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

[Sacrosanct]

You know, I have to believe that the group of people that want to play D&D without magic is a fairly small minority.

The number of people who like playing fighters, barbarians, and rogues seem to prove otherwise. There are lots of players who like to play PCs without spell or spell-like powers. Not a majority, sure. But most certainly not a small minority either.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm honestly getting sick of the whole Aragorn arguments. Its like you can't expect concepts to evolve or grow past one thing? I mean, hells. Aragorn is more paladin than ranger anyways! And its not like there's not other inspirations behind the Ranger class.

You're right, there are other Ranger archetypes out there.

If anyone can find me an example of Robin Hood casting a spell, I'm all ears.

Aragorn did what he did largely with herbs containing magic, as does the Elf in the third Hobbit movie when she heals Kili...which leads me to think there's a pile of design space there for a magical herb system. We've had magical herbs in our games forever, but I'll freely admit our system is a bit clunky.

Lanefan

 

[Jessica]

I repeat: such as?

The ones that immediately come to mind are rangers from the Warcraft universe. Other ones include the ranger-like classes from Final Fantasy, WarmaHordes(primarily the latter), and the Heroes of Might and Magic series(primarily part 3).

Sure, but this argument doesn't get you where you want to go unless you go further and say that Strider and other nonmagical woodsman characters are not an influence at all. Because strapping spells to the ranger class excludes those characters from the class. But having the base ranger be nonmagical with optional spellcasting includes everybody.

Having the base ranger be non-magical and then gating other features behind subclasses excludes lots of people.

They were devout Christians who prayed to God to give them strength in battle because of their purity and faith. That's explicitly supernatural power. Not analogous to the ranger archetype.

That's about as magical and supernatural as Gob Bluth.

It's starting to sound like you've had some bad experiences in this regard. I'm sorry you had them, but please understand that in pushing for explicitly supernatural abilities to be the default you are attempting to impose your preferred playstyle on other groups just as much as whoever soured you so much on "realism" did to you. People who want "realistic" non-magical classes are not having badwrongfun. They have just as much right to play the game their way as you have to play yours. And the way everybody gets what they want is if spells are optional, like they are for the fighter and the rogue.

Spells have been default on the Ranger for every edition except 4th(and even that was brought back with Essentials from what I understand). You are the one trying to push your "preferred playstyle" on others. Maybe when D&D finds a way to do a non-spellcasting Ranger that can do all the stuff the Ranger class is known to do then it won't be an issue, but until that time the Ranger is a spellcasting class and if you don't like it then maybe you should go and take the Fighter or Rogue with the Outlander background.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

The ones that immediately come to mind are rangers from the Warcraft universe. Other ones include the ranger-like classes from Final Fantasy, WarmaHordes(primarily the latter), and the Heroes of Might and Magic series(primarily part 3).

In those extremely high-magic universes, the fighter- and rogue-like classes also cast spells. Does that mean those classes should be able to cast spells in D&D too?

If you think the answer is "yes", then... you're right! And in 5E, those classes can cast spells! It's just a customization option, not the default.

Having the base ranger be non-magical and then gating other features behind subclasses excludes lots of people.

How? How on earth does it do that? I'm not being difficult here; this assertion of yours honestly baffles me. If I'd said, "You can multiclass into druid to get your spells", I could understand your objection, because the multiclass rules are presented as optional and not every table uses them. But are there any tables that don't use the subclass rules? I don't know of any.

Spells have been default on the Ranger for every edition except 4th(and even that was brought back with Essentials from what I understand). You are the one trying to push your "preferred playstyle" on others.

Me: You should be able to play a magical ranger if you want to and a nonmagical ranger if you want to.
You: All rangers should be magical.

Sorry, I'm just not buying it.

...the Ranger is a spellcasting class and if you don't like it then maybe you should go and take the Fighter or Rogue with the Outlander background.

Wow. Okay. Read that back to yourself. Does that sound to you like the statement of someone who is open to change and diverse playstyles, or does it sound like someone who is hidebound and stuck in a rut?

 

[Lord Twig]

The number of people who like playing fighters, barbarians, and rogues seem to prove otherwise. There are lots of players who like to play PCs without spell or spell-like powers. Not a majority, sure. But most certainly not a small minority either.

I like playing Fighters and rogues (barbarians not so much). But I don't worry if they have some magical abilities. As it happens I think WotC did a great job with Barbarians, Fighters and Rogues without magic. Then they added subclasses that allowed spells (or mystic powers for the Barbarian), which just opens up even more possibilities for them. Great!

But the Ranger has always had magic built into it. And it doesn't matter what level they get it at, the fact is they got it. A non-magic Ranger should be an option, but by no means the default. A lot of people seemed to like the spell-less Ranger in UA. They should probably just put it in a book and make it "official" somehow.

I also think a non-magic Scout subclass for the Rogue would be awesome.

 

[Lord Twig]

In those extremely high-magic universes, the fighter- and rogue-like classes also cast spells. Does that mean those classes should be able to cast spells in D&D too?

If you think the answer is "yes", then... you're right! And in 5E, those classes can cast spells! It's just a customization option, not the default.

And D&D isn't a "high-magic universe"? How do you figure that? And Fighters and Rogues don't cast spells, but I have never played a game of D&D where they didn't use magic. The magic they used came from magic items, but that's still using magic.

How? How on earth does it do that? I'm not being difficult here; this assertion of yours honestly baffles me. If I'd said, "You can multiclass into druid to get your spells", I could understand your objection, because the multiclass rules are presented as optional and not every table uses them. But are there any tables that don't use the subclass rules? I don't know of any.

Me: You should be able to play a magical ranger if you want to and a nonmagical ranger if you want to.
You: All rangers should be magical.

Sorry, I'm just not buying it.

Most examples of putting spells in a subclass has been a variation of: "A Hunter, A Beast Master, An Ambusher, and One that gets spells for those that want magic." Considering that the survey that WotC just took said that the majority of players want more magic, that seems a little backwards. It should be all subclasses get magic except for the one that can't.

Or they can put the spell-less Ranger variant in then, I think, everyone would be happy. (Ok, probably not everyone, but more people.)

 

[S'mon]

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.

Also the vast majority of published adventures for AD&D were for levels 1-8. My own 1e
campaign went to "Galactic Dragons & Godwars" levels, but this was not really supported by TSR.

 

[Minigiant]

What is the Ranger's schtick?

Wildnerness survival.

What are some of the wildernesses in D&D?

Wild woods
Enchanted sylvan forests
Massive deserts
The Underdark
Demonic plains

What beasts live in these wildernesses?

Wild woods- Deer, bears, wolves, giant weasels
Enchanted sylvan forests- blink dogs, displacer beasts, giant owls, unicorns
Massive deserts- camel, flying snakes, swarmss of insects
The Underdark- giant rats, striges, swarms of bats
Demonic plains- death dogs, demonic bears, nightmares,

What intelligent life in these wildernesses?

wild woods- bandits, druids, scouts, orcs, gnolls, green dragons
Enchanted sylvan forests- dryads, spirites, treants, hags
Massive deserts- sphinxes, mummies, blue dragons, yaun ti
The Underdark- drow, mind flayers, beholders, gray dwarves
Demonic plains- .... DEMONS? maybe...

What hazards are in these wildernesses?

Wild woods- forest fires, quicksand
Enchanted sylvan forests- portals to the Feywild
Massive deserts- Extreme heat and cold
The Underdark- Desecrated ground, poison spores, drakness
Demonic plains- Extreme heat and cold, demonic plants and fungi

Why do ranger have magic at low levels?

Because you have meet all the above at level 2 in this edition and you aren't expected to run away.

 

[Azurewraith]

You're right, there are other Ranger archetypes out there.

If anyone can find me an example of Robin Hood casting a spell, I'm all ears.

Aragorn did what he did largely with herbs containing magic, as does the Elf in the third Hobbit movie when she heals Kili...which leads me to think there's a pile of design space there for a magical herb system. We've had magical herbs in our games forever, but I'll freely admit our system is a bit clunky.

Lanefan

This is an idea i really like herbs
at level one gain a class feture that lets you forage for herbs during long and short rests based on a survival role and a table thats allows you to find herbs that do things like water breathing putting mooks to sleep allow water breathing etc etc etc.Add in some trap building and i like the sound of it. Gives you a class that needs to prepare whats coming by building the right traps and gathering herbs.

 

[Mephista]

Most examples of putting spells in a subclass has been a variation of: "A Hunter, A Beast Master, An Ambusher, and One that gets spells for those that want magic." Considering that the survey that WotC just took said that the majority of players want more magic, that seems a little backwards. It should be all subclasses get magic except for the one that can't.

Not directed at you, Twig, but just saying -

Many people want an option that combines all the above. The spell-less option is the ones that's a variation on the above ideas, not the other way around. That's how the spell less Ranger removes concepts - because it is limiting other people in what choices they have to one part of their ranger.

This is a case where its easier to remove something than add it in.