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

[Lanefan]

I have no problem with magic being pushed back. it could have came at level 3 or 4.

The problem is that the design team decided to make magic not scale. A level 1 spell in a 1st level slot never gets stronger. So you could only wait so long before rangers get magic.

If you were to wait to level 9 like in 1st Edition, the 1st level spells would be useless unless you gave them tons of them.

Depends. If one looks at the spells as no more than a minor add-on to what the Ranger can already do (which is really all they should be), being able to only cast 2 or 3 a day starting at 9th level is just fine. But if you're looking for a nature-based class that can cast from Day 1 then you're after Druid or Nature Cleric; and if you're looking for a tougher class that can still cast from Day 1 then you're multi-classing said Druid or Nature Cleric with Fighter.

Lan-"the last Ranger I played was in 3e: a heavyweight plate-clad tank with the noble ethics of a Paladin who - though mechanically quite sub-optimal - lasted quite some time"-efan

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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).

Some of them shouldn't be in the core ranger. As we've seen, not everyone wants spellcasting or a pet, and favored enemy is also a particularly contentious feature. For stalker and pathfinder, it's more a matter of emphasis. Like how with rogues, any rogue can sneak attack, but if you want to be really good at sneak attacking, pick assassin.

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

The pathfinder is where Aragorn falls. He doesn't cast spells, he doesn't have an animal companion, he doesn't really have a favored enemy, and while he's certainly proficient in Stealth that's not a dominant part of his tactics. What sets him apart is his abilities as a guide and a leader. Yeah, every ranger has Natural Explorer, but he goes above and beyond. I see the pathfinder's schtick as sharing his ranger class features with the rest of the party. Hunter's mark and land's stride for everybody! That sort of thing.

 

[Minigiant]

Depends. If one looks at the spells as no more than a minor add-on to what the Ranger can already do (which is really all they should be), being able to only cast 2 or 3 a day starting at 9th level is just fine. But if you're looking for a nature-based class that can cast from Day 1 then you're after Druid or Nature Cleric; and if you're looking for a tougher class that can still cast from Day 1 then you're multi-classing said Druid or Nature Cleric with Fighter.

Lan-"the last Ranger I played was in 3e: a heavyweight plate-clad tank with the noble ethics of a Paladin who - though mechanically quite sub-optimal - lasted quite some time"-efan

But the 5th edition ranger does neither of those. The 5th edition ranger's magic is an augment to it weapons prowess and wilderness skill. Animal friensdhip buffs his Animal Handling skill. Hunter's mark buffs it's weapon damage.

Or thing of it this way. At level 5, a ranger's combat routine vs a giant elite might look like this.

Martial: Two weapon attacks; 1d8 damage the longsword, +1 AC from fighting style
Magic: 1d6 damage from hunters mark, +10ft speed from longstrider
Skill: 1d8 damage for Colossus slayer, Advantage to attack from attacking unseen vs Stealth.

Essentially, 1/3 of his or her power is tied up in magic. If you remove that, you have to double the martial or skill elements. Doing so put's you at direct open comparison with the fighter and rogue.

Fighter
Martial: Two attacks, 1d8 damage from longsword, +1 AC from fighting style, Two attack from Action Surge, Critical hit on a 19 or 20.


Rogue
Martial: 1d6 from shortsword, 3d6 bonus damage each round, resistance to one attack from Uncanny Dodge
Skill: Advantage to attack from attacking unseen vs Stealth, Double Stealth proficiency bonus, Critical hit on surprise round., +30ft speed from Cunning Action

Essentially you have to double two of the Ranger's attacks, speed or proficiency modifier just to remove magic and still have him keep up with the Fighter and Rogue. First question it's "What do I want the ranger to be?" The second and harder question is "How do I make that image not suck compared to the other classes?"

 

[Klaus]

Hunter's Mark is there to fill up the space left from 1e/2e's bonus against giant-kind/evil humanoids, 3e's Favored Enemy, and 4e's Hunter's Quarry. It is currently a spell, but it doesn't *have* to be. Similarly, longstrider doesn't have to be a spell, it could be just a bonus to speed. And Volley or Swift Quiver were already in previous editions of the game, as 3e archery feats or 4e blast attacks/stances.

These four abilities could just be flat-out features of a "spell-less" ranger, received at the levels the class would otherwise receive the slots for them. Since everyone wants spellcasting/spell-less options *in addition* to two-weapon/archery/beastmastery options, the best way to deliver those is as a sidebar that replaces the Spellcasting with these granted abilities.

 

[Azurewraith]

We could allways make ranger the build a bear class. Make everyone happy right?

I feel rangers lost alot when they decided on this God awful simple skill system(my opinion ofc)

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I actually do interpret rangers as nature Paladins- not in terms of flavor but certainly in terms of mechanics- they should have the same relationship with the druid that Paladins have with clerics- similar spell lists, but more limited and combined with martial ability- in my eyes for the Ranger, that martial ability should be very rogue like.

I mean ultimately, if a ranger is one thing- it's less tough than a plated warrior, it's more about mobility- it ranges across terrain. Mobility invokes an agile fighting style, stealth. But i suppose you can open it up to strength weapons- but then what should the rangers niche be?

I think it should be spellcasting, as the half-caster nature equivalent to the paladin

 

[Azurewraith]

I actually do interpret rangers as nature Paladins- not in terms of flavor but certainly in terms of mechanics- they should have the same relationship with the druid that Paladins have with clerics- similar spell lists, but more limited and combined with martial ability- in my eyes for the Ranger, that martial ability should be very rogue like.

I mean ultimately, if a ranger is one thing- it's less tough than a plated warrior, it's more about mobility- it ranges across terrain. Mobility invokes an agile fighting style, stealth. But i suppose you can open it up to strength weapons- but then what should the rangers niche be?

I think it should be spellcasting, as the half-caster nature equivalent to the paladin

I would say rangers need to be pretty tough I mean when you could be spending weeks at a time tracking your quarry your bound to get pretty banged up. That's why I like the idea of 2hd for better recovery

 

[Minigiant]

We could allways make ranger the build a bear class. Make everyone happy right?

I feel rangers lost alot when they decided on this God awful simple skill system(my opinion ofc)

Well that's basically what I've been saying for pages.

Ranger archetypical abilities pretty much require hard coded fantastic elements and rules.

Many D&D fans won't let fantastic effects happen without magic outside of damage, HP. They complain if martial characters do anything fancy.

Many D&D fans want the skill system simple and freeform. They complain if there are too many rules and not enough DM control.

Result: Official rangers are magic.

I would say rangers need to be pretty tough I mean when you could be spending weeks at a time tracking your quarry your bound to get pretty banged up. That's why I like the idea of 2hd for better recovery

To me, the ranger's toughness was less health and more resistance. A ranger takes a fireball better than a fighter because he hunted red dragons, lived in the desert, or was used to dodging kobold traps.

 

[renevq]

To me, the ranger's toughness was less health and more resistance. A ranger takes a fireball better than a fighter because he hunted red dragons, lived in the desert, or was used to dodging kobold traps.

I think it's all right that Rangers are able to resist the same as a fighter and thus the same mechanically (d10 HD), if for completely different thematic reasons. Now the 3e d8 HD was an abomination.

 

[Gladius Legis]

I think it should be spellcasting, as the half-caster nature equivalent to the paladin

The Paladin's niche is not spellcasting. It's defense against conditions, healing and smiting.

For that matter, no one's niche in this game is spellcasting; even the full casters are more defined on what they can do with the spells they cast, or how they cast them and recover them, than the simple fact they cast spells.

So spellcasting itself hardly defines the Ranger, nor should it.