D&D 5E Why are non-caster Ranger themes so popular?

[Minigiant]

That's because no one can come up with a theme for an arcane half-caster that has stuck with the playerbase. There's been countless classes made like that (Duskblade, Swordmage, Bladesinger etc.) but none of them have ever kept any sort of traction with players. My own personal opinion is that it's because there hasn't been a story to the class that people have been inspired by... it's always just been "there's a mechanical hole to fill, let's fill it!". But a mechanical hole without a narrative function in the world makes the class nothing more than a Fighter/Wizard multiclass, just like the Eldritch Knight. And no one needs an entirely new class if the Fighter/Wizard multiclass is the exact same thing within the story of the campaign world.

I think part of the problem is similar to that of a ranger and paladin. The ranger and paladin has jobs. The arcane halfcaser would have to have a role in society as well.

The issue is many people don't want to roleplay the occupations of the "advanced classes"

If you are not playing a Ranger in the party why wouldn't he be?

Sure other players can solve those problems and at 11th level they can do it through a bunch of different spells. But barring feats and backgrounds if your party of 11th level cleric, Paladin, Wizard and Rogue go exploring the jungles of Chult, they should have to deal with many of the same problems a 1st level party would. And if the cleric does not have survival and no one else has a decent wisdom it is going to be pretty difficult without spells, much more difficult than it would be with a first level Ranger.

At level 11, between the cleric, paladin, and wizard and your piles of gold, you shouldn't be worried about level 1 exploration threat.

At level 11, you should be dealing with level 11 exploration threats like hurricane, voidstorms, random dinosaur packs, and paraelemental difficult terrain.

 

[Faolyn]

But I think the model of a ranger I spelled out previously (I think in this thread?) would actually do spell and spell-less ranger without making either unsatisfying for most players, but I can't see any way to accommodate "no magic at all in the base class" folks without making the ranger into something that most ranger players won't have any interest in.

I think most people don't want rangers to have spells, but I think they'd be fine with magical or pseudomagical abilities or by having an archetype that was a third-caster. I mentioned the Level Up/A5e playtest ranger knack that replicates goodberry, but with a handful of grubs that you dig up from the ground, but they have other knacks that are very similar to speak with animals, animal friendship, cure wounds lesser restoration, albeit in a limited and nonmagical way. Yeah, it means the A5e ranger is never going to cast summon fey or zephyr strike, sadly, but there's still options for creating new knacks, feats, or even magic items that can replicate those spells.

I don't think anyone wants a completely magic-less ranger unless they are playing in a setting where there's no magic whatsoever or where only wizards/clerics/whatever can use any sort of magic.

 

[Greg K]

I don't think anyone wants a completely magic-less ranger unless they are playing in a setting where there's no magic whatsoever or where only wizards/clerics/whatever can use any sort of magic.

I do want a completely magic-less ranger (as an option). Apparently, there are others as well, because a common criticism of the 3e Complete Warrior spell-less Ranger was that it still had magic-like mystical abilities.

 

[Krachek]

I think the issue is mostly inherent to 5e design around spells as the main metric. Spells are a convenient way to disguise many features in a (somewhat) balanced way among characters.

it’s not a bad design, but it feels like you’ve got to cast magic spells to do anything cool.

All the ranger (and a few subclasses) need is a phrasing where their abilities are not necessarily performed by saying abracadabra. « Refluffing » spellcasting goes a long way to make the ranger more martial.

I tried redoing the ranger without using spells, and often ended up writing essentially what an existing spell does. In the end, I made it into a half-warlock chassis with limited spells but a selection of « invocations ». A player could easily build a ranger that doesn’t feel like a spellcaster, using spell slots to fuel hunter’s mark and smite-like effects instead.

It’s a common problem in 5ed. We got the same debate on psionic, that need effects like spells but without using the word spell, nor magic. It´s sometime the same debate with martial vs caster, martial dream of flashy effect comparable to spells but still called mundane and not magical. Enough to go nuts!

 

[niklinna]

What's your point?

My point is that "class features are just spell slots that don't change", and "the easiest way to get a spell-less Ranger is to just select a current spell" but rework them (substantially) makes it sound like this particular solution will work for everything. The list of current spells isn't long, and doesn't cover many things people would rather do with a Ranger than cast those very spells, however much they are reworked. If you'd said, "this is one approach that some people might like", I might have just clicked the like button and moved on.

 

[niklinna]

It’s a common problem in 5ed. We got the same debate on psionic, that need effects like spells but without using the word spell, nor magic. It´s sometime the same debate with martial vs caster, martial dream of flashy effect comparable to spells but still called mundane and not magical. Enough to go nuts!

Mmm, as has been said elsewhere, "system matters" (not that you have to agree on that). In D&D, spells come with slots, and levels, and upcasting, and are detect-magicable and counterspellable and dispellable. To implement psionic abilities, or any other class abilities, mechanically as spells brings those trappings into an area many people want to work and feel differently. And while you can grab the functional bits of a spell that does what you want to describe a new ability, you then have to explicitly remove all the bits you don't want that come along from the word "spell" being there.

 

[SkidAce]

If your DM is still using foraging as a valid exploration challenge at level 8 and you aren't one on the barren planes of Hell or the Abyss, then your DM is doing it wrong and doesn't understand the concept of tiers.

Depending on the campaign. I would not unequivocally state that the DM was wrong.

 

[Scribe]

For those who want a spell-less Ranger, what are your core abilities/tropes/mechanics that such a class would reflect?

 

[Charlaquin]

For those who want a spell-less Ranger, what are your core abilities/tropes/mechanics that such a class would reflect?

Tracking, hunting, foraging, navigation, camouflage, herb-lore, beast-lore, self-sufficiency, forestry, leadership, skirmish tactics…. Maybe cartography…

The concept of having a favored enemy is highly limiting, but it does fit in with the ranger as a hunter of monsters. I would just broaden it out from being a specialization in one specific monster type to a broad knowledge of special weapons and tactics for use against different enemies, what monsters’ special weaknesses are and how to exploit them, etc.

Animal companions are kind of problematic mechanically, and I don’t think they’re essential to the concept, but certainly having a hunting dog or doing falconry feels appropriate to it.

I think archery is an important element personally, but I know people don’t love tying weapon choice to class that closely and that’s fair. Couldn’t care less about dual-wielding.

I think a shared secret written language a-la trail marks would be pretty dope.

 

[Scribe]

Something with.

Ranger (Base Class, Non-Caster)
-> Animal Companion Subclass
-> Half Caster Subclass
-> Archer Subclass

All seems pretty in line then?