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

[Swarmkeeper]

Hunting traps are tier 1 and there are no tables or rules to help DMs adjudicate stronger traps.

You keep saying this. But the play loop and ability checks are there for DMs to handle anything that is not explicitly stated in the books (and, heck, even for things that are explicitly stated in the books as the rules serve the DM and not the other way around).

I’d rather not see 5e turn into an edition where Set Traps, Use Rope, Bend Bars and the like become codified and play sessions require significant rules-lookup time. The community has already been there - and can still be there if they want. It’s just a different game than 5e.

Now, for 5e, I wouldn’t object to seeing another crunch book where some of these things - like trap setting and other exploration type activities - are expanded upon, much like Xanathar’s dealt with Tools and provided suggested DCs for said tools. But even then, those examples were not exhaustive. Baseline 5e expects players to describe actions and the DM to make calls in the moment to keep things moving.

 

[ScuroNotte]

I see a lot of people who want a non-casting Ranger. I am wondering what the draw is here and why people don't like a casting Ranger?

Specifically why do we see this with the Ranger but not with the Paladin?

Not saying it is right or wrong, just kind of curious about why the push for it.

Why I see the paladin with spell is that they are they are the god's champion and are granted powers (spells) to defeat their enemies.

The ranger is a person who lives and survives in nature using their mind and skills. Their life is a hard one, and having spells would make their life easier. Their survival should be based on their own skills and abilities, not spells. I would assume that their are some who are able to cast spells, but majority would not be spell casters. I have played since the late 70's (yes aging myself) and when we played, it never felt right for a ranger spell caster. That's why our group created our own ranger class that can be used with or without spells.

Simple answers for me: Its more enjoyable. It feels just right; like my 37 yr old baseball glove.

 

[Charlaquin]

If memory serves, Mike Mearls discussed the ranger in one of his Happy Fun Hour videos (no longer up on YouTube), and suggested that perhaps the way forward for the ranger was to have a choice at 1st or 2nd level (probably 2nd if it was using the power curve of the PHB ranger) to specialise in spellcasting, non-spell exploits, or beast mastery.

• If you picked spellcasting, you got the half-caster slot progression;
• If you picked non-spell exploits, you got special abilities that could be supernatural but weren't spells (although I think Mearls focused on combat manoeuvres/exploits in the video?);
• If you picked beast mastery, you got the persistent pet, this time with buffs suitable for having given up half-casting.

Presumably, this version would include subclasses that worked with two specs but not the other one (like a one-third caster for the two specs that aren't casters, or a pet subclass for the two specs that aren't the beast master) and maybe a subclass that would work with any spec (if you could design such a thing).

Personally, were I to go this route homebrewing a ranger, I would merge the non-caster rangers into a single spec, and make having (and upgrading) a beast companion into a thing you got by spending a few class-based build resources (similar to warlock invocations).

Obviously this would be a right pain to balance, but at least it would satisfy both the idea of having a spell-less ranger and a spellcasting ranger. It would leave out those who, for whatever reason, insisted that a ranger could only be one or the other, but you can't please everyone.

I like where that line of thinking is going, but in my book, that choice at 1st or 2nd level of what special ability structure to gain on top of your core class progression is literally describing subclasses. What he described as subclasses that might only be available to one or two of those 1st-or-2nd level structure options would be better expressed by individual options a la warlock invocations.

 

[Charlaquin]

Look at the PHB ranger's "craft a ghillie suit" feature Hide in Plain Sight.
It takes a whole minute to put on and you can't move in it or it falls off. They get that junk at level 10

Hence my point. Many are imagining the fun of a nonpellcasting ranger from books and movies. Few are imagining the sack of trash that will have level 1 class features as level 10 class features. The low level ranger is a popular archetype. A mid level or high level ranger is a debate. Few are imagining 20 levels of ranger.

You could easily fix that ghillie suit feature by, you know, not having it fall off if you move.

If you can’t think of high-level abilities that would be cool and useful and aren’t spells, that’s your own lack of imagination.

 

[ScuroNotte]

WOTC obviouly doesn't know how to make 100% mundane but fantastical ranger features and neither does most of the D&D community.

WOTC just refuse to go in that direction. Their sole UA attempt was to make a weaker version of the battle master. As in any homebrew product, most are poorly done. However, there are some very good renditions of rangers without spells. The problem is what features and when they should be attained is the major issue. And some offer the ranger a beast companion instead of spells which is also a unique path.

 

[ScuroNotte]

I do think the warlock chassis would be a solid way to build a ranger. But then again I think the warlock chassis is the best way to build pretty much any class.

I agree. Many have tried to create a new Ranger class. Most homebrew have similar features. The issue is when said feature should be attained. Even at our tables we created a variant ranger class that has been used for a few years but now are tinkering with a version that uses the Warlock invocations, calling them talents. Currently we have 2 rangers and both are different (excluding the 1st level as those features are set).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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).

Not how I’d go with favored enemy, but I can see the appeal.

 

[Minigiant]

You keep saying this. But the play loop and ability checks are there for DMs to handle anything that is not explicitly stated in the books (and, heck, even for things that are explicitly stated in the books as the rules serve the DM and not the other way around).

DMs don't show what they checks are.

The only part of ranger skills that really has rules is tracking

It's not like Weapons where armor values are given (fighters) or Stealth where the game assumes opposed checks of stated monsters (rogues), or trap finding and disabling where the books and adventures give stated up traps. For rangers, the play loop is incomplete because outside of magic the difficult scale is pretty much unknown and DMs are not guided through the process. I doubt many groups even make many Nature and Survival checks and the DCs are likely often nonsense numbers thrown up with little or poor logical basis.

This is why half the ranger stuff is on/off or big hunting +10 bonuses. Because the scale was never determined. You charm the beast or don't. You have tracks or don't. You know the weather or don't. You breathe water or don't. You have +10 to stealth or don't.You see in the dark or don't. The only thinks gradual with the 5e ranger is their spell slots or the progression of druid and wizard spells they have.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

You could easily fix that ghillie suit feature by, you know, not having it fall off if you move.

If you can’t think of high-level abilities that would be cool and useful and aren’t spells, that’s your own lack of imagination.

Sure, thinking of them is easy. Getting the caster supremacists who screeched about 4E to accept them in a published official product... therein lies the rub. It's why we have no warlord and the fighter still can't have nice things. WOTC is still in apology tour mode. Maybe by 2024 in the new books we can have a smidgeon more martial/caster parity.

 

[Mordhau]

I think the first step to making a good ranger class is taking a lot of the previously accumulated Ranger material such as favoured enemy, terrain, limited spellcasting, hide in plain sight etc and incinerating it.

Then start from first principles. What is this class supposed to be; how best to achieve that?