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

[Mercule]

Druids revere nature. Rangers USE nature.

I have a feeling that people who don't like Rangers with magic think the solution is a specific ranger archetype with magic for people who like it - it should make Greeks and Troyans happy.

While I prefer my Ranger with spells, I often dance around the "no spells" camp. Why? Because they became Druid-lite. That's not what Rangers are. As [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] says, Rangers use nature -- even if that use is entirely benevolent. The way Rangers work with spells should be, in-game, much closer to Wizards than Druids. The Bard is probably the closest, in truth. Bards harness the power of song and verse to cast arcane spells. Ranger harness the power of nature to cast arcane spells.

I'm using the term "arcane" to mean that the caster has uncovered "hidden knowledge" that allows him to do magic. This is opposed to divine magic, which would involve acting as a conduit for a higher being, force, or ideal. Clerics, Druids, and Paladins are divine casters. Every other class in the PHB is arcane -- though you could make a case for Warlock being divine, depending on campaign fluff.

I think using Battlemasters Manuvers is a disservice - it makes the Ranger more like the FIghter, instead of ts own thing.

Agreed. This, alone, makes the first UA version of the Ranger a non-starter, for me. It cheapens both the Ranger class and the Battle Master sub-class.

 

[steeldragons]

This is the ranger's shtick...and archetypes.

 

[renevq]

This is the ranger's shtick...and archetypes.

Very nice. It seems a bit OP at face value, but it has a really, really good thematic feel. Not exactly the way I would fix the class, but for the most part it seems we think alike on what makes a ranger.

 

[Minigiant]

The problem I see is trying to make the ranger too universal.

It is supposed to be a specialty class that specializes in specific creatures. I think the problem now a days is that people want their abilities to work 100% against everything and in every situation. The idea of Favoured Enemy and Terrain is that the higher level you get, the more you add to your list. Picking a ranger should require a bit of planning with the DM. You find out the kind of adventure he/she is running and you can figure out which terrain and type of creatures to pick. Sure you aren't going to be maxed out against everything but if that is what you want then create a wilderness fighter.

I personally think that Favored Enemy should not be the rangers shtick if it isn't general and customizable like the Hunter archetype.

But I could see a fantasy racist SM40K Deathwatch optional archetype for your ragtag group of killers.

Fighter/Ranger: DIE XENO SCUM! DIE!
Rogue/Ranger: Back in the thieves guild, we never fought beings like that.
Paladin/Ranger: That's uglier than any demon I've slain.
Barbarian/Ranger: RAAAAAAAWR!

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Now going back to the OP point: if magic isn't (part of!!!) the Ranger "thing", what is the Ranger thing? What differentiates a Lvl 1 Ranger from a Lvl 1 Outlander Fighter? And a Lvl 3 (by that I mean archetypes)?

Natural Explorer. Also probably some hunter's-mark-like ability -- that seems to be pretty popular among the homebrew ranger write-ups circulating here. The fighter takes all comers; the ranger focuses on a single quarry. Maybe a mobility ability too, although those usually come later, like Land's Stride.

For potential archetypes, you've got the stalker (stealth, maybe traps), hunter (favored enemy), beastmaster (pet), warden (spellcasting), and pathfinder (party support).

I think using Battlemasters Manuvers is a disservice - it makes the Ranger more like the FIghter, instead of ts own thing.

Agreed as well.

Really, I'd rather see people who want to play a beast master go play a Druid or have another class introduced to handle it (is that what the 4E Warden did?).

I believe you're thinking of the shaman.

But it is a popular trope and so it does deserve to be a ranger subclass.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Sherwood Forest was Candy Land compared to most D&D settings.

It would take magic to survive in Candyland. No natural sources of nutrition.

 

[Mephista]

The goddess Diana. Enough said. The moon goddess is a ranger, and all is right with that image.

 

[Onslaught]

I don't have enough time to quote everyone, but I hope these well help me to make my point:

Ranger has been my favorite class since 1E. I explicitly do not want to be saddled with an animal companion

What "we" would like more is probably trading spellcasting for other goodies.

On a side note, i am still not sure if i want the favorite enemy feature to return to the old bonus damage VS given enemy.

I personally think that Favored Enemy should not be the rangers shtick if it isn't general and customizable like the Hunter archetype.

"We", as players, D&D and Ranger fans can't agree with neither WHAT nor HOW Rangers class features should be built. There's no way to make everyone happy. And I dare to say it's quite hard to make most of us happy (like Bard and Fighter execution - I guess those makes most people happy from what opinions I've read elsewhere).

But here's why I think WotC did a good job, conceptually, even though there are (lots of) space for improvement:

For potential archetypes, you've got the stalker (stealth, maybe traps), hunter (favored enemy), beastmaster (pet), warden (spellcasting), and pathfinder (party support).

I think most (if not all) these archetypes are in the PHB Ranger somehow... except for the fact that the Pet is exclusive to the Beastmaster, all those archetypes are in the core ranger (without archetypes).

However, I think "Pathfinder" should be embbebed in every Ranger. It is in the PHB ranger in the form of skills, abilities and... spellcasting.

Aaanndd we probably will enter in the loop: spellcasting or no spellcasting. However, what is the major problem with spells: the druid-lite problem, the "magic" factor? Changing the spell list wouldnt fix that?

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Agreed. This, alone, makes the first UA version of the Ranger a non-starter, for me. It cheapens both the Ranger class and the Battle Master sub-class.

The one that substitutes spells for herbalism and poultices?

And I dare to say it's quite hard to make most of us happy (like Bard and Fighter execution - I guess those makes most people happy from what opinions I've read elsewhere).

The reasons why fighters work so well is because they follow the formula i mentioned above. The fighter archetypes cover almost all it's "target demographics". It should be the same with the ranger cause.... well, as we seamed to have came to an agreement, a single archetype doesn't cover all of our "needs".

 

[renevq]

Aaanndd we probably will enter in the loop: spellcasting or no spellcasting. However, what is the major problem with spells: the druid-lite problem, the "magic" factor? Changing the spell list wouldnt fix that?

I think having the Ranger be a half caster works very well for resource management. It's just that the implementation is a bit off (spells known instead of prepared, having Hunter's Mark be a spell that takes up a slot compared to paladin's smite, Primeval Awareness requiring the use of spell slots). Also the spell list could use a bit of revision. More support and ranger-y spells (like a conjure traps), and spells that support melee (as opposed to archery, which has a lot).