D&D 5E The Ranger: You got spellcasting in my peanut butter!

[Minigiant]

By that logic, all classes should have magic. The battlefield of the D&D world is full of caster artillery, magic weapons, units of zombies animated by necromancers, stinking clouds, alchemical catapult payloads - so of course the fighter has magic. The underworld is rife with magical traps, alarm spells, illusions, black market spell components, and hot magic items that may be cursed, so, of course, the rogue has magic.

The 3.5 'Scout' was prettymuch a non-magical Ranger.

In D&D, an adventurer is either a walking and not necessarily talking killer machine or a user of magic.

The 4e ranger didn't need magic because he could sneak up on and twin-strike any level appropriate nonsolo to death.
And same with the earlier edition rangers except their monster got tougher and more wily. And fast for the 3e ranger.

 

[Cybit]

Am I misremembering, or did Mearls once talk about how the DMG will have rules for changing up existing classes or even making your own?

Why are people wringing their hands about how D&D isn't their own personal fantasy heartbreaker when the full core rules aren't out yet? Obviously, the classes had to be made a certain way in the PH. Let's see what the DMG says about switching that up before getting all up in arms.

Patience, padawans!

Mearls did talk about that; there will be guidelines / rules for how to revise classes / make your own in the DMG AFAIK.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In D&D, an adventurer is either a walking and not necessarily talking killer machine or a user of magic.

Lame and boring though that might be, the fighter has an Eldritch Knight sub-class on the way, and the Barbarian has a Totem one. Why couldn't the Ranger have a non-/less- supernatural, non-spellcasting sub-class? For that matter, why couldn't the Paladin have a less-overtly-magical Cavalier or not-magical-at-all Knight sub-class?

The 4e ranger didn't need magic because he could sneak up on and twin-strike any level appropriate nonsolo to death.

To be fair, even when he had magic (the Essentials 'Hunter'), he wasn't made vastly overpowered or anything. Nobody 'needed' or 'couldn't have' magic in 4e for balance reasons - because magic wasn't so hopelessly broken....

 

[Gradine]

How are magic and nature inextricably linked and not magic and battle or magic and civilization. There are gods of nature, but there are gods of war and gods of civilization, too. There are /very rare/ magical creatures in the wilderness, but magical creatures infest dungeons and cities, too, and any general who can scrounge any such beings up will certainly employ them in battle if he can. Likwise, in civilization and in warfare, people concentrate their greatest accomplishments and most fiendish ingenuity - certainly including magic of every type they can possibly command.

And are barbarians - born & raised in the wilderness - also magical, then? Actually, there are two barbarian builds, aparently one that rages the other that uses magical totems. It'd be wrongbadfun to have both a martial and a 'gish' Ranger why, exactly?

It was the PHII.

Are you suggesting that the wilderness morphs and becomes more magical based on the level of the adventurer traveling through it?

I won't belabor the point, except to say there's a difference between "magic exists in the world" and "magic and nature are one in the same thing."

And I wouldn't say having a martial Ranger would be wrongbadfun or that you shouldn't homebrew one for your game if you want to. I'm just trying to explain why it isn't in the PHB and why it also isn't likely for the DMG.

Also, 3.5 Scout was in Complete Adventurer, not PHB II. It showed up a year and a half after the 3.5 PHB and four and a half years after 3rd edition came out. That's not saying much, because the same could be said of Ninja and Spellthief (both of which at least have some representation in the 5e PHB), but it does go to show how far into the lifespan of D&D (and 3rd edition in particular) it took to get a magic-free Ranger-esque class. We might still see it in an official release. I'm just skeptical.

 

[grimslade]

Not a huge ranger fan, spellslinger or otherwise, so take my opinion with an entire salt mine. There isn't enough interest for a woodsy fighter or woodsy rogue to bother with page space in the PHB. The Ranger is an alternate class off the main four to begin with. I was surprised they were getting sub classes during the playtest and I am surprised there were many people clamoring for a 'supernatural ranger that doesn't cast spells". The DMG will no doubt have low to no magic iterations of the side classes. I guess we will need to see those guidelines.

 

[variant]

I'll rephrase. The Ranger doesn't just have magic because it helps him do his job better. He has magic because he's a master of the natural world, and in D&D magic and nature are inextricably linked. Certainly in ways that martial prowess or run of the mill skullduggery and magic are not.

You got me on Scout, but then, that was a non-core splat.

Druids are masters of the natural world, not rangers. Rangers are a lot of times the opposite, those that protect civilization from the darkness of the natural world.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I won't belabor the point, except to say there's a difference between "magic exists in the world" and "magic and nature are one in the same thing."

So squirrels and pine-cones are magic?

Honestly, you've got an excellent case for 'there should be at least one build of the Ranger with supernatural abilities, possibly including spells,' even without resorting to /everything/ in nature being magic.

I mean, are peasant charcoal burners, woodcutters, hunters, poachers, herbalists and swineheards all magic, too? Why can there be a non-magical Barbarian, born & raised in nature, but not a non-magical Ranger?

And I wouldn't say having a martial Ranger would be wrongbadfun or that you shouldn't homebrew one for your game if you want to. I'm just trying to explain why it isn't in the PHB and why it also isn't likely for the DMG.

There was a non-magical Ranger in a PH1. That, alone, should be enough for a sub-class. There's an Eldritch Knight fighter sub-class and a Barbarian Totem-warrior that have never been in a PH1.

The only real rationale I can think of is that they couldn't come up with enough non-magical stuff to make the Ranger a viable class that shouldn't just have been in a Background. And, really, with the Druid able to handle any woodsy magical stuff, that prettymuch leaves no need for the Ranger, /at all/.

 

[Minigiant]

Lame and boring though that might be, the fighter has an Eldritch Knight sub-class on the way, and the Barbarian has a Totem one. Why couldn't the Ranger have a non-/less- supernatural, non-spellcasting sub-class? For that matter, why couldn't the Paladin have a less-overtly-magical Cavalier or not-magical-at-all Knight sub-class?

I would say that the core part of the fighter and barbarian are strong enough before subclass whereas the ranger gets his power or a great deal of it from magic.

For example, the main reason why the fighter was a higher "tier" than the fighter in 3e was his access to spells and therefore could use wands and scrolls at higher levels.

Basically you would have to replace the ranger' s spell casting with something big in 3e or 5e.

To be fair, even when he had magic (the Essentials 'Hunter'), he wasn't made vastly overpowered or anything. Nobody 'needed' or 'couldn't have' magic in 4e for balance reasons - because magic wasn't so hopelessly broken....

Well that is my point.
The stronger the magic your game allows, the deadlier or more magical your classes need to be.
Doubly so for rangers as they are the adaption class.

Look at 1e rangers. 1e ranger did not need magic at low levels as most enemies you could fight at those levels were dumb animals and "giant-class" enemies. And they wrecked those types of enemies. The second the demons and dragons became beatable in normal sized parties, rangers got crystal balls and spells. The 3e ranger is similar but it's game had magic go off the rail much earlier.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well that is my point.
The stronger the magic your game allows, the deadlier or more magical your classes need to be.
Doubly so for rangers as they are the adaption class.

So, really, it's for want of anything non-magical-bad-ass enough as Rage or 12-attacks-a-round or SA with which to compensate the Ranger for loss of his half-casting abilities.

That actually does make some sense. They do seem to have a really hard time coming up with adequately potent non-magical class abilities.

 

[DonAdam]

People that dislike spell casting rangers can say "multi class druid!"

People that like them can say "play a fighter or rogue!"

Either is reasonable as a default option, but I still dislike spell casting rangers because I don't like it when non-magical abilities that a skilled character might want are bundled with magical abilities.

I don't buy "pretend you don't have them" or "pretend they're not magic" as good options. I have few concerns about 5e at this point but lack of non-magical (sub)classes is one of them.