D&D (2024) The Lackluster Ranger

[Zardnaar]

And yet, every time I ask people to define a non-magical ranger, they end up describing a wilderness themed fighter/ rogue.

It's a very good concept in 5E but very weak port.

Because it's exactly what you've described with the right back ground or origin.

The tools to do it essentially are folded into the fighter class.

 

[Charlaquin]

And yet, every time I ask people to define a non-magical ranger,

Stop right there. Non-spellcasting Ranger. That doesn’t necessarily mean nonmagical. My preference for a non-spellcasting Ranger is for them to have preternatural abilities I have no doubt you would consider magic, but not spells.

they end up describing a wilderness themed fighter/ rogue.

First off, I think your threshold for what you’d consider a wilderness themed fighter/rogue is very different than the threshold most people who actually want a non-spellcasting Ranger have. Moreover, wherever that threshold lies, a literal rogue with expertise in Nature and Survival and a couple of features that are kind of ok if you use a bow is definitely not it.

 

[Ashrym]

Yes. There seems to be two very distinct, very passionate camps regarding ranger preferences, and I think just making two different classes to appeal to those two different camps of ranger factions is the best solution. At minimum, a casting Ranger should have a non-casting subclass or vice-versa. But really, two different classes would be the ideal solution. You could even let the casters keep the name Ranger and call the non-casting one a Scout or something.

I'm also in the camp where I would just do this with a fighter, or possibly a rogue or barbarian, and wilderness theme them in my choices.

It's a vanilla action hero, and while I'm sure various subclasses wind up tacking on some specific flavor, the core chassis is bland and vague. That leads to it covering a lot of conceptual ground

That's one of the things I like about 5e fighters. They're easy to flavor to a concept.

It’s also not a non-spellcasting ranger. It’s a very lightly wilderness-themed rogue.

The impression I often get is other players are looking for non-magical wilderness themed characters as opposed to magical non-spellcasting themed characters. It's an interesting distinction.

Stop right there. Non-spellcasting Ranger. That doesn’t necessarily mean nonmagical. My preference for a non-spellcasting Ranger is for them to have preternatural abilities I have no doubt you would consider magic, but not spells.

This would need enough base features to fill out a class, and enough addition thematic features for 4 subclasses. What are your ideas on features to do this?

 

[Charlaquin]

The impression I often get is other players are looking for non-magical wilderness themed characters as opposed to magical non-spellcasting themed characters. It's an interesting distinction.

Well, to be clear, what I ideally want from a ranger is what I would call non-magical. It does things that are impossible in real life, but it does so by means that are not textually classified as magical. They’re just part of the hyperreality of fantasy fiction. But, I know a lot of folks who say non-caster rangers are just fighters in green are the same folks who say anything outside of mundane reality is magic.

This would need enough base features to fill out a class, and enough addition thematic features for 4 subclasses. What are your ideas on features to do this?

I mean, for starters, literally anything besides hitting stuff with weapons real good and adding big numbers to their skill checks would put them a step above fighters and rogues. Give them resistance to damage types and extreme environments, give them special means of mobility and vision, give them the ability to learn things about their quarry through observation or the putting your ear against the ground trick. Give them the ability to hide in certain circumstances others wouldn’t be able to, give them the ability to craft consumable items like healing poltices and Witcher-style weapon oils, let them ignore various environmental penalties. There are a million different features you could give them, and they’ve been suggested many times in dozens of threads. Go look at any of the countless homebrew and third party non-casting ranger classes that are out there.

 

[Horwath]

Stop right there. Non-spellcasting Ranger. That doesn’t necessarily mean nonmagical. My preference for a non-spellcasting Ranger is for them to have preternatural abilities I have no doubt you would consider magic, but not spells.

First off, I think your threshold for what you’d consider a wilderness themed fighter/rogue is very different than the threshold most people who actually want a non-spellcasting Ranger have. Moreover, wherever that threshold lies, a literal rogue with expertise in Nature and Survival and a couple of features that are kind of ok if you use a bow is definitely not it.

sometimes I miss the 3.5e difference between

Extraordinary
Spell-like
Supernatural
and default spellcasting

with coding abilities that are not "mundane"

 

[Minigiant]

Overal the issue is support over the tiers

The base 2024 ranger scales like this

Tier 1: Free Uses of Hunter's Mark, Deft Explorer
Tier 2: Extra Attack, 2nd level spells
Tier 3: Tireless, Expertise 3rd level spells
Tier 4: Precise Hunter, 5th level levels

The weak spot is the lack of strong 3rd and 5th level spells. Easily fixed. There are 4 editions of Ranger to convert spells from. There are tons of comics,/books video games, and cartoons/anime to be inspired from.

For a nonspellcasting Ranger, it's much worse.

Tier 1: Free Uses of Hunter's Mark, Deft Explorer
Tier 2: Extra Attack, 2nd level spells
Tier 3: Tireless, Expertise, 3rd level spells
Tier 4: Precise Hunter, 5th level levels

There are few Tier 3&4 features that most homebrew designers suggest that aren't some combination

• Straight up stealing from the Fighter or Rogue
• Mechanically boring and not exciting to onlookers
• Blatantly OP and would never be oked by a good DM

So when people say Ranger drops off in Tier 3, the easy fix is to convert Blade Thrist, Hunter Eye, or Arrowmind from old editions or take Exploding Arrow, Animal/Fey/Plant summoning, or Natural Animal PEDs from other media. The hard part is coming out with new interesting nonmagical stuff.

 

[Corinnguard]

Go look at any of the countless homebrew and third party non-casting ranger classes that are out there.

Like the non-casting Ranger class from Level Up.

 

[Horwath]

Overal the issue is support over the tiers

The base 2024 ranger scales like this

Tier 1: Free Uses of Hunter's Mark, Deft Explorer
Tier 2: Extra Attack, 2nd level spells
Tier 3: Tireless, Expertise 3rd level spells
Tier 4: Precise Hunter, 5th level levels

The weak spot is the lack of strong 3rd and 5th level spells. Easily fixed. There are 4 editions of Ranger to convert spells from. There are tons of comics,/books video games, and cartoons/anime to be inspired from.

For a nonspellcasting Ranger, it's much worse.

Tier 1: Free Uses of Hunter's Mark, Deft Explorer
Tier 2: Extra Attack, 2nd level spells
Tier 3: Tireless, Expertise, 3rd level spells
Tier 4: Precise Hunter, 5th level levels

There are few Tier 3&4 features that most homebrew designers suggest that aren't some combination

• Straight up stealing from the Fighter or Rogue
• Mechanically boring and not exciting to onlookers
• Blatantly OP and would never be oked by a good DM

So when people say Ranger drops off in Tier 3, the easy fix is to convert Blade Thrist, Hunter Eye, or Arrowmind from old editions or take Exploding Arrow, Animal/Fey/Plant summoning, or Natural Animal PEDs from other media. The hard part is coming out with new interesting nonmagical stuff.

bast approach would be to have 15-20 ranger "talent" slots(similar to warlock invocations) to pick abilities that can be somewhat remotely be connected to the what every anyone thinks a rangers is.

And since the ranger is in a triangle of fighter-rogue-druid, maybe with a pinch of barbarian, those are some target features that a ranger can take.

then you can pick more spellcasting, more skills, more expertise, more tools, light version of sneak attack, climb/swim/burrow speeds, water breathing, energy resistance/immunity, elemental attacks(+1d6 damage), companions(animal/plant/elemental), faster movement, bonus to initiative, advantage on tracking, advantage on perception, herbal healing, halving exhaustion levels,

 

[Minigiant]

bast approach would be to have 15-20 ranger "talent" slots(similar to warlock invocations) to pick abilities that can be somewhat remotely be connected to the what every anyone thinks a rangers is.

And since the ranger is in a triangle of fighter-rogue-druid, maybe with a pinch of barbarian, those are some target features that a ranger can take.

then you can pick more spellcasting, more skills, more expertise, more tools, light version of sneak attack, climb/swim/burrow speeds, water breathing, energy resistance/immunity, elemental attacks(+1d6 damage), companions(animal/plant/elemental), faster movement, bonus to initiative, advantage on tracking, advantage on perception, herbal healing, halving exhaustion levels,

Again the problem is...

Outside of spells, nonspellasting stuff doesn't scale without stealing the Fighters, Rogues, Paladins, and Barbarians scaling features. Most fans suggesting it just steal other classes features.

And at which point it you have 2 classes doing the same thing, 1 will be doing it worse and be the lackluster one.

 

[Corinnguard]

Outside of spells, nonspellasting stuff doesn't scale without stealing the Fighters, Rogues, Paladins, and Barbarians scaling features. Most fans suggesting it just steal other classes features.

It kind of depends on what features of the Ranger class are its' primary class features and which are its' secondary class features. If the feature scales up as the character levels up, then it's a primary class feature. Ex. a Rogue's Sneak Attack. If it doesn't, then it's a secondary class feature.