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

[DEFCON 1]

Class features are just spell slots that don't change.

The easiest way to get a spell-less Ranger is to just select a current spell whose mechanics can easily be defined as non-magical (Longstrider, Hunter's Mark, etc.), assign them each to a spell slot you have, and then never change them. Then you make the personal decision that these "features" will never be used on anyone other than yourself, and you and the DM agree that these can never be Dispelled (a fine trade-off in exchange for never actually changing the features when a normal character actually could.) And then if appearance matters, just open up a Word doc and re-write the class table where instead of the spell slot chart being there, you just have each "spell" show up as a class feature. Heck, re-write the spell names to give them their own look too if you want.

The Ranger Table​

Level	Proficiency Bonus	Features
1st	+2	Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer
2nd	+2	Fighting Style, Quarry's Mark 1/day, Fast Movement 1/day
3rd	+2	Ranger Archetype, Primeval Awareness, Poultice Berries 1/day
4th	+2	Ability Score Improvement
5th	+3	Extra Attack, Trackless Movement 1/day, Quarry's Mark 2/day

This Ranger can get the effects of Hunter's Mark, Longstrider, Goodberry, and Pass Without Trace, all while just running them like they were just preternatural abilities they can do. I mean, these are pretty much what any so-called "non-magical" Ranger features would look like anyway, so why re-invent the wheel? At least, that's how I've always felt about it.

 

[Minigiant]

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'm not fearmongering that the fanbase will riot without the spellcasting ranger.

I'm reminding everyone that we when 4e gave rangers nonmagical healing, special movement, and other fantastical ranger elements, the edition got awhole lotta complaints. Same thing in the 5e playtest. Same thing when WOTC made a "ranger with no spells" mock-up. Tones of criticism.

And in 3e, rangers were some of the biggest wand and scroll users in the party. "Hold on. Before we go to the next room, I take out 2-5 scrolls and wands of 1st and 2nd level ranger spells and buff myself and Boris"

This is before you get to the fact that many asking for a 5e spell-less ranger describe either a 5e fighter with ranger skills OR a 5e ranger who has all of ranger's spells buffs on them but doesn't cast the spells.

 

[Mind of tempest]

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.

personally, I could live without the ranger but not half casters some people just seem to not get the hybrid class fun

 

[Frozen_Heart]

personally, I could live without the ranger but not half casters some people just seem to not get the hybrid class fun

I think it's that people see them as just something which could be done through a multiclass or subclass.

Which is definitely incorrect. A half caster plays completely different to a 50/50 full caster/martial. A half casters entire spell list is built to mix with its martial abilities. Sure you could give those spells to a full caster and then multiclass with fighter. But then you're just buffing full casters even more, and allowing them to impede directly into martials roles.

Our current party has a half fighter/cleric. And a paladin. Both are mechanically great characters, but they play in very different ways. The fighter/cleric wades into the centre of combat, drops spirit guardians, and soaks up the enemies in the centre of the combat. Occasionally throwing out a healing word to get people on their feat. The paladin targets vital enemies, and deletes them via smites.

 

[dave2008]

I like the scout rogue a lot, but it doesn’t satisfy what I want out of a ranger. Just having really high nature and survival skills doesn’t really satisfy the concept for me, any more than having a high religion skill would satisfy the concept of a cleric. I guess scout rogues are also sneaky, which feels kind of ranger-y, I guess, but… Ultimately it feels like a wilderness-flavored rogue, not a ranger.

Sure everyone's different. I just know the "ranger" in our group is actually a Scout. I remember there was a Fighter Scout UA. Was that more what you are looking for (I don't remember what it was like).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I like the idea of poulitces and such, but I, personally, woud not want them fueled by spell slots.

It’s just a mechanic that powers abilities on a limited basis.

 

[Baron Opal II]

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?

Because when I think of rangers I think of Aragorn and the Coureur des bois.

The ranger’s abilities should be uncanny, but not outright supernatural, in my opinion,

Exactly right.

I don't even want paladins to have spells; they're not clerics.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not fearmongering that the fanbase will riot without the spellcasting ranger.

I'm reminding everyone that we when 4e gave rangers nonmagical healing, special movement, and other fantastical ranger elements, the edition got awhole lotta complaints. Same thing in the 5e playtest. Same thing when WOTC made a "ranger with no spells" mock-up. Tones of criticism.

I love how people take anything, no matter how small, from 4e and claim that because 4e did it a certain way that it was somehow the single issue that brought 4e's entire house down.

Your reminder has been heard and registered. You can move on now that we have all been thoroughly reminded.

And in 3e, rangers were some of the biggest wand and scroll users in the party. "Hold on. Before we go to the next room, I take out 2-5 scrolls and wands of 1st and 2nd level ranger spells and buff myself and Boris"

I can't say that I ever recalled this happening once in my years playing 3e or Pathfinder.

 

[jayoungr]

Personally, I supremely don't care whether the ranger has spell slots or not, as long as it has woodcraft and can be good with a bow.

Also, I've always seen Aragorn as a bit quasi-magical. If that gets expressed in the form of spell slots for D&D purposes, it doesn't ruin my fantasy.

 

[ECMO3]

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 think several of the Ranger's spells are top shelf. I think goodberry, pass without trace and ensnaring strike are all great spells and to agree they really define the modern ranger class. Also speak with animals as a free cast under the TCE rules is awesome. These spells are game changers IME.

I have also found there are a couple ways to play a Ranger. Typically in my games have played the Ranger as a martials with a few good utility spells (mostly those noted above), but more recently watching someone play a Fey Wanderer, they can be great as a "cast first" class too, especially if you pick up Shadow Touched with cause fear.

TCE gives it a bunch of non-Magical abilities too with Deft explorer.