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

[Aldarc]

In my twenty years of seeing rangers played in WotC-era D&D, I don't recall a single player who picked or wanted the Ranger for their spellcasting. If anything, it was something that I recall a fair number of them begrudgingly tolerated and didn't really care about. In the games I was a part of, a lot of the Ranger's spellcasting went utterly ignored or underutilized by most ranger players in 3e (Pathfinder) and 5e (apart from Hunter's Mark). How many people really want the spellcasting ranger in this thread apart from Minigiant, who is fearmongering that the fanbase will riot without the spellcasting ranger? Do most even care? I know that I would gladly sacrifice spellcasting for a functional and thematic ranger.

 

[niklinna]

In my twenty years of seeing rangers played in WotC-era D&D, I don't recall a single player who picked or wanted the Ranger for their spellcasting. If anything, it was something that I recall a fair number of them begrudgingly tolerated and didn't really care about. In the games I was a part of, a lot of the Ranger's spellcasting went utterly ignored or underutilized by most ranger players in 3e (Pathfinder) and 5e (apart from Hunter's Mark). How many people really want the spellcasting ranger in this thread apart from Minigiant, who is fearmongering that the fanbase will riot without the spellcasting ranger? Do most even care? I know that I would gladly sacrifice spellcasting for a functional and thematic ranger.

I'd be fine with a non-spellcasting Ranger. It's late and I'm tired, so I'm fuzzy on how broken it would be, but I would trade half-spellcasting for a 2nd subclass (minus any extra spells known, of course), or if that's too powerful, a subset of a 2nd subclass's features. Stole that idea from Warlocks, who get a patron (subclass) and a pact (kind of a mini 2nd subclass). Pacts are upgradable with invocations, though, and Rangers don't have such a class feature.

Might give thought tomorrow to separate pact-like things for a non-spellcasting ranger.

 

[Aldarc]

Because now, I'm not beholden to existing spells. Just like the Barbarian isn't required to use existing spells in order to fly or grant advantage to allies. With option 3, the sky is the limit. You can create completely unique effects that are specific to the ranger class.

It's very much the route of the Battlemaster for rangers.

Look, again, no one is wanting to take away the baseline ranger, I don't think. What is wanted is the OPTION of a non-specific spell casting (not necessarily no magic, but, a non-caster) ranger for their games.

It's not like it doesn't already exist. The Barbarian and the Battlemaster from the PHB work this way. Artificers aren't all that far off considering how few spells an artificer actually gets. A Battlesmith Artificer makes a pretty good template for a ranger.

Something that I haven't seen talked about in this thread is that a ranger is the fighter class with a pet. Having that animal companion is a pretty strong archetype for rangers - from Drizz't to Beastmaster. And the pet can be a major source of elements that you can use your spell casting slots for. Having your pet Enlarge for a few rounds, for example, isn't a huge deal (call it Rage or some such). There's a boatload of things you could do to tie the ranger to its pet.

A Battlemaster set-up for a spell-less Ranger, with some Maneuvers (recharge on Short Rest) unique to them, would have also worked well and been fun to play. Said ranger maneuvers could have even focused more on the Exploration pillar or taking down quarry.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Though I see more people asking for spell-less ranger, I do see quite a few people wanting it for paladin as well. Though the reason people want a ranger with no magic in particular is Aragorn. However if you were to build Aragorn in game, he would be a fighter with the outlander background, and not a Ranger.

When I made a reddit thread asking which classes people would cut, over half the answers were people saying paladin/ranger. It seems that people don't see half casters as a concept, usually with the reasoning "It should just be a druid or cleric / fighter multiclass or subclass".

Personally I'd keep Ranger as a half caster class. And then give a dedicated survival type subclass to fighter, a bit like rogues get scout. And then to free up feats for use in personalising your build, I'd have them separate to ASIs. That way you could pick up all the rangery feats without penalty.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

In my twenty years of seeing rangers played in WotC-era D&D, I don't recall a single player who picked or wanted the Ranger for their spellcasting. If anything, it was something that I recall a fair number of them begrudgingly tolerated and didn't really care about. In the games I was a part of, a lot of the Ranger's spellcasting went utterly ignored or underutilized by most ranger players in 3e (Pathfinder) and 5e (apart from Hunter's Mark). How many people really want the spellcasting ranger in this thread apart from Minigiant, who is fearmongering that the fanbase will riot without the spellcasting ranger? Do most even care? I know that I would gladly sacrifice spellcasting for a functional and thematic ranger.

If ranger got turned into a pure martial (which I honestly wouldn't mind), I'd like a separate primal half caster class. Probably the Warden from 4e.

Half casters have a really unique theme and playstyle, so It's sad that so many people don't really care about them.

 

[Aldarc]

If ranger got turned into a pure martial (which I honestly wouldn't mind), I'd like a separate primal half caster class. Probably the Warden from 4e.

Half casters have a really unique theme and playstyle, so It's sad that so many people don't really care about them.

I would not mind that. I would possibly even prefer if the shapeshifting of the druid got put into a half-caster Warden. Then people (including Mearls) could have their "shapeshifter class" that isn't also competing internally with being a full-casting force of nature. I would prefer that than pushing the Druid even harder into being the shapeshifter class.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I would not mind that. I would possibly even prefer if the shapeshifting of the druid got put into a half-caster Warden. Then people (including Mearls) could have their "shapeshifter class" that isn't also competing internally with being a full-casting force of nature. I would prefer that than pushing the Druid even harder into being the shapeshifter class.

I've always liked moon druid as a concept. But I really dislike on how it just kind of swallows the entire class. Wildshape should definitely have been subclass only.

Half of druids core class features are related to wildshape, which then leaves them pretty meh or flat out useless to other druids which are not using wildshape.

 

[AtomicPope]

The gain of interest in martial Rangers is a loss of origin for Rangers. That loss isn't the fault of the audience, but the writers. D&D lost what it meant to be a "ranger" along the way, and that probably started around 2e as the lines between Rangers and Fighters blurred. By the time we got to 3e, Rangers were reduced to a dip class with a fighting style. If we're led to believe that the "ranger" is a particular fighter with a fighting style then it makes sense that gamers want a martial ranger.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I’ve always seen it as, nature in D&D is inherently magical, thus the Ranger needs to know how to use and how to counteract that magic.

Id be open to other ways than Spellcasting to do that, but a fully mundane Ranger just doesn’t work, to me. Even “preternatural but not supernatural is…off, IMO”. Rather, Rangers should be like Tolkien’s fairy; supernatural, in that it is the most natural.

So, what's on your fighter's spell list so he can go toe to toe with dragons and demons?

 

[Mordhau]

Though I see more people asking for spell-less ranger, I do see quite a few people wanting it for paladin as well. Though the reason people want a ranger with no magic in particular is Aragorn. However if you were to build Aragorn in game, he would be a fighter with the outlander background, and not a Ranger.

THe biggest issue with this is that about 90% of fantasy characters from other media ending up represented by Fighter's and Rogues.