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

[Corpsetaker]

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.

I would say a ranger should be able to manipulate the magic of land instead of the magic coming from the ranger.

I would like to see some special perks open up for the ranger only using the Survival skill.

 

[Azurewraith]

Can't we just give rangers a bunch of super human abilities to do spell like things wont that keep everyone happy?

Ok it wont but we can hope

 

[Corpsetaker]

Can't we just give rangers a bunch of super human abilities to do spell like things wont that keep everyone happy?

Ok it wont but we can hope

Why can't the ranger have a mixture of both?

Things like Pass without a Trace and Hide in Plain Sight could be something that isn't supernatural but just being "that good".

Healing, Camouflage, Cure Disease, See Invisibility, Glitterdust, etc could be done using herbs instead of spells.

Favoured Enemy and Favoured Terrain are really missed opportunities that when done right can give the ranger some identity.

 

[Azurewraith]

Why can't the ranger have a mixture of both?

Things like Pass without a Trace and Hide in Plain Site could be something that isn't supernatural but just being "that good".

Healing, Camouflage, Cure Disease, See Invisibility, Glitterdust, etc could be done using herbs instead of spells.

Favoured Enemy and Favoured Terrain are really missed opportunities that when done right can give the ranger some identity.

Because I really hate spell casting! Nah a mix could work I do agree favourable terrains and enemies has been a huge missed oppertunity ok terrain not so much but favoured enemy has been real meh this edition imo

 

[Corpsetaker]

Because I really hate spell casting! Nah a mix could work I do agree favourable terrains and enemies has been a huge missed oppertunity ok terrain not so much but favoured enemy has been real meh this edition imo

Now my examples above didn't use any internal magic but used herbs to create spell like effects.

 

[Eric V]

Personally, I think the biggest issue is not the class(es) itself... but all the players out here who just staunchly refuse to consider their character's class as "real" unless it says right there at the top of the sub-chapter the name of their class.

A heavy armor, greatweapon fighter with the outlander background isn't a ranger, because the sub-chapter heading says "Fighter." EVEN IF that particular build of the character covers everything you want your mythical ranger ideal to have. Nope. Doesn't have the word "Ranger" tacked onto the top, so it doesn't count. Instead, we have to take the class that says "Ranger" and twist the damn thing up into a pretzel seven ways to Sunday so that it ends up being something like the ranger ideal that seventy-five different player types have in their head. Because unless it SAYS "Ranger" in the sub-chapter, then it isn't actually a Ranger.

Ugh. Drives me batty.

Agreed. I could never understand why people in 4e complained that their amazing archer in 4e had "Ranger" in the class section of the character sheet instead of "Fighter"

Then again, look at the other thread about classes having in-world meaning in the gameworld and you can see it's a huge issue.

 

[Azurewraith]

Agreed. I could never understand why people in 4e complained that their amazing archer in 4e had "Ranger" in the class section of the character sheet instead of "Fighter"

Then again, look at the other thread about classes having in-world meaning in the gameworld and you can see it's a huge issue.

It is a pain but to me its not the class on the top of the sheet its how you play. Once had a assassin that refused to kill went assassin the sneakiness and the concept of hitting a Guy at base of neck n him staying down(his attacks were fluffed unarmed seen as no sneaky fists)

 

[Uchawi]

With all things being equal I believe 5E would be much closer to the mark in regards to class/character customization if they implemented maneuvers for martial characters and spells for casters. Then you add in background, feats, etc. and the sky is the limit.

 

[renevq]

Why does a class need its own schtick? Because a thematic concept needs mechanical versimilitude, and if other classes schticks can't fulfill it, then it needs its own.

Now, admittedly Ranger is my favorite class, and 5e's is my favorite implementation. Although it is a bit lacking mechanically in combat, I believe thematically it hits all the benchmarks of what a Ranger should be. It just needs a bit of tweaking like fixing a couple of class abilities, fixing the pet option, and adding a few more thematic spells that are unique to the class.

As for magic, in my opinion I don't see how a Ranger cannot have it with the assumption that in D&D it is a known fact that magic is a part of the world, and that includes the natural world. Now Rangers, attuned to nature as they are, should be able to slightly manipulate this magic. Not to the extent that a Druid does, who has given himself up completely to nature as a metaphysical concept and acts as its avatar of sorts, but as someone who uses nature as a tool in his role of ultimate survivalist, tracker, and woodsman. This is what should differentiate him from a similarly themed Fighter, Rogue or Barbarian. Now this magic may be subtle, like goodberry (which is an excellent analogue of herbalism) and pass without trace, or overt like spike growth and ensaring strike. Magic simply represents the Ranger's mechanical ability to thematically surpass a non-Ranger in a natural setting.

Now you could argue that a ranger could be built through multiclassing or a prestige class, but the first is clunky and an optional rule, and the second is still in the UA stage of development; and, at the end of the day, a Ranger is a very unique, specific archetype, ergo its own class with its own schticks.

 

[Minigiant]

Can't we just give rangers a bunch of super human abilities to do spell like things wont that keep everyone happy?

Ok it wont but we can hope

Unfortunately there is a percentage of the D&D fandom who say "Thou cannot X without magic". So instead of gathering herbs, the ranger casts spells.


Actually that's not all

1) THERE IS A PERCENTAGE OF THE D&D COMMUNITY WHO WILL NOT ALLOW SOME EFFECTS AND ACTIONS WITHOUT MAGIC.

Rangers can't gather herbs to heal, bards can't sing morale into the weakened to heal, warlords let's not get into that.

2) BECAUSE 5TH EDITION'S SKILLS ARE FREEFORM AND NOT CONCRETE LIKE 3RD AND 4TH, WITHOUT MAGIC YOUR RANGER'S RANGERINESS IS AT THE FICKLE MERCY OF WHAT DM YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE.

One DM could say your ranger can use Survival and Natures to gather herbs to heal wounds, neutralize poison, invigorate allies, and intoxicate enemies.
Another DM could say your ranger can use Survival and Natures to gather herbs to heal wounds, neutralize poison, invigorate allies, and intoxicate enemies only in the spring while near a dense forest under a full moon.
Another DM could say No to it all.

3) EVERY GROUP AND INDIVIDUAL HAS DIFFERENT IDEAS OF WHAT RANGER "POWERS ARE"

Some want subtle effects that are fund in real plant and animals.
Others will allow storm and elemental rangers with lightning arrows and fire arrows.
Others want more "travel the world" rangers who pick up bot druidic, clerical, fey, demonic, and wizardish feature.