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

[Emberashh]

5E's skills are big umbrellas

If you want to be that hostile and dismissive, I can counter that after a point you may as well take this logic to its natural conclusion and reduce skills down to a single on/off button.

And it is funny though to throw around "hyper-niche" like I didn't list 3 examples off the top of my head of characters that would benefit from not being inundated with things that have nothing to do with what they should be good at.

You call it skill bloat, but thats just a consequence of the cruddy, shallow skill system 5e uses that you're taking as a given rather than something thats just as much worthy of replacing as anything else.

 

[Reef]

Personally, yes, I see 5e’s “cruddy, shallow skill system” as a huge improvement over the 40+ skills of the 3e era. I would never want to go back to a game with that many skills. And if you need that to support your Magic-less ranger, I’d say there’s probably not much chance of either of us agreeing on this.

Good talk, though.

 

[billd91]

Re: the original question...

I don't have a prior preference for spellcasting or spell-less rangers. If they're well done, I could accept either.

 

[Horwath]

There's a difference between subtly casting a spell so that no one knows you've just hit someone with a Suggestion, and someone who's hiding in a tree with a bow aiming a shot.

Like if you're in a conversation with someone, casting Suggestion is obvious because of the actions and accompanying words. I'm not arguing that. Sorcerers are, indeed, king of using subtle magic in social encounters.

But if someone is hiding in a tree, the Vocal component, as far as I can tell, doesn't have the drawback that it ruins stealth. Its drawback is that, if silenced somehow (either via Silence spell, a gag, or tongue cut out), you can't cast the spell with that component.

quote from PHB:

H I D I N G
The D M decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check.
U ntil you are d iscovered or you stop hiding, that check's total
is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature
that actively searches for signs of your presence.
You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly,
and you give away your position if you make noise, such as
shouting a warning or knocking over a vase.
An invisible creature can always try to hide. Signs of its
passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet.

if you make noise, you arent hidden anymore

Context matters here. One is face to face socialite, one is a hunter hiding behind foliage that naturally dampen sound, aiming at someone at a distance and speaking in a normal volume of voice at the loudest.

 

[Horwath]

Personally, yes, I see 5e’s “cruddy, shallow skill system” as a huge improvement over the 40+ skills of the 3e era. I would never want to go back to a game with that many skills. And if you need that to support your Magic-less ranger, I’d say there’s probably not much chance of either of us agreeing on this.

Good talk, though.

QFT,
nothing better than spending 10+ skill points in a skill that will be called on once every 3 sessions.

 

[Emberashh]

What I think you’re asking for goes back to making one class necessary for an aspect of the game.

Read my post more...thoroughly, to put it nicely.

Personally, yes, I see 5e’s “cruddy, shallow skill system” as a huge improvement over the 40+ skills of the 3e era. I would never want to go back to a game with that many skills. And if you need that to support your Magic-less ranger, I’d say there’s probably not much chance of either of us agreeing on this.

Good talk, though.

Its 32 skills in LNO, and they support a lot more than just one class.

Its also important to note this isn't 32 binary pass/fails either. That isn't good design regardless of how many skills there are.

 

[Shardstone]

I'm tired of everyone wanting to Do A Thing needing a spell to do it.

Shoot a bunch of arrows? Be able to effectively cover your tracks? Understand the emotional body language of an animal? Track a target in battle?

No normal person could possibly do that! MUST BE MAGIC!

Spellless Rogue, Spellless Fighter, Spellless Ranger, Spellless Barbarian, and as a Two For Flinching, Spellless Wizard.

The problem with this viewpoint is everything is already a spell, it's just not always presented as a spell.

Mearls looses years ago during Happy Fun Hour that everything is balanced along spell levels. Now we have some people on this forum who have unearthed more and discovered that yes, it really is all based around spell levels for damage and virtual damage.

The PHB isn't just 1,000 "abilities" because people twitch their eye at that and like a bit of texture. However, in the end, it really is all spells.

Rage is a variant concentration spell. Second Wind is a more streamlined cure wounds. Even Attack and Extra Attack are basically just spells that deal variable damage depending on the weapon in your hand.

Why is the game like this? Because the game shipped with like, over 300 spells. That's 300 different mechanical effects already created in the game. And half of those don't even have to be spells. Conjure Volley can be decided by the DM to be a martial ability that rangers can do, making it work in antimagic fields, etc, and it'd literally change nothing about the game mechanically because the game is literally all spells top from bottom.

Next, there's this weird idea in D&D discourse about magic. Apparently Fantasy worlds that have people doing superhuman things classifies said things not as magic, just as natural biology. Somehow, through some mysterious force or a quirk of esoteric physics unknown and undivinable, a fighter can attack 8 times and do as much damage as a literal meteor swarm against a single target. Somehow, by processes natural and totally mundane, a Barbarian can fall 500 feet and just get up and say "lol." But the moment we call these superhuman feats "magical" everyone loses their minds.

However, in reality, this isj just magic. In Fantasy realms, the magical nature of the world enables superhuman feats. But because we apparently aren't allowed to call magic "magic" in all cases, we have to dance around what's going on. It's like, just say it's magic. Because it is. Rage isn't mundane, it's magic. YOu can pretend like its mundane, you can wear that aesthetic, but you can't look me in my face and tell me that getting so mad that you literally hulk out, become resistant to all weapon damage, etc etc, isn't a form of magic...because it is.

So long as the Community headbutts the brick wall that is the term "magic" and refuses to acknowledge the fact that D&D is a game with most of its complexity in SPELLS, we'll be stuck repeating this nauseous discourse until the end of time.

 

[Reef]

Read my post more...thoroughly, to put it nicely.



Its 32 skills in LNO, and they support a lot more than just one class.

Its also important to note this isn't 32 binary pass/fails either. That isn't good design regardless of how many skills there are.

I'm sorry if you take my disagreement for me not understanding your posts. I promise you, I am reading them. I just don't agree with what you are saying.

I will admit I have no idea what LNO is. 32 skills is still splitting the hair too thin for me. And to be honest, I have no idea what this has to do with a magic-less ranger (and I'm just as guilty of chasing this tangent). If you increase the skill list, you end up having to give the Ranger (and other classes, hopefully) more skills to compensate. If you do, you haven't changed anything except increase the number of skills. None of that implies the Ranger needs spell-like abilities.

What I mean, is that splitting Survival into three skills doesn't mean you have to give Rangers a mystical (non-spell) way to talk to birds.

 

[ChameleonX]

I feel like the entire argument that's been dominating this thread can be resolved by just:

A) Let Rangers cast spells without any components.

B) Give them the Rogue's Reliable Talent feature.

Or, barring that,

C) Play a Fighter/Rogue, then on your character sheet, scratch out those words and write "Ranger."

 

[Minigiant]

The actual reason is because the mechanics to do Aragorn didn't exist when the class was homebrewed into existence, and no attempt was made after it became official until 5e to try to make bespoke mechanics.

D&D is never going to make a Ranger Wilderness subsystem.

And no 3PP has ever made a good one that scales 20 levels.