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

[Minigiant]

I've always found it odd that while the inspiration for the ranger class was clearly Aragorn, the iconic D&D ranger has of course for many many years now been Drizzt. And while it's been a long time and there's many of the later books I haven't read, to the very best of my knowledge Drizzt was never written as casting spells other than those that came inherently to him as a drow. The quintessential D&D ranger doesn't even cast ranger spells.

I'm with @Charlaquin on this one.

There's no storm giants, liches, and mindflayers on Middle Earth.

The one dragon got luckyshotted in a DM created weakspot and they needed a caster to defeat the one fiend.

If the Dunedain were in the Forgetton Realms,they'd be shooting lightning and fire arrows and summoning spirit bears.

This is it for me. Why do so many things in D&D have to be a spell?

The rogues sneak attack isn't a spell, so why is hunter's mark?

The DNDNext playtest. The bar was higher then.

Anything "mundane" that couldn't be explained or describe in less than a few sentences without restriction didn't pass the test or became a spell with "It's magic" as an excuse.

You might be okay with rangers talking to animals directly and getting verbal responses back but enough of the fanbase would not accept that without magic to force it to remain spell only.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I don’t even care that much if they can be counterspelled. I just want the ranger’s tricks to feel grounded in their affinity for the natural world, instead of the product of magic words and gestures. Call it magic if you must, but make it folk magic instead of sorcery. They’re called rangers, not magicians.

Yes, I was being silly about the counterspell, but I totally agree with you.

You can add spellcasting to a non-spellcasting class (multiclass and/or subclass), but you can't really remove it.

 

[Charlaquin]

You can add spellcasting to a non-spellcasting class (multiclass and/or subclass), but you can't really remove it.

Actually, I think you kind of can. For example, Paladins never have to cast spells. They can use all their spell slots on smiting. I would be ok with something similar as an alternative to a non-spellcasting ranger. I’m not sure what ability you could give to rangers that spell slots would fuel, but if one could be thought up, I’d accept that.

 

[Minigiant]

Nor is magic. You can play D&D without spellcasters. I know because we have and it was great fun!

Of course.

My point is you can't play a Rangery game of D&D without spellcaster.

You can't sit out in the D&D wilderness, killing whatever a random encounter chart vomits up PLUS villainous organizations for weeks or months at a time with little to no access to civilization without spellcasting.

 

[Krachek]

The Xanathar scout archetype for the rogue can give an excellent take for a spell-less ranger.
Adding the aim shot of Tasha guide, just Put the cherry on top of the cake.

 

[Faolyn]

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

I hope you kept the nonmagical goodberry knack, with them able to pull out a bunch of slimy-yet-satisfying grubs. It was such an adorably gross ability. I loved it.

 

[Horwath]

because rangers are stealth guerilla fighters and there is nothing stealthy about yelling from the top of your lungs while spellcasting

 

[Faolyn]

With… weapons? Maybe magical or silvered weapons to overcome the damage resistance. No big deal.

Or potentially with a spell-like trait, but not an actual spell. Perhaps if you pick fiend as your favored enemy, you learn special banishment rituals. The ol' bell-book-candle routine. That sort of thing.

 

[Greg K]

Actually, I think you kind of can. For example, Paladins never have to cast spells. They can use all their spell slots on smiting. I would be ok with something similar as an alternative to a non-spellcasting ranger. I’m not sure what ability you could give to rangers that spell slots would fuel, but if one could be thought up, I’d accept that.

I disagree that ignoring spell slots is acceptable. I agree with Mearls, as stated in an episode of his Happy Hour, that a player needing to ignore class abilities/features to meet a concept is bad design. And depending upon a given campaign (or adventure), spells may see as much or more use than smites

 

[jsaving]

Actually, I think you kind of can. For example, Paladins never have to cast spells. They can use all their spell slots on smiting. I would be ok with something similar as an alternative to a non-spellcasting ranger. I’m not sure what ability you could give to rangers that spell slots would fuel, but if one could be thought up, I’d accept that.

Bard bypassing Smaug's DR in the Hobbit with a specially aimed shot against his favored enemy type could easily be recast as a ranger smiting mechanic.