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

[Jessica]

Even if the archetypal Rangers didn't cast magic spells in their original sources, that is often because those sources allow non-magic users to do seemingly supernatural things without having to explicitly cast spells. The culture and often rules of D&D force "realism" on non-spellcasters and then give spellcasters (and a small amount of non-spellcasters whose concept seems mystical somehow) the license to consistenly break those rules of realism. In order for Rangers to have a lot of abilities that they have in fiction, the only way D&D is reasonably capable of reflecting it is through spellcasting or otherwise they would have a class features list a mile long. Without spellcasting, Rangers are brought back into the world of "realism" and no longer have the license to do as much of the stuff that we imagine Rangers doing at most tables for those that imagine the class as purely martial.

 

[Minigiant]

Sounds like a Druid to me - except the crystal ball, a weird interpretation of Aragorn's attempt to use Saruman's palantir.

The main difference is the ranger uses druidic magic as a tool whereas the druid has it as a way of life. Rangers only use magic because nonmagical methods stop working after a point. Every action for a druid is either "turn into a bear" or "cast a spell".

And oddly enough D&D varaint of Aragorn's use of the palantir make perfect sense in the hands of a ranger. Who better to have a long distance communication device than the loner who lives alone in the woods or wastes and always goes ahead scouting for the party..

Even if the archetypal Rangers didn't cast magic spells in their original sources, that is often because those sources allow non-magic users to do seemingly supernatural things without having to explicitly cast spells. The culture and often rules of D&D force "realism" on non-spellcasters and then give spellcasters (and a small amount of non-spellcasters whose concept seems mystical somehow) the license to consistenly break those rules of realism. In order for Rangers to have a lot of abilities that they have in fiction, the only way D&D is reasonably capable of reflecting it is through spellcasting or otherwise they would have a class features list a mile long. Without spellcasting, Rangers are brought back into the world of "realism" and no longer have the license to do as much of the stuff that we imagine Rangers doing at most tables for those that imagine the class as purely martial.

Exactly.
By RAW you cannot even pick healing herbs to heal or cure poison. You have to use magic or healer kits which must be purchase from a store.

30 years and ranger's can't even pick aloe.

 

[Sacrosanct]

And my perception of a Ranger's wilderness survival kit includes the spells that they gain as they level up, as far as I'm concerned it's part and parcel of being a DnD ranger.

If you want to play a wilderness outlander who casts spells and/or has a pet, they have the druid for that. I hope you can acknowledge that for the majority of the lifespan of the ranger class, their "wilderness survival kit" didn't include getting spells as they leveled up because they didn't get those spells for the majority of the levels in actual game play. Of all the rangers I've played over the years, I don't remember a single one casting a spelll because I don't remember a single one getting to level 8. So spells is very much NOT part and parcel to the class identity to me or anyone I played with. But if that's what you want, that's fine. No one is saying that there shouldn't be a ranger option with spells. I think what people are arguing is that it shouldn't be the default, or part of the default ranger "schitck". Like I said earlier, if you say that's part of the ranger thing, then it's like saying the AD&D thief's schitck was casting spells from scrolls. And that's not really accurate. That's just a side benefit.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The main difference is the ranger uses druidic magic as a tool whereas the druid has it as a way of life. Rangers only use magic because nonmagical methods stop working after a point. Every action for a druid is either "turn into a bear" or "cast a spell".
30 years and ranger's can't even pick aloe.

This is not true. Druids have always had decent combat fighting ability without the use of spells or wildshape. Medium armor and decent weapons and hit dice made them pretty effective. Every action most assuredly was *not* turn into a bear or cast a spell. Also, in modern rangers (with access to spells early), rangers use magic for the same reasons all other casters do, and it's not because nonmagical methods stopped working. Hunter's mark is used all the time, which is no different than most other buffing spells. A ranger doesn't use cure wounds only because nonmagical means stopped working, they use that spell in the same way and manner a cleric or druid does. All spells, whether a ranger, druid, or wizard, are resources the PC uses in the same manner. I.e., "I have a situation, what is the best option that I have to address that situation."

For example, if a ranger needed healing that a healing kit (non magical) or a cure wounds spell both fixed, they wouldn't use up their healing kit resources that don't recharge when their cure wounds ability recharges after every long rest without any other expenditure of mundane resources. Seems like you have it backwards. They will use nonmagical methods only when magical methods stop working (run out of spells for the day and need more)

 

[Onslaught]

The problem with the Ranger is that people have more versions of the ranger than can ever possibly fit in a single class archetype without having a more flexible class design. It's just as ranger-y to not have TWF or spells as it is to have them; what if I want no spells and an animal companion to track while using my sword-and-board fighting style?

My personal solution is to provide a broader list of ranger archetypes within the class and allow choices that are all equally viable.

Well, except for the "no spells", you could go with beastmaster using sword and shield. Your archetypes are good, but I don't think the "basic" Ranger should be spell less - I agree with Zeuel:

Even if the archetypal Rangers didn't cast magic spells in their original sources, that is often because those sources allow non-magic users to do seemingly supernatural things without having to explicitly cast spells.

"Spell" is the name of the rule used by designers to give Rangers all necessary supernatural skills it should have. Maybe the name "spell" is bad because it goes back to a philosophical discussion like power source (arcane? divine? nature itself?) and because it gets compared to Wizard/Cleric/Druid (or any SPELL-caster).

But one could (and maybe even the rules should) describe the Ranger "Spell casting aboility" as more something less magic and, in that sense, more natural.

Let's take Hunter's Mark. It's a "spell" to make you do some decent damage - through "magic"... or, instead, you could just interpret it as a ranger's ability to go on a "hunter mode" in order to kill its foe, but that mode being so physically strenuous that he cound't possibly do it more than a few minutes a day... then some times a day after a few levels... then he'd be seasoned enough to do it pretty much every time (aka using 5th level spell slot).

I think most (if not all) Ranger spells could be interpreted as such, making no difference between a spell-less (or not) ranger.

Just to put a bit more lumber in the fire: we're just forgetting a stapple D&D Ranger that finds a lot of hate in this forums, but a lot of love from it's fans. Drizzt. Yeah, you knew it was comming.

He's:
1) Hunter Ranger, dual-scimitar wielder
2) Uses Hunter's Mark pretty much the way I described above... but have no clear spellcasting ability besides that of a normal drow
3) Arguably have an animal companion - say, you could have a figurine, your AC doesn't die just get banisehd, you can walk in the city without leaving it behind, bonus action to activate...


By the way... I don't get all the hate with Rangers spells. Back in 3rd Ed I disliked Rangers and Paladins casting, because it was cumbersome, took resources, and didn't do anything particularly great - and so I did enjoy spell-less variants. But 5es approach to spellcasting in those classes was, IMHO, very interesting.

 

[Minigiant]

This is not true. Druids have always had decent combat fighting ability without the use of spells or wildshape. Medium armor and decent weapons and hit dice made them pretty effective. Every action most assuredly was *not* turn into a bear or cast a spell. Also, in modern rangers (with access to spells early), rangers use magic for the same reasons all other casters do, and it's not because nonmagical methods stopped working. Hunter's mark is used all the time, which is no different than most other buffing spells. A ranger doesn't use cure wounds only because nonmagical means stopped working, they use that spell in the same way and manner a cleric or druid does. All spells, whether a ranger, druid, or wizard, are resources the PC uses in the same manner. I.e., "I have a situation, what is the best option that I have to address that situation."

For example, if a ranger needed healing that a healing kit (non magical) or a cure wounds spell both fixed, they wouldn't use up their healing kit resources that don't recharge when their cure wounds ability recharges after every long rest without any other expenditure of mundane resources. Seems like you have it backwards. They will use nonmagical methods only when magical methods stop working (run out of spells for the day and need more)

You're missing the point.

Druid's are pure spell caster's and are designed to constantly use spells and wildshape. They only use weapons (a shilleleagh doesn't count. it's magic) when they can too few magic resources and cannot afford to or unable to use them. Druids are primairly nature based magic users.

The rangers starts off with few resources. This is because a different level of focus. Rangers are warriors forced to use magic because of the nature of the problems advancing past nonmagical methods.

If Animal Handling let you charm and call beasts, Survival let you track day old trails via scent, Nature let you pick healing herbs, Arcana let you detect magic, Medicine let you remove poison etc Rangers would not need magic.

But all of that is behind a "spells only" wall that only individual DMs can break.

They didn't put opening locks and disarming traps behind a "spels only" wall for rogues past level 5. Heck, 3rd made rogues the only ones able to open some lock and disarm some trap without magic.

 

[Manbearcat]

That's a lot of schtick!

I have 3 responses to this:

1) That's what she said.

2) Well...Rangers speak softly, so it all balances out.

3) I've GMed two Dungeon World Rangers. I find that they thematically capture the class as well as any iteration I've seen. Stock you have:

a) Hunting and Tracking
b) Called Shots against unawares or defenseless enemies at range
c) An awesome Animal Companion that is either (i) ferocious, (ii) canny, (iii) protective, or some combo therein.
d) Either a huge bonus when leading a Perilous Journey or you can forage "like a boss" and don't have to consume rations under certain circumstances (which has a lot of mechanical benefit for that system).

Then there are all kinds of swell stuff to round out your character as you level such as archery stuff, melee combat stuff, understand animals and speak with them, augment your animal companion, get even better at leading Perilous Journeys, monster/animal lore, camping/shelter augments, gaining priest/druid magic, etc etc.

Fits the bill and then some. And there is no "Favored Enemy" (one of my least favorite PC build features - but thematically and from a strict mechanics perspective) so score one for the good guys!

 

[TheCosmicKid]

As someone else already said, basic wilderness survival makes you an Outlander. You don't need to be a hero to know about wilderness survival. PC classes are more about heroes (at least in the making, for the first few levels), so heroic wilderness survival means something more than just the Survival skill. Same difference that comes between a Soldier and a Fighter, or a character with Thieve's Tools proficiency and a Rogue.

What I'm trying to say is that basic wilderness survival alone is not enough for a class. That's also why IMHO the Scout class concept has always been too weak. The Ranger's spells have always helped a lot towards heroic wilderness survival.

Spells would also help a lot towards being a heroic sneaky trickster. So what if I said that the rogue class should cast spells? Basic sneaky tricksterdom just makes you a criminal. Except you've already acknowledged that there's a difference between a criminal and a rogue -- I've seen no serious suggestion from you or from anyone else that the rogue character archetype could make do as just a background and a fighter subclass. We all accept that heroic sneaky tricksterdom in fact does not require spells, and that there's ample space for a nonmagical heroic sneaky trickster class. We don't think that basic sneaky tricksterdom alone is not enough for a class, or that the rogue class concept has always been too weak.

Even if the archetypal Rangers didn't cast magic spells in their original sources, that is often because those sources allow non-magic users to do seemingly supernatural things without having to explicitly cast spells.

Such as? I don't recall Strider ever ensnaring an orc with vines that sprout from his weapon, or turning his skin to tree bark, or breathing underwater.

In order for Rangers to have a lot of abilities that they have in fiction, the only way D&D is reasonably capable of reflecting it is through spellcasting or otherwise they would have a class features list a mile long.

The same argument could be made for any nonmagical class. In Pirates of the Caribbean, Jack Sparrow uses an overturned boat to walk underwater in flagrant defiance of the laws of buoyancy. Does that mean he's effectively cast the underwater breathing spell? And should all rogues thus get spellcasting and put that spell on their list?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Why? Because parismony.

 

[Minigiant]

.

Such as? I don't recall Strider ever ensnaring an orc with vines that sprout from his weapon, or turning his skin to tree bark, or breathing underwater.

Strider only ever fought orc and human fighters. Middle Earth is preschool compared to the Forgotten Realms.

D&D rangers deal with archmages, high druids, fey with druid spells, giants with blades and hammerheads as big as men, dragons with breath weapons, and abominations not of this world.

Half of those would kill Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas easily.