D&D 5E (2014) Why are non-caster Ranger themes so popular?

[DEFCON 1]

This is homebrewing no less than the other ideas in the thread.

What's your point?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

Why, though?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

Not that it being homebrew matters on any level, but the only thing that is homebrew here is the “cannot be dispelled” part.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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

That's because no one can come up with a theme for an arcane half-caster that has stuck with the playerbase. There's been countless classes made like that (Duskblade, Swordmage, Bladesinger etc.) but none of them have ever kept any sort of traction with players. My own personal opinion is that it's because there hasn't been a story to the class that people have been inspired by... it's always just been "there's a mechanical hole to fill, let's fill it!". But a mechanical hole without a narrative function in the world makes the class nothing more than a Fighter/Wizard multiclass, just like the Eldritch Knight. And no one needs an entirely new class if the Fighter/Wizard multiclass is the exact same thing within the story of the campaign world.

 

[Laurefindel]

I think the issue is mostly inherent to 5e design around spells as the main metric. Spells are a convenient way to disguise many features in a (somewhat) balanced way among characters.

it’s not a bad design, but it feels like you’ve got to cast magic spells to do anything cool.

All the ranger (and a few subclasses) need is a phrasing where their abilities are not necessarily performed by saying abracadabra. « Refluffing » spellcasting goes a long way to make the ranger more martial.

I tried redoing the ranger without using spells, and often ended up writing essentially what an existing spell does. In the end, I made it into a half-warlock chassis with limited spells but a selection of « invocations ». A player could easily build a ranger that doesn’t feel like a spellcaster, using spell slots to fuel hunter’s mark and smite-like effects instead.

 

[Aldarc]

That's because no one can come up with a theme for an arcane half-caster that has stuck with the playerbase. There's been countless classes made like that (Duskblade, Swordmage, Bladesinger etc.) but none of them have ever kept any sort of traction with players. My own personal opinion is that it's because there hasn't been a story to the class that people have been inspired by... it's always just been "there's a mechanical hole to fill, let's fill it!". But a mechanical hole without a narrative function in the world makes the class nothing more than a Fighter/Wizard multiclass, just like the Eldritch Knight. And no one needs an entirely new class if the Fighter/Wizard multiclass is the exact same thing within the story of the campaign world.

I'm not entirely sure. IMHO, it's not that "none have ever kept any sort of traction with the players" or otherwise we wouldn't see the Bladesinger and Hexblade popping up in multiple editions. That suggests traction for these archetypes. Instead, it's that there is not a singular theme, but, rather, there are multiple "gish traditions" that have gained traction.

 

[ECMO3]

That's because no one can come up with a theme for an arcane half-caster that has stuck with the playerbase. There's been countless classes made like that (Duskblade, Swordmage, Bladesinger etc.) but none of them have ever kept any sort of traction with players. My own personal opinion is that it's because there hasn't been a story to the class that people have been inspired by... it's always just been "there's a mechanical hole to fill, let's fill it!". But a mechanical hole without a narrative function in the world makes the class nothing more than a Fighter/Wizard multiclass, just like the Eldritch Knight. And no one needs an entirely new class if the Fighter/Wizard multiclass is the exact same thing within the story of the campaign world.

As farr as subclasses go, I think bladesinger has a lot of traction with players in 5E.

For me I don't particularly want the class being a narrative of its own. I want to do that myself, both with the background and the playstyle/story arc that develops. The class will set some bounds on that, but the story is in the character not the class. That is one thing I don't like about Warlocks, is that the class comes with a built in story all its own, it is a major element and you need to either fit it into the story and campaign or waive it. I think with bladesingers the change to allow any race to do it made them a lot better.

For example I currently have a 4th level Glasya Tiefling Arcane Trickster, named Xane, who grew up essentially as a captive in the Winter Court in the feywild. She escaped to the sword coast and is in a WOTC campaign (Storrm Kings Thunder). Most of her "story" is looking over her shoudler in fear that the Queen of Air and Darkness will come and take her back. Even though nothing in the campaign relates to that at all, she thinks it does and the DM plays along with this.

Xane's story is worked around the haunted one background but the story has nothing at all to do with her race, class or frankly with the campaign. However I managed to work those elements into it - she obviously took the Fey touched feat at 4th, she knows/speaks infernal as a Tiefling trait but she did not use it growing up so her infernal is shaky (kind of like my Arabic IRL). Any time she is reading anything in infernal or speaking in infernal she struggles for words and meaning, she always figures it out this is just flavor; like as a player I will use poor grammar and speak slowly when she is "talking in infernal". On the other hand when she speaks sylvan (which she got from her background) it is flawless and I make it a point to role play it that way. This story plays into how she acts all the time in game. It plays into how she treats prisoners, it plays into her initial reaction if she sees a creature common to the Feywild "Did the queen send you!".

I love the RP on this character but I could really use the same story and behavior regardless of race and class, I would have to change some little things in her background to explain her different skills and initial training at 1st level but I think the basic story would still be doable with any race and class.

 

[ECMO3]

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.

If you are not playing a Ranger in the party why wouldn't he be?

Sure other players can solve those problems and at 11th level they can do it through a bunch of different spells. But barring feats and backgrounds if your party of 11th level cleric, Paladin, Wizard and Rogue go exploring the jungles of Chult, they should have to deal with many of the same problems a 1st level party would. And if the cleric does not have survival and no one else has a decent wisdom it is going to be pretty difficult without spells, much more difficult than it would be with a first level Ranger.

 

[Li Shenron]

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?

Specifically why do we see this with the Ranger but not with the Paladin?

Not saying it is right or wrong, just kind of curious about why the push for it.

Don't ask me. I think the unique magic side of the Ranger (actual spells or something else doesn't matter that much to me) is the only thing that warrants the Ranger being a class of its own instead of just a Fighter's sub build. And I mean unique magic, not that crappy "half druid" idea.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the issue is mostly inherent to 5e design around spells as the main metric. Spells are a convenient way to disguise many features in a (somewhat) balanced way among characters.

it’s not a bad design, but it feels like you’ve got to cast magic spells to do anything cool.

All the ranger (and a few subclasses) need is a phrasing where their abilities are not necessarily performed by saying abracadabra. « Refluffing » spellcasting goes a long way to make the ranger more martial.

I tried redoing the ranger without using spells, and often ended up writing essentially what an existing spell does. In the end, I made it into a half-warlock chassis with limited spells but a selection of « invocations ». A player could easily build a ranger that doesn’t feel like a spellcaster, using spell slots to fuel hunter’s mark and smite-like effects instead.

I do think the warlock chassis would be a solid way to build a ranger. But then again I think the warlock chassis is the best way to build pretty much any class.