D&D (2024) What type of ranger would your prefer for 2024?

[Vaalingrade]

If you want to go through all these grandiose efforts to change baseline Dungeons & Dragons, why are you even bothering to play Dungeons & Dragons in the first place?

The game has literally offered non-Vancian variants for 40 years.

And if you don't like it when it changes, you can just Rule 0 it right?

 

[Mephista]

You're talking past me. Go back and read what Ive said previously and then come back and actually talk to me based on what I said.

I've read everything you said, I just disagree with you on a fundamental level. From my perspective, you're effectively asking to give the ranger abilities with no cost.

You started off with talking about conversing with Awakend animals for favors. And I'm comparing that to talking to angels and gods for favors as a cleric or paladin. Because, in the end, I see it as roughly the same result.

They are mechanically, and thats what makes the difference. You can't try to take the "opinion" cop out on that fact; different mechanics do not feel the same, and that is only compounded when the fiction itself is different yet is trying to be conflated as though they aren't.

So, bringing up established differences in the core book is a "cop out." Right. And all the different descriptions in the spells themselves about how the components being ignored.

I mean, whatever happened to the "flavor is free" stans?

As I said in the Fighter topic, we don't need to "pretend" to be spell-less rangers. This isn't a zero sum in a video game where we only have what was programmed in.

We can just be, and its bizarre how resistant people are to just letting people be what they actually want to be instead of telling them to just go pretend.

You don't see that kind of dismissiveness going in the other direction. Speaking for myself, Im literally saying in this thread that things like Beastmasters and Monster Hunters can be their own classes; people who like those ideas should be getting their own classes that, as a result, will be deeper and far better capable of supporting those particular fantasies.

Trying to cram all of this into the Ranger robs all of them, including the Ranger itself, of their potential because there simply isn't enough design space to go around in a single class.

There's going to be one Ranger class. And 12 core book classes. Trying to pretend that you can just have both spells and spell-less classes with the name "Ranger" in the core is disengenuous. Because that's what this is all about. The 5eR core book Ranger. No one is going to be happy to wait for a future class that may come with what they want. If it ever comes at all, a huge ask.

I like the idea of a spellcasting Monster Hunter and Beast Master. And I don't think it dilutes anything when those are two of the pillars of what makes a Ranger, well, a Ranger in my opinion.

And, yes, I do see quite a lot of dismissiveness going the other way. Indeed, in many different subjects, including this one, and this very thread.

same spell, same components, no matter who is the caster, unless your (class)ability or feature says otherwise.

How about the very descriptions of the classes and the spell lists themselves. Or the descriptions in the spells. Or the fact that these are unique to certain classes.

There's a million details you're overlooking. Oversimplifying.

It says that Verbal components must be said in a firm voice

Firm voice does not equal yelling; indeed, it only refers to being confident and steady, no stuttering. So if you're accusing me of underexaggerating, well, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, because you're certainly overexaggerating. A firm voice is not incompatible with hiding.

also:

and this is casting pass without trace:

dont, know, sounds pretty loud to me.

Random youtubers translating a video game which is exaggerated for extra effect? That's not evidence of anything. Do you need to make grunts or go "Hiyaaa!" when making weapon attacks now? Because tthat's in D&D video games too. Or starting every combat with something like "You shall fall by my hand!"

Sometimes, things are in games because they make the game more evocative and exciting, not because its true to the source material.

 

[Minigiant]

From my experience

A spell-less ranger is never agreed on of what it can do by more that 20% of those asking for it.

And many mostly would be happy with or just want to play a fighter/rogue multiclass.

So a spellcasting ranger is the best ranger for the core D&D ranger.

Then maybe an alternative fightery roguish class of another name in a future book.

 

[Yaarel]

Well, that’s sort of a different argument, then. And would definitely need some careful balancing. Take the list of example abilities @Emberashh posted on the first page. Many of those have direct spell analogues. They seem to want a Ranger who can cast Animal Friendship at will, for example, they just don’t want it to be a spell. But how is that balanced with Druids who are limited in how many times they can cast it?

Balanced with regard to Animal Friendship? It can be as simple as an Animal Handling skill check. If the animal is wild but friendly, maybe a DC 15 to cautiously interact with it? With regard to the animal, it is its own balancing factor. Mistreat it, it might attack. Put it into dangerous combat, it might run away.

Similarly, the Persuasion skill might cause the Charmed condition. But in this case the DC would be DC 20 or higher, and would require a specific ingame narrative ... like saving the life of the child of the target.

For an animal, some appetizing food often serves as a gesture of good will.

Personally, I don’t see a big enough difference between “uses Primal magic to cast wilderness spells” and “uses Primal magic to use spell-like abilities (that are totally spells, but not)”. Not enough to strip the spell list from a class that has always has it. Not when the highly-skilled (non-magic) woodsman niche can already be serviced.

I agree, anything in D&D can be written up in the format of a spell.

Still, class features dont need to be spells, nor use spell slots, nor be per rest.

 

[Yaarel]

Delete Vancian Casting too and thus get rid of daily magic uses?

If we're making improvements, let's make big improvements.

What is your view on short-rest spell points? (Level+1 pool, cost=slot, max cast level/2 round up.)

 

[Reef]

Balanced with regard to Animal Friendship? It can be as simple as an Animal Handling skill check. If the animal is wild but friendly, maybe a DC 15 to cautiously interact with it? With regard to the animal, it is its own balancing factor. Mistreat it, it might attack. Put it into dangerous combat, it might run away.

Similarly, the Persuasion skill might cause the Charmed condition. But in this case the DC would be DC 20 or higher, and would require a specific ingame narrative ... like saving the life of the child of the target.

For an animal, some appetizing food often serves as a gesture of good will.



I agree, anything in D&D can be written up in the format of a spell.

Still, class features dont need to be spells, nor use spell slots, nor be per rest.

But, if it’s an Animal Handling check, why does it need to be a class specific ability? Why do we need a class specifically to make use of an already existing skill? Rogues are no longer the only ones who can Find and Remove Traps. Now, anyone with the right skill can do it. A Ranger having special animal skills, or special tracking skills (and have that be their niche) made sense when there wasn’t a skill system. There is now.

So, a Ranger needs to be more than just someone who can do things that someone with a really high Survival or Animal Handling skill can do. D&D has decided that means Nature magic is what separates Rangers from Scouts or Fighters.

 

[le Redoutable]

Euh I didn't see much Archer -related data??

 

[Vaalingrade]

What is your view on short-rest spell points? (Level+1 pool, cost=slot, max cast level/2 round up.)

Positive!

 

[Emberashh]

From my perspective, you're effectively asking to give the ranger abilities with no cost.

A great number of things in these games don't actually need to have a cost to begin with.

So, bringing up established differences in the core book is a "cop out."

Yes, trying to skirt around the fact that different mechanics fundamentally feel different by relegating them to "opinions" or making non-sequitors to irrelevancies is a cop out.

I mean, whatever happened to the "flavor is free" stans?

Flavor is free, but thats like saying only getting the sprinkles is the same thing as getting the sundae.

Trying to pretend that you can just have both spells and spell-less classes with the name "Ranger" in the core is disengenuous.

For one, that isn't what I suggested.

For two, 1/3rd casters are a thing. I see no issue with appropriate subclasses coming with magic, and I doubt anyone would.

After all, nobody bats an eye at all the other Martials doing the exact same thing.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But, if it’s an Animal Handling check, why does it need to be a class specific ability?

Because it's a reliable one that doesn't depend on the fickleness of the die.