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

[Onslaught]

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).

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that it happens just as you said: change the spell list to be less magical, more utility/support and resources and turn Hunters Mark at a ability. Make the fluffy more like "special abilities" and spells are just resource management.

Would that appeal the No Magic folks?

I sadly think it wouldn't, however I do think this is the best way to improve the class.

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".

It at least proves the Ranger needs, clearly, its own class... with its own "thing" (or schtick, however that's written)

 

[Azurewraith]

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that it happens just as you said: change the spell list to be less magical, more utility/support and resources and turn Hunters Mark at a ability. Make the fluffy more like "special abilities" and spells are just resource management.

Would that appeal the No Magic folks?

I sadly think it wouldn't, however I do think this is the best way to improve the class.



It at least proves the Ranger needs, clearly, its own class... with its own "thing" (or schtick, however that's written)

Nah as a strong believer in getting rid of magic I would be perfectly happy with superna/spell like abilities strange I know

 

[Mercule]

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

Absolutely. I just don't think it's something every ranger shares. Sounds perfect for a subclass.

"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).

Agreed. Having come to that realization, myself, I started trying to figure out what I can compromise on and what I can't.

I prefer a spell-casting Ranger. I loathe the "druidic paladin" trope. If the spell-casting speaks to most people (especially the folks at WotC writing the fluff) as being druidic paladins, then dump it or put it into a subclass. If it can be done neutral or favoring "I USE nature, not serve it", then that would be ideal. Again, I'd prefer spell-casting, but moving it to a subclass would be a (tough, last-ditch) concession I could make. It's also better than druid-paladin.

I have no interest in having a ranger with a pet -- at least, I wouldn't want every ranger to have one. But, I can see it as a valid character concept. For lack of a better home, it wouldn't suck as a subclass of ranger.

I like Favored Enemy or some other variation that makes me dangerous to whomever I've chosen to hunt. I think it should be core to the Ranger, because, well, hunter. But, I could live with it being a subclass feature. I wouldn't want to give on much else, though.

I see the Ranger as being physically somewhat tougher than fighters. In hit point terms, they don't need a higher hit die, but I wouldn't object. The d8 hit die granted to the 3.5 ranger instantly made it "not a ranger", though. I really, really, really, extremely like the 2d6 hit die from latest UA ranger. That one mechanic, combined with the myriad of interactions with things like short rests, captured the ranger's toughness better than anything I've seen before. If it's a balance issue, I could live with it being 2d4, but it wouldn't be my first choice. As far as infringing on the barbarian's schtick, the barbarian can take a hike; the ranger is a significantly longer history (the 3E-5E barbarian doesn't share anything besides the d12 with the 1E version) and has first pick. At the very least, the barbarian doesn't have to be the only tough guy.

I want stealth. It shouldn't be as good as Rogue (and isn't, if the rogue chooses), but it should be there -- and better in the wilds. The PHB ranger hit the right balance. It should not improve or decrease, unless there's a subclass to make them better in the wilds.

I want hard to surprise. Again, the 5E PHB did well. If there was a lobby to make it better, I wouldn't object, but wouldn't join.

I don't get the TWF thing. No relation to being a wilderness warrior. I have now interest in it, and it has some tradition. Archery had some implied tradition in 1E. The way 5E handled fighting style is darn good. If you're going to lock them in, though, TWF can't be it. I actually wouldn't be terribly happy being locked into archery, but it at least makes some sense.

Does anyone actually object to rangers being able to track? If there's only one thing that can be safely said to be core to the ranger, it's got to be tracking.

I do not want druid-paladin. I think I've said that, already, but it deserves its own point. There is no negotiation on this. In fact, I really don't even want to see it as a subclass option, unless I can get everything else I want out of the deal and then proceed to ignore the subclass in my game.

The one that substitutes spells for herbalism and poultices?

That's the one.

 

[steeldragons]

So, we [as in, "they"/the designers] could go with:
Ranger Shtick (spell-less base)
1) Wilderness Expertise: Never get lost. Always know/tell direction. Survival and nature [maybe include perception] rolls. Pick a terrain in which all of that stuff applies. Get more terrain types as you travel/level up.
2) Superior Tracker: [PS: I HATE that they wrapped tracking as a skill up in survival!] Since "survival"/Wisdom rolls cover "anybody who wants to try to track something", ranger's shtick needs to be "I'm better at it, laways, than you." So, add proficiency, throw on an extra die, SOMEthing that makes rangers ALWAYS better at tracking than anyone else.
3) "Hunter's Mark": some low grade/minor combat bonus [fluff it as training, fluff it as "magic", fluff it however you want, doesn't matter] you can apply to anyone/different targets round to round.

THEN, subclass it out:
Sublcass 1: Limited [a.k.a. NOT at level friggin TWO/before level 7+] or No magic. Get a pet.
Subclass 2: Limited or no magic. Get Favored Enemies, increases/heavy combat guy.
Subclass 3: Magic guy. [more or less how it is now] Use spells for everything.

if you really "need"/insist on it, maaaaybe...Subclass 4: Limited or no magic. Stealthy/Scout/Ranger-rogue guy.

I'm inclined to spread it out with: 1 heavy magic subclass, 1 no magic at all subclass, and the rest some in between minor and/or high level only spell-access or magical abilities.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

So, we [as in, "they"/the designers] could go with:
Ranger Shtick (spell-less base)
1) Wilderness Expertise: Never get lost. Always know/tell direction. Survival and nature [maybe include perception] rolls. Pick a terrain in which all of that stuff applies. Get more terrain types as you travel/level up.
2) Superior Tracker: [PS: I HATE that they wrapped tracking as a skill up in survival!] Since "survival"/Wisdom rolls cover "anybody who wants to try to track something", ranger's shtick needs to be "I'm better at it, laways, than you." So, add proficiency, throw on an extra die, SOMEthing that makes rangers ALWAYS better at tracking than anyone else.
3) "Hunter's Mark": some low grade/minor combat bonus [fluff it as training, fluff it as "magic", fluff it however you want, doesn't matter] you can apply to anyone/different targets round to round.

THEN, subclass it out:
Sublcass 1: Limited [a.k.a. NOT at level friggin TWO/before level 7+] or No magic. Get a pet.
Subclass 2: Limited or no magic. Get Favored Enemies, increases/heavy combat guy.
Subclass 3: Magic guy. [more or less how it is now] Use spells for everything.

if you really "need"/insist on it, maaaaybe...Subclass 4: Limited or no magic. Stealthy/Scout/Ranger-rogue guy.

I'm inclined to spread it out with: 1 heavy magic subclass, 1 no magic at all subclass, and the rest some in between minor and/or high level only spell-access or magical abilities.

Pretty much so, yes. 3 or 4 (at most) subclasses should really be great and we already have 2 of those in the current PHB (the beast master maybe requiring some more work according to players that tried it). The UA latest 2d6 spell less variant is also a step in the right direction for the tough scout ambusher spell less archetype (personally i love the new mechanics and features int incorporates, including the trade-offs that come with the spirit companion - i still am not a fan of the companion actually materializing in combat once per day, but i can live with it, because of the other fun features it provides).

.......
I see the Ranger as being physically somewhat tougher than fighters. In hit point terms, they don't need a higher hit die, but I wouldn't object. The d8 hit die granted to the 3.5 ranger instantly made it "not a ranger", though. I really, really, really, extremely like the 2d6 hit die from latest UA ranger........

Sorry i cut your comment (i only did it to save space), but basically what you said from this point on. I think we agree on this subject completely.

 

[Corpsetaker]

I think what they should do is fix the categories for Favoured Enemy. I would make Dragons Dragonkin, add Goblinoids, and allow the ranger to pick two instead of one. Alternatively, choose two humanoids and whichever humanoid they choose, all subraces fall into that category.

I would then add a +1 to hit and +2 to damage.

I would also add a Hunter' Mark ability at 2nd level that would allow a ranger to select a non favoured enemy once per encounter and gain a +1 to hit. The ranger can choose another target after the current drops.

 

[Minigiant]

To me, I think the ranger's gotta have magic.

The fighter, barbarians, and rogue already coopted all the nonmagically aspects allowed in D&D outside of beastmastery and skirmishing. I fear a nonmagical ranger will gt outfought by the fighter's 3 attacks and outskilled by the rogue's expertise.

Also many of the major fantasy rangers of the past who were in fantasy settings were magical, had magical elements, or had fantastical origin. True many time it came form their race or magic items.

Aragorn
Jack the Giant Killer
Orion
Dar the Beastmaster
Rexxar Champion of the Horde
Drzzt Do'Urden
Hank the Ranger
Jon Snow

It's like you can't really hunt mythical foes and survive in mythical wilderness without some kind of magic, be it learn magic, magical birth, racial magic, magic items, or a magic boon.

With that said as opinion, the issue is then power. I don't think you can have a magical and nonmagical ranger in the same class.

One side will suck compared to the other. In order to balance magic and nonmagical, the nonmagical has to be boosted A LOT.

Fighters get 3-4 attacks, Action Surge, and Indomitable to match the fantasy of a wizard.
Rogue deal a bunch of extra damage on a sneaky hit, get double proficiency bonus on 2-4 skills, AND cannot roll lower than a 10 on those skills.

It just won't work. No offense to the WOTC design team but it would be too hard to suceed and too easy to fail.

A better option is to create a new class for the "nonmagical ranger" and leave more area open for beastmasters and skrimsihers.

Ranger (1/2 caster) Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer, Primeval Awarness HIPS, Vanish, Freal Senses, Foe Slayer
-Hunter
-Beast Master
-Deep Stalker
-Foe Predator
-Ranger Lord

"NeoRanger" (no magic) Skirmish, Keen Senses, Animal Ally, Fast Movement, Lightning Reflexes, Battle Fortitude, Battle Freedom
-Scout
-Lord of the Beast
-Venomist
-Stormwarden

 

[steeldragons]

To me, I think the ranger's gotta have magic.

Yes. We know. This same thing comes up in every ranger thread.

One thing that's never been addressed, that I can recall anyway, is: What is the problem with abundant magic/spells at low-level as a subclass?

People (including myself) say/suggest putting the spells in an archetype option...in every ranger thread. And you say "they need magic"...A ranger, somehow, "can't be"/isn't a ranger if they aren't using spells from level 2 (like they do now)? What's wrong with waiting until 3rd level to get those precious spells "the ranger simply can't live/exist without in a fantasy world, i[y]ho"?

 

[Minigiant]

Yes. We know. This same thing comes up in every ranger thread.

One thing that's never been addressed, that I can recall anyway, is: What is the problem with abundant magic/spells at low-level as a subclass?

People (including myself) say/suggest putting the spells in an archetype option...in every ranger thread. And you say "they need magic"...A ranger, somehow, "can't be"/isn't a ranger if they aren't using spells from level 2 (like they do now)? What's wrong with waiting until 3rd level to get those precious spells "the ranger simply can't live/exist without in a fantasy world, i[y]ho"?

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.

The design decisions for the cleric, fighter, rogue and wizard... really hosed the flexibility of the ranger creation.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Thing is though, even going back to 1e, a Ranger's favored enemy was pretty broad. It wasn't just giants or just a single kind of humanoid. It was pretty much anything with two legs that wasn't a demi-human. And, it was pretty much the most common monsters in AD&D. It was 3e that drastically restricted the ranger's Favored enemy.

I don't think it's a bad thing to take a favored terrain and your favored enemy is anything that could reasonably be found in that terrain.