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.
If you're going to play in a setting that is very different from the normal range of settings in 5e, that is going to be supported by variant features. The norm doesn't get siloed into subclasses and variant features.
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.
Same thing. You won't accept any proposal that includes anything remotely magical in the base class. That is not a position I'm interested in engaging with or compromising with. I'm all for figuring a solid ranger wherein the Spellcasting trait is optional. Trying to design one with "no magic of any kind can be a default part of the base class" as a requirement is a complete non-starter.
Hell, I even proposed multiple compromises wherein you could play your ranger without ever taking a spell, and they weren't good enough because they involved resources that could be spent on spells as well. No thanks.
Which ones require magic to defeat?
From a story perspective? A ton of them. Trolls, hags, displacer beasts, most fey, anything with resistence to non-magical damage, etc. A creature doesn't have to be literally untouchable with spells or magic weapons to be something that a single warrior will not defeat without some magical tools in their kit.
I have never played such a game - in most cases rangers are either in an adventuring party or some sort of conclave.
In most cases a ranger
PC has a party of adventurers. The rest of their peers are in the wilds solo or in very small groups of other rangers.
The key thing is that the class should model it's fiction. The fact that the ranger will probably have a full caster around in a game of DND to do the magic stuff doesn't matter to how well the Ranger models it's fiction. The Paladin doesn't need holy magic they just need a cleric to be around. Okay, how does that help Paladin's feel and play like divine agents blessed with holy power? Exactly the same is the case with the Ranger. They need to feel like characters that don't need a cadre of other PCs to do their primary job. If they sought out the other PCs to help with something it's because it's something outside the normal competence of Rangers, or something too dangerous for a couple of Rangers by themselves, or something like that.
The idea of a Ranger needing a Druid or Wizard to take care of stuff that is not uncommon in the wilds is...bad. It poorly reflects what Rangers are.
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?
I genuinely am struggling to imagine what is unclear. I haven't said that rangers require the spellcasting feature, nor made any mention of magic being required to navigate the wilderness. There are magical class features that aren't spellcasting. Perhaps you may have seen posts from me in this very thread proposing ways to give the ranger magic that don't involve that specific feature? If I had meant spellcasting, I'd have said that. I'd have used that term, specifically. If I'd meant navigation, I'd have said that.
Seriously, what is unclear?
Rangers "range" across the wild, singly or in very small groups, protecting the border between wild and civilization. That involves dealing with magical nature, things that aren't magical but prey upon the wilds, and other such things. The idea of orders of people dedicated to that task
not learning any kind of magic is strange, and would require some hefty worldbuilding to justify. A Scout Rogue has very few tools to deal with angry dryads, or a family of werebears who while they aren't evil, don't want loggers coming into their woods, or tracking down and dealing with aberrations.
Spellcasting isone way to provide those tools (though 5e Ranger spellcastingwould need to be prepared and have a bit of a better list to really do a good job of that), but there are plenty of other magical abilities, defenses, etc, that Rangers could have.
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.
A ranger of appropraite level compared to CR should be able to survive a hostile encounter with a hag, and win if they're smart about it, with minimal or no help. Or at least the class features should support the
fiction that they could do so. This means not just being able to hit them and deal damage
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,
Okay come on, really? They're gonna...what, spend the entire day fighting to take a dangerous monstrosity down? That makes sense? Why would they do that when their entire order could, instead, practice a little useful magic that lets them bypass resistances and avoid some of the common magical attacks of the creature in question or magically shut down some of it's most dangerous features?
I just...why would Rangers ever choose not to learn magic? How can you possibly make sense of that in enough DND worlds that a non-magical ranger makes sense as a default?
Come on.
Clearly, a non magical ranger is the realm of variant features. The idea that we need to limit the base class to making all magic siloed off into subclasses and variant features is just completely absurd.
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.
Sure, I have repeatedly proposed rangers get "bane" poisons that are specially made to counter certain types of creatures.
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.
If they have to call upon outside help for fairly normal threats, they aren't a ranger. That's...the point of the Ranger. And again...why wouldn't they learn from those druids? I mean you propose levels of druid. If it's common for Rangers to learn Druid skills...why would that not be represented by some nature magic in the Ranger class?
There is no rational reason for rangers to go intothe wilderness and try to protect nature and people from monsters, and just choose to stubbornly remain as mundane as possible. They're just out there...fighting bears unarmored, too? As a matter of pride?
Like lets be clear, here. The 5e Ranger's ability to bypass difficult terrain even if it's magical at high level is a magical ability. The Monk's ability to end a charm effect as an action is magical. If the Ranger had the ability to speak in spite of paralysis (potentially calling for allies or casting a verbal only spell) or an ability to try to escape magical paralysis, restainment, etc, even if they wouldn't normally get a save or if they failed the save, that would be an overtly magical ability no matter how you describe it. Hell, if they had resistance to magic or always add their proficiency to saves against magical effects, that is a very magical ability.
So, sure, lets come up with an alternate limited resource model for rangers, that allows them to spend it on non-spell-related stuff. I'm not going to make any effort to make it non-magical, though, and there is no reason for it to not include spells as options within that system.
TBH, I'm probably just going to work on a system that allows the use of spell slots for other stuff, and make it clear in description that you aren't casting spells when you use abilities within that system that aren't spells or spell-like effects.
