D&D 5E 5th edition Ranger: Why does every class have to have it's own schtick?

[Lord Twig]

This bears repeating again. Level 8 might not seem like a high level now, but in AD&D it was. This context is very important. Yeah, rangers eventually got spells. But most of the actual time spent gaming with them, they didn't have it. Just like thieves casting spells off of scrolls. Sure, they could eventually do it, but it was hardly what people considered a big chunk of their identity. Especially since AD&D had a much higher lethality than modern editions, and many of your PCs did die before they got to high level. I don't think as many 3e PCs died before making it to level 4. This isn't some brief offshoot of the class we're talking about either, but how it was built for the majority of it's entire lifecycle in D&D.

You shouldn't assume that the way you played was the way everyone else played. Yes, characters in AD&D died a lot at lower levels, but once they got to high levels they were around for a long time. At least they were in our games.

There was no actual cap on levels like there is now-a-days. We continued to pull out our high-level characters, who by then were the heroes of their world, for years. So the time spent at high (named) levels as the majority of time spent for our characters. Rangers and Paladins didn't just have spells, they were casting them right and left. Not as much compared to the wizard of course (who was near godlike at those levels), but they were definitely casters.

Plus we had enough magic items to outfit a small army. Attracted followers were named and equipped with cast-off +1 swords and +1 full plate armor. New characters came in at 1st level (never mind that the other characters are level 23), but found themselves outfitted with ridiculous amounts of magic items. "Here, take this Girdle of Hill Giant Strength. I got a Storm Giant one!"

So yeah, our Rangers were expected to have spells. At least by the time they got up to a level where you didn't expect them to die off due to a bad roll.

 

[Lord Twig]

That's also implying, though, that everyone started from 1st level and made players restart 1st level characters if their character died.

We started our characters at 1. But when they adventured with higher level characters the magic items and spells available allowed them to level quickly. So getting to 8th level was nothing.

Edit: I'm sure there are people here that remember that whoever got the killing blow got ALL the XP for the creature that was killed? Well, we just made sure the 1st level newb got the killing blow whenever possible and he shot up through the levels. Plus all the XP for the huge amounts of gold we found. Nothing like getting 1XP per gold piece found!

 

[Minigiant]

Here's the parts many keep missing.

1) In Pre 3e D&D, most threats a 7th levelPC can handle did not require magic. Giants, orcs, trolls, etc. Archmages, dragons, demon warriors, and death knights, were rare and would wipe the floor with low level PCs.

Ever since 3rd edition, truly monsters became more likely antagonists at low levels

So the "everyone is magic" level dropped from 8-9 down to 2-3.

2) D&D fans are too stubborn. They won't even let many PCs do anything without magic.

We only let nonmagical characters...
Deal lots of damage
Take a lot of damage
Roll high on a skill check
Run fast

So your nonmagical bard, ranger, or paladin will just be murder machines who can roll well on a check.

 

[Sacrosanct]

That's also implying, though, that everyone started from 1st level and made players restart 1st level characters if their character died.

My reply was in response to the strawman that 3e rangers must have died before level 4 just as much. I have no problem implying that more AD&D PCs died before level 8 (a more lethal system and twice as many levels needed) than died by level 4 in 3e. I'm pretty confident in that statement.

You shouldn't assume that the way you played was the way everyone else played. Yes, characters in AD&D died a lot at lower levels, but once they got to high levels they were around for a long time. At least they were in our games..

I'm not assuming. Yes, it matches the way I played, but I'm also going by the OSR forum discussions over the years. This was also reinforced during these last surveys, when Mearls got the responses back about what levels most people played. Playing at name level or above in AD&D was the exception, not the norm. And not by a close margin either. So yeah, I don't consider it a major class defining feature if it isn't even accessible for most the actual game play spent playing it.

 

[Lord Twig]

You know, I have to believe that the group of people that want to play D&D without magic is a fairly small minority. Most just want to play a character that does X. And if X is something that is not physically possible, then doing X with magic is a good solution. As opposed to being able to do X for no discernible reason at all.

 

[Sunseeker]

Late to the topic OP but your thread title seems out of sorts with your actual post.

Every class should feel unique. They should all have some class-wide features that define them from other classes. Otherwise as you say, there's no point in them being their own class.

 

[marius4]

Reading the 5e PHB ranger as it is, a 4th-level ranger with animal friendship, alarm or longstrider, and hunter's mark as spells known does not seem extremely magical or spellcastery to me. Although this is literally a selection of "spells," per se, taken all together they feel more akin to special knacks the wilderness character has developed. I don't sense much burden to "reflavor away the spellcasting" to get the "non-caster feeling," but that's just me. On the other hand, a ranger who has chosen cure wounds, ensnaring strike, and fog cloud or hail of thorns comes across as much more overtly magical. The fact that I can choose either group of spells seems pretty accommodating to me, at least on the surface. Perhaps the class description format just didn't present this in the best way(?).

The same holds for a paladin who prepares compelled duel, divine favor, and heroism versus command, detect magic, and purify food and drink. The difference is that the paladin has the additional option to burn their spell slots entirely on generic divine smites; you (the player) don't even have to think about spells at all. In my survey response I pointed this difference out and suggested adding a "burn" option for the ranger as a possible improvement. I wonder if, for example, burning those pesky ranger spell slots to gain advantage/take 20/gain "inspiration"/etc. on Survival or Investigation checks made to track creatures (or something like that) would create enough of a non-spellcasting feel for those who prefer it.

Tying back to the main thread question, I agree with 77IM in that I feel archetype is the bottom line for "needing" a class, but the next step is that the archetype should come across in a mechanically unique way (i.e. yes as some sort of schtick). For rangers, despite all the hullabaloo, I feel the archetype is fairly clearly "the hunstman" and the mechanic is fairly clearly mastery of the exploration pillar and tracking/investigating. Add a beast companion, make it urban, give it more/less spells, increase its combat toughness........that's mostly just window dressing in my eyes. Window dressing we should all be able to pick and choose from, but still window dressing.

Also, FIRST POST, my nerdfriends!! Whare be th' emoticons?? Have we no emoji here?!

 

[Lord Twig]

Reading the 5e PHB ranger as it is, a 4th-level ranger with animal friendship, alarm or longstrider, and hunter's mark as spells known does not seem extremely magical or spellcastery to me. Although this is literally a selection of "spells," per se, taken all together they feel more akin to special knacks the wilderness character has developed. I don't sense much burden to "reflavor away the spellcasting" to get the "non-caster feeling," but that's just me. On the other hand, a ranger who has chosen cure wounds, ensnaring strike, and fog cloud or hail of thorns comes across as much more overtly magical. The fact that I can choose either group of spells seems pretty accommodating to me, at least on the surface. Perhaps the class description format just didn't present this in the best way(?).

The same holds for a paladin who prepares compelled duel, divine favor, and heroism versus command, detect magic, and purify food and drink. The difference is that the paladin has the additional option to burn their spell slots entirely on generic divine smites; you (the player) don't even have to think about spells at all. In my survey response I pointed this difference out and suggested adding a "burn" option for the ranger as a possible improvement. I wonder if, for example, burning those pesky ranger spell slots to gain advantage/take 20/gain "inspiration"/etc. on Survival or Investigation checks made to track creatures (or something like that) would create enough of a non-spellcasting feel for those who prefer it.

Tying back to the main thread question, I agree with 77IM in that I feel archetype is the bottom line for "needing" a class, but the next step is that the archetype should come across in a mechanically unique way (i.e. yes as some sort of schtick). For rangers, despite all the hullabaloo, I feel the archetype is fairly clearly "the hunstman" and the mechanic is fairly clearly mastery of the exploration pillar and tracking/investigating. Add a beast companion, make it urban, give it more/less spells, increase its combat toughness........that's mostly just window dressing in my eyes. Window dressing we should all be able to pick and choose from, but still window dressing.

Also, FIRST POST, my nerdfriends!! Whare be th' emoticons?? Have we no emoji here?!

Welcome! I'm new here myself.

I think that there are some "low magic" options that are great for Rangers that are not overtly spell casters. The problem is that there is a vocal minority here that is decidedly anti-magic (and not in the cool Anti-Magic Field way). Even having mystical powers is too much for them. They want to do the impossible through pure awesomeness.

 

[Greg K]

Sure, but like I said, a class that outright excludes Aragorn is questionable. Conan is not the only barbarian character, but if the barbarian class had a feature which implied Conan wasn't a barbarian at all, that would be a problem, wouldn't it?

REH Conan (as opposed to say the Marvel Comics version) was an inspiration for the 1e barbarian and 4e Fighter Neither of those classes raged. Therefore in 5e, I would go with Fighter (Battlemaster).

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

IMO the magic vs. non-magic option should be a choice of the player, not one forced on the player by class design. The D&D ranger has had both variants, though most have had spells of some sort along the way, so keeping a spell option is mandatory -- plus I'll acknowledge that spells are a convenient mechanic to introduce a number of wilderness abilities.

On the other hand, I'm a huge fan of the 1E Ranger, which was my favorite class of that edition. It's the quintessential "Aragon" ranger, and while it had spellcasting, the spellcasting was relatively minor and became accessible only at a relatively high (for 1E, anyway) level -- I personally never played a 1E ranger to a high enough level that spellcasting came into play. So I've always preferred the spell-less ranger, or at least spell-light ranger.

So since both archetypes have merit, I really think WotC should be finding a way to deliver both in the core class design.