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

[Charlaquin]

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

I mean, we do have some. Like, the baseline ranger’s hide in plain sight, though drastically under-powered, is an ability that isn’t a spell. The fighter’s second wind, the barbarian’s rage, etc. It’s not really that outlandish of a concept, it’s just an under-utilized one.

 

[Bolares]

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.

sure, that's what I was trying to say about there having a thematical difference, but not a mechanical one. Powers and spells in 4e are kind of the same thing, so for me, saying that 4e has a non caster ranger makes sense from a thematical way, but not a mechanical one. That's not saying there shouldn't be one, I just don't see 4e as a good example of a mechanically sound non caster ranger.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

????!!!

When the player running the magic-using character

That's circular, and means nothing. It's magic because it's an ability being used by a magic using character, but the character is a magic using character because they use abilities which are magic.

says I am casting a spell and then it happens....LIKE ANY OTHER RPG,

What in the world...?

So, it's magic because the character using the ability says "I am casting a spell". So if a barbarian says "I am casting a spell" and uses Reckless Assault, Reckless Assault is a magical ability, and the barbarian is a magic user. Channel Divinity is not a magical ability, unless the cleric says "I am casting a spell" when they use it.

 

[Bolares]

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 orb doesn’t matter as needed to insure that only spellcasters get to do things other than make ability checks.

I'm not trying to argue that there shouldn't be a non caster ranger. If people want it, there should be one.

 

[Krachek]

I mean, we do have some. Like, the baseline ranger’s hide in plain sight, though drastically under-powered, is an ability that isn’t a spell. The fighter’s second wind, the barbarian’s rage, etc. It’s not really that outlandish of a concept, it’s just an under-utilized one.

The concept is not new, you can add all the Chanel divinity features to the list.
The designers have to draw the line, and choose if an ability is to be used like a spell or a class feature. Spells have the advantage to be presented in wide list, class features have few choices.
For Ranger, and to some extend arcane trickster and EK it could be more easier to remove all spell components and even the concentration check on damage. That would make their abilities more like innate magic.
Otherwise you enter in a fastidious process to duplicate spells into class features.

 

[Charlaquin]

sure, that's what I was trying to say about there having a thematical difference, but not a mechanical one. Powers and spells in 4e are kind of the same thing, so for me, saying that 4e has a non caster ranger makes sense from a thematical way, but not a mechanical one. That's not saying there shouldn't be one, I just don't see 4e as a good example of a mechanically sound non caster ranger.

It’s mechanically sound, and it’s thematically a non-caster ranger. I don’t see the issue.

 

[Weiley31]

I don’t care about pets. I mean, they seem to be something a lot of ranger fans want for some reason,

Probably due to the fact that when you think of the wild wilderness character, the idea that they befriend/tame an animal companion seems to be a common trope.

For me personally, its mostly because of the fact that in Neverwinter Nights 1(PC)/3E/3.5E, both Rangers and Druids pretty much got an Animal Companion that joined em in their journeys.

Also, who doesn't want to defeat a group of evil cultists alongside your Tuxedo cat or Corgi?

 

[Charlaquin]

The concept is not new, you can add all the Chanel divinity features to the list.
The designers have to draw the line, and choose if an ability is to be used like a spell or a class feature. Spells have the advantage to be presented in wide list, class features have few choices.
For Ranger, and to some extend arcane trickster and EK it could be more easier to remove all spell components and even the concentration check on damage. That would make their abilities more like innate magic.
Otherwise you enter in a fastidious process to duplicate spells into class features.

I mean, a lot of ranger spells could (and in my opinion should) be class features. Why is cordon of arrows a spell? Why does the ranger need to use magic to set a pretty basic arrow trap? Or flaming arrows, why is that a spell? Heck, Hunter’s Mark could easily be a non-spell feature, and with Tasha’s we now have what amounts to a non-spell version of it in Favored Foe.

 

[Charlaquin]

Probably due to the fact that when you think of the wild wilderness character, the idea that they befriend/tame an animal companion seems to be a common trope.

For me personally, its mostly because of the fact that in Neverwinter Nights 1(PC)/3E/3.5E, both Rangers and Druids pretty much got an Animal Companion that joined em in their journeys.

Also, who doesn't want to defeat a group of evil cultists alongside your Tuxedo cat or Corgi?

Yeah, I mean I do get the appeal of pets, I just personally don’t see them as an essential ranger feature. But I take no issue with them being available, as long as they aren’t required.

 

[HammerMan]

sure, that's what I was trying to say about there having a thematical difference, but not a mechanical one. Powers and spells in 4e are kind of the same thing, so for me, saying that 4e has a non caster ranger makes sense from a thematical way, but not a mechanical one. That's not saying there shouldn't be one, I just don't see 4e as a good example of a mechanically sound non caster ranger.

I on the other hand think that giving rangers (and fighters and some class like but not named warlord) a few encounter and daily abilities that mimic spell effects but are not magic would help...

We know haste, exp retreat, jump, spider climb can all give extra movement, or movement adjacent abilities... so a ranger or fighter or rogue that can jump farther, or run more...