 10

Hence my point. Many are imagining the fun of a nonpellcasting ranger from books and movies. Few are imagining the sack of trash that will have level 1 class features as level 10 class features. The low level ranger is a popular archetype. A mid level or high level ranger is a debate. Few are imagining 20 levels of ranger.

And this is before you figure out how to make at least 4 subclasses of it. Archer would be a bad subclass as anyone can be an Archer. Being a spellcasting Archer is what makes Archer Rangers unique. You don't see anyone calling for a Geology Ranger or Botany Ranger. And it would be hard to make those interesting without supernatural abilities or magic.

Is that a problem with the concept though? The execution of Hide in Plain Sight is lackluster sure, but if your argument is that non-spellcasting abilities cannot inherently be interesting or useful, than there is a bigger problem than just a non-spellcasting ranger since we have 4 other core classes that do not have base spellcasting abilities.

 

[MarkB]

What does that have to do with your false claim that this would make a player have to play their Ranger as a pet class?

I guess that, as @Composer99 suggested, this may just be a matter of differing definitions. To me, an ability that allows taming of animals and monsters is basically an invitation to find combat-effective creatures and make them de facto animal companions, making it a de facto pet class. I guess the fact that they could choose not to do so may make it technically not a pet class, but it certainly seems like it could be used as such.

Edit: and what part of my multiple statements that this wouldn't have to allow taming wild creatures are you not getting? You jumping from what I’ve said to “they’ll take dire bears with them out of the bear’s territory and it’ll be a pet class”. I’ve suggested no such ability.

I may have missed your earlier comments about not allowing taming of wild animals. The first post I saw from you that described the concept was the following:

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.

To me, "befriending" creatures that the ranger can "turn to their side" sounds pretty much like taming, at least on a basic level. If you've stated elsewhere that this is not the case, I apologise for missing it.

 

[Minigiant]

He can craft the same sorts of traps as every other class. Get thieves tool proficiency and have at it .... or just buy some hunting traps.

Hunting traps are tier 1 and there are no tables or rules to help DMs adjudicate stronger traps.

Is that a problem with the concept though? The execution of Hide in Plain Sight is lackluster sure, but if your argument is that non-spellcasting abilities cannot inherently be interesting or useful, than there is a bigger problem than just a non-spellcasting ranger since we have 4 other core classes that do not have base spellcasting abilities.

The problem is basically what Ive been saying from the beginning.

The community can more or less agree on when a ranger get a spell based ranger spell feature and how powerful it should be.

The community cannot agree at all when a ranger gets most nonspell ranger features nor how powerful they should be.

TIers of Rangery stuff that is not spells is unsettled and this week's a ranger without spells from being made unless you pull a 4e and strip "spell" from everyone and make use the same scales.