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

[Composer99]

Who says I trained to be a Ranger at all? For the most part the class and subclass should provide the mechanics, not the character. I realize some elements need to be tied to a story but most of it should not be.

What if I want the mechanics of a "loner" but I want to play a flamboyant socialite ladies man who knows women in every city?

Each of the classes is presented in the PHB with a more or less default nature. In 5e, where the rules are holistic (hence their being written in natural language as much as possible and with little strict separation between "flavour" and "hard rules"), those can be considered a definitive summary of what a ranger is and what a ranger does.

If you want your ranger to deviate from the default presented in the PHB, well and good, but it is simply a fact that the class and subclass in 5e provide both mechanics and a default flavour.

 

[ECMO3]

Each of the classes is presented in the PHB with a more or less default nature. In 5e, where the rules are holistic (hence their being written in natural language as much as possible and with little strict separation between "flavour" and "hard rules"), those can be considered a definitive summary of what a ranger is and what a ranger does.

If you want your ranger to deviate from the default presented in the PHB, well and good, but it is simply a fact that the class and subclass in 5e provide both mechanics and a default flavour.

You missed what I was responding to. This was originally a reply to someone who suggested Rangers have to align to one conclave and would take away this ability to deviate.

I am fine with PHB ranger, and I think with the TCE options and subclasses it presents a fun and balanced class that can be used to build a lot of different character ideas.

I think in terms of combat builds Ranger RAW also allows more versatility than any other class. You can be a devastating sniper, a bone crunching melee gal, a scout/skirmisher, a Gish or combinations/blends of these. You can even get pretty darn close to a full on caster through early tier 3 with the right feat selections.

 

[Mordhau]

But the dagger always does 1d4 and it does that whether it is a 1st level Rogue or a 20th level fighter wielding it. The fireball is magic and really has no place in a discussion on scaling non-magic abilities.

It does because it lays bare the maths of the game. Look at Mearls own design videos where he points at magic damage progression explicitly as a guide to how much damage non-magical abilities should do at certain levels.

Realism is all well and good but the maths of the game has to come first. If realism is the goal then the maths need to enable it.

A weapon always doing the same damage is an illusion based on the prevalence of multi-attacking in the game. You could do the same with traps I guess (your trap is so good that in fact when you lay a trap it is actually three traps).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Bit late to the party but I don't like the caster Paladin any more than I like the caster Ranger--in fact, I like Paladins as casters less than I like Rangers as casters!

The key problem being, it's extremely hard to have potent, mystical powers in 5e without being a spellcaster. Spellcasting is where the real power and diversity can be found. This makes me very sad.

 

[niklinna]

We recently created a Ranger using choices as the warlocks invocations. If you are interested,

Martial Ranger II by Scuronotte

Martial Ranger II by Scuronotte - Created with GM Binder.

www.gmbinder.com

That's pretty cool. I was going to add a comment to my big list of themed features about how there were so many, it might be hard to choose; I've already talked about that in other responses here, though, and this is a good approach. I like that Favored Foe is optional—that's one longstanding Ranger feature I've never been particularly fond of. I really like the option to make commanding the companion to attack be a free action.

There's no info on the conclaves, is that available separately?

(Sadly, GMBinder's PDF generation is still completely broken for any browser other than Chrome.)

 

[Baron Opal II]

I mean DMs don't know what is easy, moderately difficult, or hard for a ranger to do. The community doesn't agree on what they are.

That's my point from way back in in the early pages.

We can't even, in a thread about rangers, agree which level a nonspell casting ranger can speak to animals... if ever. And that's the whole problem with the non-spell-casting ranger. Every homebrew nonspellcasting ranger puts features at different levels and different strengths. Without spells as a gauge, we as a community cannot agree what and what level a ranger can do anything rangery.

This isn't a thread about building a new ranger, but rather why do people want a non-magical one.

Pick - You want the ghillie suit at first level? Do it, sounds great! Ranger traps do a 1d8 / 2 levels? Sounds good. Should there be a cap? Does the ranger know animal anatomy enough to make a weakening attack / shot? Save or slow / fall out of the air? Sounds rangery! Your bolded point is absurd and irrelevant. If someone wants to formulate a non-magical ranger look to the fighter, rogue, and monk. Equal portions of the first two, a jigger of monk, and season with druid to taste.

I don't really have an owlbear in the fight, but there's a lot of kvetching and not a lot of solving. Not that solving the problem was the point of the thread, but rather an interest in people's motivations. I just look to mug 5E for concepts and rifle through it's pockets for loose rules.

 

[Minigiant]

This isn't a thread about building a new ranger, but rather why do people want a non-magical one.

Pick - You want the ghillie suit at first level? Do it, sounds great! Ranger traps do a 1d8 / 2 levels? Sounds good. Should there be a cap? Does the ranger know animal anatomy enough to make a weakening attack / shot? Save or slow / fall out of the air? Sounds rangery! Your bolded point is absurd and irrelevant. If someone wants to formulate a non-magical ranger look to the fighter, rogue, and monk. Equal portions of the first two, a jigger of monk, and season with druid to taste.

I don't really have an owlbear in the fight, but there's a lot of kvetching and not a lot of solving. Not that solving the problem was the point of the thread, but rather an interest in people's motivations. I just look to mug 5E for concepts and rifle through it's pockets for loose rules.

I already explained this reason.
The D&D fanbase and D&D IP owners have always pushed D&D to be more and more magical and spell based.
This nudges the ranger class to be more magical and spell based.
Rangers of popular fiction are usually not in settings as magical and spell based as D&D.
This creates a hole as fans also want to play ranger characters similar to fiction and nonfiction in D&D.

However due to lack of ranger consensus within the community, reluctance to adjust magic, martial and skill levels of the fandom. the designers reluctance to act on their own due to fear of backlash, and the evermoving churn of new product means the non-spell casting ranger never comes from official channels.

This creates a feedback loop as the missing concept never materializes in a full official form, stays missing, and increases the popularity.

 

[ScuroNotte]

That's pretty cool. I was going to add a comment to my big list of themed features about how there were so many, it might be hard to choose; I've already talked about that in other responses here, though, and this is a good approach. I like that Favored Foe is optional—that's one longstanding Ranger feature I've never been particularly fond of. I really like the option to make commanding the companion to attack be a free action.

There's no info on the conclaves, is that available separately?

(Sadly, GMBinder's PDF generation is still completely broken for any browser other than Chrome.)

Thank you. I am certain there may be other talents others may wish to include, but these, and its variations, were in most homebrew versions.

Never been fond on Favored Foe (FF) either, but many do like the feature and that is why it is included. Still debating on whether FF II should be offered with a recovery after short rest.

Yes, I consider the free action to command beast similar to the Fighter's extra attack at 11th level.

Sorry, I only have it on GMBinder as of now. So far the conclaves are similar to others I have posted elsewhere in the past, but I am concurrently reviewing them for improvement and if compatible to the core companion option. Please offer suggestions. Thanks.

Martial Ranger Conclaves by Scuronotte

Martial Ranger Conclaves by Scuronotte - Created with GM Binder.

www.gmbinder.com

 

[niklinna]

Thank you. I am certain there may be other talents others may wish to include, but these, and its variations, were in most homebrew versions.

Have a look at my list of ideas earlier for some inspiration.

Sorry, I only have it on GMBinder as of now. So far the conclaves are similar to others I have posted elsewhere in the past, but I am concurrently reviewing them for improvement and if compatible to the core companion option. Please offer suggestions. Thanks.

I will have a look and PM you with suggestions! (Also I believe GMBinder has an option to pre-generate a PDF for download, but I don't know how practical it is.)

Back to mulling over whether to get physical books for A5E....

 

[Swarmkeeper]

my first game with every DM is as a ranger unless banned or unable to roll the stats. I've played... a lot of... ranger.

OK.

A suggestion, if I may: next time you start a new campaign, work with your DM before, during, and after Session Zero to design the non-spellcasting Ranger you desire to play. You and your DM will likely have to compromise on a few details but it is something you really can do. It truly doesn't need to be official or sanctioned by "The Community" to be fun. And, if you do it, be sure to let us know how it goes. Happy gaming!