D&D 5E Let's Tweak the 5E Ranger!

[Xeviat]

I'm coming in real late here, but here's my two cents.

I think the ranger should keep their spells. I believe the ranger has spells for the exact same reason the Paladin has spells. It's not a symmetry thing. The paladin has spells because they are the fantastic interpretation of the Knight in Shinning Armor. The Knight in Shinning Armor tends to have religious connotations during the romantic era of literature. Those religious connotations translate to divine magic in the world of D&D. Priests have magic for the same reason; in stories, priests call on miracles typically, they don't cast spells, but D&D clerics have them.

So what does this mean for the Ranger? Who is the Ranger? The Ranger is the fantastic interpretation of the woodsman. The woodsman knows things about the wilderness that no one else does. They can calm animals, they know the lay of the land for miles, they can track like an animal, etc. Like the Druid, their fantastic interpretation has magic because that's the way the worlds of D&D work. If you don't want a fantasy ranger, one should be rather easy to build with some simple multiclassing (Assassin3/ChampionX would probably work out nicely).

Reflecting on what was said in WotC's own podcast, I think the Ranger only lacks identity right now because other people can do the same things that they do. But that doesn't have to be the case. Yes, the skill system does allow others to do traditional ranger things; stealth, tracking, survival. The simple answer is to make the ranger do them better.

But I also think the Ranger class is lacking because it doesn't read as interestingly as the other classes. From a strict combat gameplay side of things, the other classes make it apparent where their damage comes from. The paladin has smite, the fighter has extra attacks, the rogue has sneak attack, the barbarian has rage, the monk has flurry ... What does the Ranger have? Well, the Ranger has Hunter's Mark, but it's hidden away as a spell. Why is it a spell while the paladin's is a class ability? It could use the same mechanic and not need to cost a bonus action to boot. You could put a lot of the old favored enemy type mechanics into hunter's mark, like many have done in their own builds, which avoids the pitfalls of favored enemy (namely that the DM can willfully or accidentally make the ability too weak or two powerful by their creature choice).

I like the ranger. A lot. They're one of my favorite classes. Probably because "The Legacy" by Salvatore was the first fantasy book that I read (just before Lord of the Rings).

But I also think that the Ranger's animal companion should have been a more important part of the class. That's a ranger to me (not everyone, I know, so that's why I'm okay with it being a subclass).

 

[Minigiant]

New York! ha that's like so tame... Only one pack of wild dogs? You should try my city one of these days.

Well that's just my neighborhood. There used to be 3 packs. The leader of one killed the other 2 pack leaders. :|


___

Really I think the best solution is more spells. Rangers have HIPS, Vanish, and Feral Senses and people don't use them.

Spells are more visible. A Bane spell could replicate the Favorite Enemy of old. All sorts of fine tuned detect X and locate X spells. All kinds of alternate movements types, especially since rangers have to choose spells to learn now.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Mephista]

I was surprised for good when I saw the 4e ranger was spelless, I never quite saw the Hunter, did it really ahve spells?

Yes. It was Primal/Martial mix with a Controller role, and most of the spells were Utility instead of At Will / Encounter / Daily attack, but they were there. There's no way to classify Entangling Roots anything but a spell.

 

[Azurewraith]

Yes. It was Primal/Martial mix with a Controller role, and most of the spells were Utility instead of At Will / Encounter / Daily attack, but they were there. There's no way to classify Entangling Roots anything but a spell.

Challenge accepted! it was super fertilizer that laced with growth hormones that caused the roots in the area to rapidly grow and erupt from the ground. The fertilizer itself was a sentient bug capable of FTL travel so if there where no roots in the area it would zip to the nearest one the substance is also highly addictive and the bug leaves behind a trail of it which the root then grows towards(at its rapid rate) following it back to the source aka the ranger.

Did i win?

 

[Xeviat]

While I appreciate the thoughtful post, I think this gets to the divide of what many people think is the purpose of classes in general, and what classes should be designed for (and remember, there isn't a "right" answer).

Thanks for your politeness; I'm really liking it here. I'll try to comment on all your points.

First, I think almost every class should have access to spells, partially because spells take up 27.8% of all the page space in the PHB. I don't think you have to think about a world-centric view because the players aren't playing blacksmiths and underwater basket weavers; they're playing heroes. Based on 3E guidelines for populating cities, people with PC classes make up a tiny percentage of of the population. Magic makes a class unique and has it stand out from the normal population; we finally have an edition where the Fighter actually stands out too, thanks to second wind and action surge.

Every single "wilderness warrior" doesn't use spells; only the ranger. We don't have the NPC classes anymore, but if we extend the warrior and expert to be low level fighters and rogues, we can assume that the vast majority of "wilderness warriors" are fighters and rogues, and fighter/rogues, with a background that supports stealth and survival. It's a beauty of this edition. Heck, even compared to the ranger, what does the ranger get by 2nd level, except for spells, that makes them stand out truly against a Fighter 1/Rogue 1 (rogue 1st) who has trained athletics, perception, stealth, and has a background for survival and nature? Throw in expertise on survival and nature (which covers a good chunk favored enemy and natural explorer) and you have a good mundane "wilderness warrior". They also have sneak attack and some limited self healing; given an hour or two's rest, they can bounce back from a lot. Hardiness is a ranger thing, right?

Yes, there are (and always have been, apparently) a vast number of spell-less ranger proposals. It's an easy variant to tack on. You need to give out some kind of ability at 2nd, 9th, 13th, and 17th and adjust Primeval Awareness (which needs adjustment anyway), but it can be done. I personally wouldn't use it. I believe spells make the ranger, they turn them into a ranger instead of a "wilderness warrior". I believe they have spells for the same reason the paladin has spells, because they are a fantastic interpretation of a real world archetype. But even more importantly to 5th edition and it's respect for tradition, they have spells because the ranger had spells in every edition (except for pre-essentials 4th).

If the Ranger had been released without spells, I'd have been part of the side who were making variants for the ranger with spells. I'm willing to split the difference and go with an Eldritch Knight style subclass for a ranger with spells, but then what does the base ranger get? I want to be able to play my 3.5 style ranger, with an animal companion, spells, cool stealth abilities, and some sort of hunter mechanic (not favored enemy persay). But animal companion has been a part of the core ranger less than spells have, which is why I support a baseline spellcaster ranger.

 

[Kabouter Games]

This discussion has brought me out of lurking. ;-)

I think this is an appropriate time to reiterate this statement from Page 1 of this thread:

To me the ranger's purpose has always been to fill the mechanical niche that is the half caster, half warrior that uses nature magic. The ranger is to the druid as the paladin is to the cleric. Being able to use martial weapons, while also utilizing magic to support the team and call down the elements to harm foes is the ranger's role. Since multiclassing is optional it's nice to have this hole filled by a core class. Consequently, this is also why the spell-less ranger confuses me. It goes against what I see as the core mechanic of the class. A spell-less ranger is just a fighter or a rogue.

Xeviat said the same thing in a different way:

I believe the ranger has spells for the exact same reason the Paladin has spells. So what does this mean for the Ranger? Who is the Ranger? The Ranger is the fantastic interpretation of the woodsman. The woodsman knows things about the wilderness that no one else does. They can calm animals, they know the lay of the land for miles, they can track like an animal, etc. Like the Druid, their fantastic interpretation has magic because that's the way the worlds of D&D work. If you don't want a fantasy ranger, one should be rather easy to build with some simple multiclassing (Assassin3/ChampionX would probably work out nicely).

I agree wholeheartedly. Ranger has been a core class, designed in a certain way, for so long that to fundamentally change how it works - i.e., remove spell use - is in my opinion a mistake. Removing spells would be a setback. Yes, the spells could be reflavored as skills or innate powers, but if they amount to the same thing, it's simpler to just let the spell list stand.

That said, I think the Ranger as written in the PHB is as a class pretty broken. There's nothing the Ranger can do that nobody else can't. Every other class has something unique to that class, some power or ability they alone can do, or do better than other classes. Ranger doesn't. I think the recent UA PDF goes a long way toward fixing that, because it finally establishes a few unique powers. I'll wait for the playtest to play out (see what I did there?) before making up my mind, but I'm impressed with it. I'd playtest it myself, but the campaign I'm in is at level 9 going on 10, and the PDF only encompasses levels 1-5.

I'm probably merely saying what others have said before; if I have, please forgive me. It's just that I think it's important enough to say "Hear hear."

Cheers,

Bob

 

[Helaman]

Love this thread

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Minigiant]

One thing I've continuously said in ranger topic is that you could make a ranger without spells. The issue is execution.

The "spell-less ranger" has to work in D&D settings. Most D&D settings are High Magic past level 9. The fighter and barbarian does this by dealing ludricous amounts of damage during the campaign while maintaining survivability. The rogue does this by practically automatic success of normal and hard skill checks.

Whatever you make the spell less ranger into, it has to eventually beat high magic obstacles. Your spell less ranger could easily look magical. And at that point, why did you bother removing spell in the first place?