D&D 5E Tasha's really improved and changed the feel of Rangers

[Paul Farquhar]

...when magic is being used.

Is this a trick question?

Yes. How do you tell when magic is being used?

 

[Eric V]

Yes. How do you tell when magic is being used?

????!!!

When the player running the magic-using character says I am casting a spell and then it happens....LIKE ANY OTHER RPG,

What in the world...?

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't know how much 4e counts for a "has spells/doesn't have spells" discussion. In themes sure, it didn't have magic, but mechanically, either everyone had spells or no one had spells (unless you count rituals as the metric for having spells).

So, when I ask for a non-casting ranger in 5e, I get asked how it’s thematically different than a rogue with nature proficiency. When I point to an example of a non-spellcasting ranger that’s thematically different than a rogue, I get told it doesn’t count because it’s mechanically similar to spellcasting. Feels like a double-standard, does theme matter or doesn’t it? Cause it seems like it either matters or doesn’t matter as needed to insure that only spellcasters get to do things other than make ability checks.

I think it would be cool to have a ranger with no spells, but in how they do 5e, I don't think Tasha's was the place to have it. It would have to be basically a whole new class, and Tasha's already sacrificed the space it had for optional features to fix the PHB ranger.

Sure. Only so much space in any given book. But the idea of a non-casting ranger has been kicking around for years, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be frustrated that nothing has come of it.

Sadly 5e isn't very friendly to niche but cool options like the martial ranger

Again, I don’t think it’s really that niche.

 

[Charlaquin]

@Charlaquin correct me if I'm wrong but I think what she is asking for is a full ranger class that drops the spellcasting for more features focused on their martial aptitude AND exploration. The scout doesn't fit because it's still a rogue with wilderness skill. It's not a good martial ranger that can hold it's own in the battle field without rogue tactics.

The 5e rogue actually holds its own quite well in a fight, and I don’t mind a non-casting ranger using sneak attack as its source of damage scaling. My problem with the scout rogue is that its only expression of wilderness aptitude is rolling d20s with a high bonus. Which is fine for a rogue, that’s their shtick, but it doesn’t do anything to make it feel like a ranger. If any ability that produces a specific effect is a “power,” then I suppose a ranger with “powers” is what I want, but I don’t want those “powers” to be magical in theme.

 

[Charlaquin]

What do you count as spells in 4e?

Well, see, in 4e there were some abilities that said “power X” in the upper right hand corner, and some that said “spell X” in the same spot. Spells were the latter.

 

[ECMO3]

Tools are just proficiencies, same as skills. I’m talking about actual abilities. See @Horwath ’s post for examples.

his post has ONE wilderness ability that is not skill related - That is "fieldcraft" and it is pretty comparable to what you get with the tribe member background.

 

[Krachek]

We gonna need spell less abilities along side spell like abilities!

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

We gonna need spell less abilities along side spell like abilities!

If you take the multitude of non-spell features presented in various ranger's archetypes and other nature/exploration themed archetypes from other class (either officially published, in Next playtest or in UA) you can manage quite easily to build a non-spell ranger.

Use the Monster Hunter features to identify enemies and mark them as prey, take the Dream druid feature to build improved shelter (maybe with a dose of Song of Rest improved healing), take the eagle totem feature that let's you see and hear in a great distance. Mix that with the deft explorer features and Terrain Mastery from the playtest and you are golden.

 

[Charlaquin]

his post has ONE wilderness ability that is not skill related - That is "fieldcraft" and it is pretty comparable to what you get with the tribe member background.

Ok. I don’t want to argue about what is or isn’t a “wilderness ability.” Whatever you want to call them, his post contained many good examples of the sorts of abilities I would like to see on a non-spellcasting ranger

 

[Krachek]

If you take the multitude of non-spell features presented in various ranger's archetypes and other nature/exploration themed archetypes from other class (either officially published, in Next playtest or in UA) you can manage quite easily to build a non-spell ranger.

Use the Monster Hunter features to identify enemies and mark them as prey, take the Dream druid feature to build improved shelter (maybe with a dose of Song of Rest improved healing), take the eagle totem feature that let's you see and hear in a great distance. Mix that with the deft explorer features and Terrain Mastery from the playtest and you are golden.

It´s exactly that, a spell less ability is like a spell but presented as a unique class feature.
So invoking the aspect of the owl to acquire darkvison is a spell less ability.
To have a feature that let you cast darkvison once a day, is a spell like ability that is not good for a spell less Ranger.