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

[Scribe]

And given that non-caster is a common request, the spellcasting should be an option. I have always just wanted an option that lets you trade the Spellcasting feature for other things.

And again this is fine, but its not what I personally think of as the Ranger niche or core 'definition', which is what Minigiant hits on here.

Every iconic ranger thing needs to be a spell or a large percentage of the fanbase will riot.

• Healing HP
• Cure Disease
• Cure Poison
• Talk to animals
• Talk to plants
• Charm animals
• Make animals into companions
• Resist extreme elements
• Find meals in the desert or barrens
• Find shelter in the desert or barrens
• Track without footprints
• Heightened sight
• Heightened hearing
• See in the dark
• Arrow trick shots
• Be invisible to magical creatures
• Find lost items
• Find lost people

Many items on that list either take way more time via natural methods (as obviously Healing/Cures happen in our non-magical world) or are purely within the realm of the fantastical, when taken to the extremes we see in our games.

I can generally figure out my dog. I can see his body, his ears, his tail, his posture, and the focus of his gaze, and so I can derive from that what he is likely about to do, or considering.

I cant ask him what he wants for dinner, without providing the context to him visually or through training.

A Ranger could though, to me, and also ask if he wants a different bed, and get a yes/no answer.

 

[Charlaquin]

And again this is fine, but its not what I personally think of as the Ranger niche or core 'definition', which is what Minigiant hits on here.



Many items on that list either take way more time via natural methods (as obviously Healing/Cures happen in our non-magical world) or are purely within the realm of the fantastical, when taken to the extremes we see in our games.

I can generally figure out my dog. I can see his body, his ears, his tail, his posture, and the focus of his gaze, and so I can derive from that what he is likely about to do, or considering.

I cant ask him what he wants for dinner, without providing the context to him visually or through training.

A Ranger could though, to me, and also ask if he wants a different bed, and get a yes/no answer.

See, this is exactly the kind of thing I don’t want from a ranger. I’m fine with the ranger having a deep enough understanding of an animal’s body language to be able to read its desires, perhaps to a degree that is beyond the realm of realistic possibility, and even to be able to communicate back to the animal in a way it can understand. But what I don’t want is for the ranger to be able to wiggle their fingers and say some magic words and then be able to literally talk to the animal. That’s not something a preternaturally talented frontiersman does, it’s something a wizard does.

In a similar vein, I want the ranger to be able to camouflage themselves so well they seem to disappear among the trees; I don’t want them to be able to wave a wand, say an incantation, and turn invisible. I want a the ranger to be able to put their ear to the ground and tell you there’s a party of two dozen orcs heading your direction from a mile the Northwest and will arrive in 20 minutes; I don’t want them to cast a spell to ask the spirit of the winds where the orcs are.

 

[MarkB]

It’s funny, Aragorn also gets pointed to as the reason the ranger has spells (though it usually comes down to “Aragorn could heal, so rangers need healing spells”).

Aragorn doesn't do combat healing. He does herbalism, maybe with some extra mojo thrown in. There are better ways to represent that than spellcasting.

And also, I don’t know that he’s really even the blueprint for the D&D ranger any more. He’s certainly the original inspiration, but I think the concept has drifted away from that origin.

Which, perhaps, is why some people want to shift it back in that direction. There was a lot of influence from characters like Drizzt in earlier editions, but thanks to the LotR movies and a widening fanbase, I'm pretty sure far more D&D players these days are familiar with Aragorn than with Drizzt.

 

[Minigiant]

Many items on that list either take way more time via natural methods (as obviously Healing/Cures happen in our non-magical world) or are purely within the realm of the fantastical, when taken to the extremes we see in our games.

I can generally figure out my dog. I can see his body, his ears, his tail, his posture, and the focus of his gaze, and so I can derive from that what he is likely about to do, or considering.

I cant ask him what he wants for dinner, without providing the context to him visually or through training.

A Ranger could though, to me, and also ask if he wants a different bed, and get a yes/no answer.

You also can't tell your dog to bite the face of a 12ft talk fire giant who has a beard of fire and a flaming axe.

Not only would 99.99% of dogs not follow the command, 99.99% of trainers using standard training would not be able to train the 0.01 percent of dogs in after weeks.

A Ranger can pick a stray dog off the street and train her to fight a green dragon in one day. And issue the commands as bonus/minor actions.

 

[Scribe]

See, this is exactly the kind of thing I don’t want from a ranger. I’m fine with the ranger having a deep enough understanding of an animal’s body language to be able to read its desires, perhaps to a degree that is beyond the realm of realistic possibility, and even to be able to communicate back to the animal in a way it can understand. But what I don’t want is for the ranger to be able to wiggle their fingers and say some magic words and then be able to literally talk to the animal. That’s not something a preternaturally talented frontiersman does, it’s something a wizard does.

And I think this is what could be discussed further, but unfortunately as its the internet there can be no consensus.

Like in the "what are your classes for 50th...' thread, we have our classes listed, but that doesnt mean people agree on even what those classes are, even if we agree on the list.

 

[Morrus]

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

I think we've achieved this with Level Up. The ranger gets a bunch of abilities which interact with the new full exploration pillar.

 

[Minigiant]

See, this is exactly the kind of thing I don’t want from a ranger. I’m fine with the ranger having a deep enough understanding of an animal’s body language to be able to read its desires, perhaps to a degree that is beyond the realm of realistic possibility, and even to be able to communicate back to the animal in a way it can understand. But what I don’t want is for the ranger to be able to wiggle their fingers and say some magic words and then be able to literally talk to the animal. That’s not something a preternaturally talented frontiersman does, it’s something a wizard does.

The ranger is not the preternaturally talented frontiersman.

They are

Warriors of the wilderness, rangers specialize in hunting the monsters that threaten the edges of civilization—humanoid raiders, rampaging beasts and monstrosities, terrible giants, and deadly dragons. They learn to track their quarry as a predator does, moving stealthily through the wilds and hiding themselves in brush and rubble. Rangers focus their combat training on techniques that are particularly useful against their specific favored foes.

 

[Charlaquin]

And I think this is what could be discussed further, but unfortunately as its the internet there can be no consensus.

Like in the "what are your classes for 50th...' thread, we have our classes listed, but that doesnt mean people agree on even what those classes are, even if we agree on the list.

We will never reach consensus, no, but we can get a general sense of what a broad portion of the fanbase wants. It’s clear that there’s a lot of demand for a non-spellcasting ranger. It’s clear that there’s also a desire for the ranger to set itself apart from the fighter by way of fantastical capabilities related to their connection to nature. Maybe I’m biased, but I think the obvious solution here is to just make those abilities not be spells.

 

[Charlaquin]

The ranger is not the preternaturally talented frontiersman.

They are

That quote is literally describing a preternaturally talented frontiersman.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yep. People want a survivalist type character who relies on themselves and their knowledge of the natural world, not magic spells. A few preternatural tricks like being able to discern some weirdly specific details from looking at tracks or putting an ear to the ground is probably acceptable, but most spells are just too overtly magical to fit the concept well. The ranger’s abilities should be uncanny, but not outright supernatural, in my opinion,

Yeah, this. A spell-less ranger could always have a caster subclass, or you could multiclass.

OR....the ranger could have spell-like actions that aren't called "spells" and thus can't be counterspelled.