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

[doctorbadwolf]

That is your opinion, not fact

Okay.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not trying to put words in your mouth, but are you implying that a Fighter or Rogue should be basically incapable of wilderness survival?

Wilderness survival isn't the Ranger's job, it's a thing they have to be good at in order to do their job. See another poster's post for the Ranger's job, more or less.

A druid may protect nature because she is a part of nature. A ranger is more likely to protect nature because of the problems that disturbing it causes, and to enforce the "laws" protecting the forest. Fire prevention because fires are bad. Trail maintenance to avoid injuries to either travelers or wildlife (because injured wildlife becomes bait for predators or monsters, and you don't want them near traveled trails). And numerous similar cause-and-effect problems where civilization can shoot itself in the foot in its ignorance of how nature works. Also, anti-poaching enforcement.

Rangers are more than survivalists, scouts, or people who live in the woods. Those are fighters and rogues and barbarians and such with the right skills. Rangers are guardians of the place where the wild and civilised worlds overlap and interact, who protect the natural parts of the wild from the unnatural, all of the wilds from clumsy or over-greedy civilization, and civilization from it's own blundering in relation to the wilds.

An individual PC doesn't need to care about any of that, but that is the basic fiction of the class. That is it's identity.

And in every published DnD world, that job means dealing with hags and trolls and ettercaps and displacer beasts.

 

[Greg K]

And in every published DnD world, that job means dealing with hags and trolls and ettercaps and displacer beasts.

I don't recall the 2e "Historical setting" supplements having most or for some (any of those). I also don't remember them all being in B/X (which had available to use, but did not require trolls and, maybe displacers beasts), the Gazetteers (if treating each as an individual setting), or the Hollow World settings.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't recall the 2e "Historical setting" supplements having most or for some (any of those). I also don't remember them all being in B/X (which had available to use, but did not require trolls and, maybe displacers beasts), the Gazetteers (if treating each as an individual setting), or the Hollow World settings.

Okay.

Edit: Look, I don’t care about old settings no one but the D&D history archivists remember or care about. edit: like you get that we are discussing 5e, yes? That none of those are likely to return in 5e?

I’m not particularly interested in this whole “no magic evar!!!!1! Mindset toward Rangers. You and I don’t have any common ground wrt the Ranger. Cool. Let’s move on and not intentionally badger eachother over it, shall we?

 

[jmartkdr2]

I chose my words correctly. Many creatures in the wild require magic to effectively combat.

What kind of magic is required?

Especially on a reliable basis, and especially without access to a whole squad to other combatants to help you.

So what about a party of adventurers?

Thus, the Ranger must be magic. It's absurd to imagine a Ranger in any published DnD world with no magic actually surviving the job.

What do you mean by magic? Does a magic scimitar count?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What kind of magic is required?

I don't understand why you think this questions matters or is relevant to the point. Like, you know that the wilds have a wide range of threats, right? Many of them require magic to defeat. Some require one thing, others something else, others some other thing, etc.
So...yes. The answer is yes.

So what about a party of adventurers?

What about them? Do you imagine that all, or even most, Rangers in the worlds of DnD have a party of adventurers at their disposal? By party of adventurers do you mean people with PC classes?

What do you mean by magic? Does a magic scimitar count?

You're joking. I mean magic. If I was speaking to a more specific requirement than that, I'd have said so. I'm not especially clumsy with my words.

 

[Greg K]

Okay.

Edit: Look, I don’t care about old settings no one but the D&D history archivists remember or care about. edit: like you get that we are discussing 5e, yes? That none of those are likely to return in 5e?

And my point was that D&D in the past as supported a wider variety of settings. The only reason that the default level is as it is is i because of WOTC's insistance on pushing Forgotten Realms. The DMG, however, talks about a wider variety of setttings and the rules as a whole should support that variety.

 

[Greg K]

I’m not particularly interested in this whole “no magic evar!!!!1! Mindset toward Rangers. You and I don’t have any common ground wrt the Ranger. Cool. Let’s move on and not intentionally badger eachother over it, shall we?

Nice of you to misrepresent what I have written and put words in my mouth. I have said multiple times that I am not for "no magic evar". I have said that magic should be siloed as a choice to support a wider variety of concepts and settings.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I don't understand why you think this questions matters or is relevant to the point. Like, you know that the wilds have a wide range of threats, right? Many of them require magic to defeat. Some require one thing, others something else, others some other thing, etc.
So...yes. The answer is yes.

Which ones require magic to defeat?

What about them? Do you imagine that all, or even most, Rangers in the worlds of DnD have a party of adventurers at their disposal? By party of adventurers do you mean people with PC classes?

I have never played such a game - in most cases rangers are either in an adventuring party or some sort of conclave.

You're joking. I mean magic. If I was speaking to a more specific requirement than that, I'd have said so. I'm not especially clumsy with my words.

I genuinely do not understand what you're trying to say here.

Ranger require the spellcasting feature because the wilderness cannot be navigated without spells? That seems to have been your original point, and you have resisted my requests for clarification, so I have to assume you think that without casting spells, people cannot navigate the woods?

 

[Faolyn]

I chose my words correctly. Many creatures in the wild require magic to effectively combat. Especially on a reliable basis, and especially without access to a whole squad to other combatants to help you.

Thus, the Ranger must be magic. It's absurd to imagine a Ranger in any published DnD world with no magic actually surviving the job.

I don't think this is the case, especially not in 5e where every creature can be hit with nonmagical weapons--even if a few require those weapons to be made of a special material like silver or adamantine to work. While it's not RAW in 5e, historically a lot of creatures like lycanthropes were vulnerable to wolfsbane or other substances. Bring that back and rangers get an edge.

There are a lot of creatures where attacking them without magic means the battle would be a long slog, but rangers are, or should, be good at skirmishing and hit-and-run attacks, as well as using poisons, traps, and the like. While a lot of creatures are resistant or immune to poison, I can easily see natural substances that can be used in the same way (to coat weapons) but inflict necrotic or even acid damage.

And if the threatening creature really does need magic to combat it, well, the ranger is a wilderness warrior, which means that they likely are in contact with druids. Or even has a few levels of druid themself.