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

[niklinna]

Few answer. And that's the problem.

I've been trying! Not that I've been pegging things to tiers. Here are some progressively more powerful abilities in particular areas I feel are in the Ranger's general bailiwick:

Movement: Faster base movement, faster climb/swim, swinging through trees, ignore natural difficult terrain out of combat, ignore natural difficult terrain in combat, ignore magical difficult terrain
Terrain: Skill boosts in favored terrain, damage resist for terrain-appropriate types, grant benefits to party members as well
Bivouacking/Rests: Reduce time rests take, allow party members to recover some long-rest abilities on short rest, Ranger gets benefit of a long rest on a short rest (but then needs one regular long rest), whole party gets benefit of a long rest on a short rest

Stealth: Bonus to stealth in natural terrain, invisibility via camouflage (nonmoving), untrackable, invisibility with movement
Scouting/Tracking: Bonus to tracking, search as bonus action, determine types/number of creatures being tracked, know where a tracked/observed creature is going, sense/track particular magical creature types even at distance/through air (they leave trails of magical essence or something)
Traps: Snares, pits, deadfalls – they take time to construct but don't detect as magical and last for hours to days

Assessing Foes: Know or get info on special abilities, vulnerabilities/resistances.
Combat: Quarry/mark (scaling with Ranger), skirmishing (switching places with allies/foes, disengage), redirecting foe attacks, get combat edges on difficult terrain, ignore darkness/other environmental/sensory hindrances to combat, spot weakness (big attack boost, advantage to hit, ignore armor—hello Smaug—or some such)

Beasts/Pets: Calm an angry animal, recruit animal(s) temporarily, call (not conjure) animals from a distance, can speak with animals, basic permanent pet (scaling with Ranger), pet gets own action, pet does magical damage, pet gains special attack, can use pet's senses

Misc Non-Spell Magic: Craft/imbue enhanced weapons, gain 1 use of a magical ability of a creature the Ranger kills (or helps kill), Rune Knight-type stuff
Spellcasting: Leveled spell slots, as usual

Heck with it, I'll just go back A5E and see what they've got.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Hide in Plain Sight would be better if you could grant it to companions as well. A minute's worth of preparation (per person?) in return for passing enemies to not see your entire group seems like a good thing. Useful for both avoiding monsters, and ambushing them.

The language could also be loosened up a little. Seems to me you could hide in a bush or something, and not necessarily have to "press yourself up against a surface". Whoever wrote that watched Predator one too many times.

P.S. I'll add that abilities that emphasize the Ranger as guide, as opposed to Ranger as lone wolf, seem like they would in general be more useful.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Hide in Plain Sight would be better if you could grant it to companions as well. A minute's worth of preparation (per person?) in return for passing enemies to not see your entire group seems like a good thing. Useful for both avoiding monsters, and ambushing them.

The language could also be loosened up a little. Seems to me you could hide in a bush or something, and not necessarily have to "press yourself up against a surface". Whoever wrote that watched Predator one too many times.

P.S. I'll add that abilities that emphasize the Ranger as guide, as opposed to Ranger as lone wolf, seem like they would in general be more useful.

Yeah the Ranger should be capable of surviving in the dangerous wilds alone, and also of making a group better at surviving in the dangerous wilds.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yeah the Ranger should be capable of surviving in the dangerous wilds alone, and also of making a group better at surviving in the dangerous wilds.

People make jokes about the Aragorn connection, but really if you ignore the stuff about secretly being the King, there's a lot there. He just knows stuff. That's what I want to model.

Sure, you can give the Ranger skill proficiencies, but that doesn't really add much color. Not to start this fight again, but it's the same argument I made about racial ASIs: giving Elves +2 Dex is about the least interesting way to make them "graceful". I'd much rather see colorful abilities that let you do something, not just add +1 to your dice.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

People make jokes about the Aragorn connection, but really if you ignore the stuff about secretly being the King, there's a lot there. He just knows stuff. That's what I want to model.

Sure, you can give the Ranger skill proficiencies, but that doesn't really add much color. Not to start this fight again, but it's the same argument I made about racial ASIs: giving Elves +2 Dex is about the least interesting way to make them "graceful". I'd much rather see colorful abilities that let you do something, not just add +1 to your dice.

Yeah absolutely. The Ranger knows where to find safe places to camp, where and how to find herbs to make healing potions and anti-toxens, how to bypass the gorge and not waste time on the journey, where best to ford the river this time of year, etc, and has similar knowledge about creatures. I'd like Favored Enemy to be broader both in what you know and in what creatures you know about. And then take all that and make it contribute to positive, proactive, class features, not passive bonuses.

 

[Bill Zebub]

What if "favoured enemy" were a ritual that you can perform over a long rest?

That would make it more in line with WotC's (apparently) preferred design pattern, where special abilities with options can be swapped out every long rest. And would also make it supernatural/uncanny.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I'd like Favored Enemy to be broader both in what you know and in what creatures you know about. And then take all that and make it contribute to positive, proactive, class features, not passive bonuses.

I'd go one further: the base ranger should just know about creatures in general, (with proactive, player-activated benefits) as well as be good at navigating all kinds of terrain.

Favored Enemy, as in you have one particular foe you're an expert at dealing with, should be a set of subclasses. Like, Giant Slayer Rangers are a subclass, with benefits for dealing with Giants (and large creatures in general, and so on).

 

[Charlaquin]

I dunno if they contribute here as well, but someone over at Giant in the Playground in another prolonged "what to do about 5e rangers" thread mentioned that, in the context of the theme of Favoured Enemy and similar features, an ideal approach per that person was to have benefits that were broadly applicable, but worked very well for dealing with a specific enemy.

For instance, if you had combat features related to dealing with favoured enemies, and one of yours was dragons, you might have a feature that triggered when you hit a flying creature with a ranged weapon attack, forcing it to make a saving throw or fall prone (thus falling out of the air). This works against any flying enemy (maybe not ones that can hover), but is clearly a dragon-slaying move.

That was the idea behind the Colossus Slayer, Giant Killer, and Horde Breaker benefits in the 5e ranger. In the playtest, a lot of the features that ended up in the Hunter subclass started out as core class features in the playtest. No idea why they changed that - maybe they thought too many decision points in the core class would be too complex for a general audience? The final playtest packet’s ranger was a million times better than the one we got in the PHB. Though I still would have preferred spellcasting to be a subclass benefit.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That was the idea behind the Colossus Slayer, Giant Killer, and Horde Breaker benefits in the 5e ranger. In the playtest, a lot of the features that ended up in the Hunter subclass started out as core class features in the playtest. No idea why they changed that - maybe they thought too many decision points in the core class would be too complex for a general audience? The final playtest packet’s ranger was a million times better than the one we got in the PHB. Though I still would have preferred spellcasting to be a subclass benefit.

I agree, however a distinction between those mechanics and the example you are responding to is damage vs. utility. I know that when I choose between those abilities what am I thinking is, "What is going to result in the most damage?" I would rather have the choice be between abilities that aren't just (situational) damage bonuses. That makes the benefit less computable, which means you can rationalize any choice.

And, to go a step further, let the Ranger pick additional ones at additional levels, so that you can eventually acquire all (or most) of them.

 

[Minigiant]

I'd go one further: the base ranger should just know about creatures in general, (with proactive, player-activated benefits) as well as be good at navigating all kinds of terrain.

Favored Enemy, as in you have one particular foe you're an expert at dealing with, should be a set of subclasses. Like, Giant Slayer Rangers are a subclass, with benefits for dealing with Giants (and large creatures in general, and so on).

Id prefer that rangers... you know... get more than one favored enemy and favored terrain at level 1-5.

Have rangers get like 5 + 1/2 Ranger level favored enemies and favored terrains.

Also they should follow the warlock and have their subclass split into two parts.

Conclave: The type of Ranger they are.

• Beastmasters
• Green Hoods
• Horizon Walkers
• Hunters
• Pathfinders
• Ranger Knights
• Stalkers

Concord: Who the Rangers are aligned with.

• Druids
• Fey
• Loners
• Military
• Priests

Each conclave and concord would grain an additional favored enemy/terrain as well as give class features appropriate to the tier. Players who want Non-spell-casting rangers would just have to conclaves and concords that don't grant spellcasting (Beastmasters, Hunters, Loners, Military)