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

[Greg K]

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

I know what it is supposed to be. I don't consider it good mechanic for what it is intended to do.

 

[ECMO3]

If your DM plays exploration by the RAW, natural explorer completely trivializes the challenge of exploration in your favored terrain and is useless everywhere else. Both outcomes “suck,” in my opinion, though in different ways.

Yes but you get additional favored terrain at level 6 and level 10 and presumably the one you chose at 1st level is representative of most of where you are going to be at 1st level.

Also although there are 8 terrains listed many/most actual areas are more than one of them. For example adventuring in the spine of the mountains a Ranger would benefit if he had either mountains or arctic, the mere of dead men would be swamp and coast. So I think in gameplay in most wilderness-focused games most Rangers will be in their favored terrain most of the time at 6th level and above.

I don't find trivializing it to be a problem, when clerics and druids could do many of the same things with spells.

 

[Minigiant]

If your DM plays exploration by the RAW, natural explorer completely trivializes the challenge of exploration in your favored terrain and is useless everywhere else. Both outcomes “suck,” in my opinion, though in different ways.

If your DM is still using foraging as a valid exploration challenge at level 8 and you aren't one on the barren planes of Hell or the Abyss, then your DM is doing it wrong and doesn't understand the concept of tiers.

That's kinda the point.

A level 11 ranger is Super Ranger, the most badass ranger within 1000 miles. He or she isn't some random outdoorsman in a cabin.

The 0e ranger hade wizard and cleric spells do similutedArargorn's badassery. And Aragorn lived in Candyland compared to the Forgotten Realms. Imagine how much magic a ranger knight in LOTR would have if the orcs had Eye's of Gruumsh, stormborn barbarians, hexblades, and necromancers riding zombie griffins.

 

[Greg K]

At least 50% of the rangers I've encountered in 3e and PF were Batman in Green, Grey Aquaman, or Dark Green Arrow with tons of magic potions, wands, and scrolls. All with the hatred, paranoia, and/or craziness hidden deep in their character backgrounds like a 90s Antihero.

All while begging the DM for more special arrows. Explosive and Freezing arrows being the most common homebrew.

If I encountered those players, I would have told them to find another table or we can play using a game designed for comic book superheros.

 

[Greg K]

Imagine how much magic a ranger knight in LOTR would have if the orcs had Eye's of Gruumsh, stormborn barbarians, hexblades, and necromancers riding zombie griffins.

I think you are assuming that everyone runs their D&D campaign the setting the same, because in the games run by my friends and I, you won't find that...well, I cannot write what I want out of respect for the Eric's Grandman Rule.

 

[J.Quondam]

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

I actually love hybrid classes! In my preferred mode of play, in the settings I enjoy the most, a proper adventuring wizard would be a half-caster.

 

[Minigiant]

I think you are assuming that everyone runs their D&D campaign the setting the same, because in the games run by my friends and I, you won't find that...well, I cannot write what I want out of respect for the Eric's Grandman Rule.

I'm not assuming everyone plays D&D the same.

I am starting that the Baseline of D&D in the way it was written for every edition is higher magic than the real world and higher than the LOTR.

So the idea that the ranger should be at base designed for setting that are lower magic than the baseline of the game is at least a bit ridiculous. It's like saying a Stone Age warrior should be on par with a Medieval one without supernatural elements making up the difference.

There should 10000% be official rules to lower the magic level of a D&D campaign. However+ the baseline ranger should be at the same magic level as the baseline world.

 

[Greg K]

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".

I would not cut Paladin and Ranger, but rework them. The Oath concept is a good one, but the mechanics and general spell list are, in my opinion, poor at supporting the concept. As for the Ranger, the class is, in my opinion,, a hot mess that attempts to cover to much. Then again, I think a lot of WOTC class design is a hot mess and there are better third-third party and fan designers of classes.

On the other hand, I think there is a place, in my opinion, for both half-caster classes and multi-classing. Those that want to reduce it all to multi-classing, in my opinion, ignore that multi-classing is optional and the baggage that multi-classing can introduce mechanically and conceptually to a character concept.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I actually love hybrid classes! In my preferred mode of play, in the settings I enjoy the most, a proper adventuring wizard would be a half-caster.

the lack of a functioning arcane half caster is a hole they have not managed to fill in yet.

 

[niklinna]

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

Class features can change, particularly as of Tasha's. And Rangers, unlike Paladins, use "spells known" anyhow, so their spells don't change from day to day, either, even if they can swap out a spell known on a level-up.

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.

This is homebrewing no less than the other ideas in the thread, except you're confining yourself to spells already published.