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

[Clint_L]

Yeah, I think that's generally what's missing from half-casters is that sense of synergy between their magic and the rest of their class identity, paladins again being the exception. I actually think 1/3 casters like Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster do a better job of integrating their magic because they still have the entire strength of the base class on which to build. A rogue with an enhanced mage hand is pretty great, as is a fighter who can pop the shield spell.

For instance, what if both artificers and rangers got an ability at, say, level 2 that let them combine their attack action with a spell a number of times equal to their proficiency, refreshing on a long rest.

 

[James Gasik]

I think the core of the Ranger is combination of Civilized Martial and Wild Magic.
The Sword covered in Primal Fire.
The Keen Eye guided by an Magic Mark.
The flank of Hank axes and shark's teeth.
Healer's Hands guiding Nature's herbs.
A green cloak in brown oak.

I mean the iconic trope of the druid and ranger scouting is the druid turns into mouse and scouts the hobgoblin barracks wheare as the ranger summons a mouse and sees through the mouses eyes and ears.

The D&D Ranger isn't just one version of the Nature Warrior or the Hunter but all of them. They get to choose between the powers of Aragorn, Aquaman, John Show, Geralt, Dar, Tarzan, Rexxar, Wolverine, Thing, Terra, Toph, or Swamp Thing

Some of those, I would argue, are more like Druids than Rangers, but that speaks to my point- iconic characters are rarely an exact match for D&D character classes, as they are often fairly complex and multifaceted.

 

[Pauln6]

Spells for utility, animal communication or control, environmental control, etc. I would prefer combat to be martial.

 

[Horwath]

Yeah, I think that's generally what's missing from half-casters is that sense of synergy between their magic and the rest of their class identity, paladins again being the exception. I actually think 1/3 casters like Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster do a better job of integrating their magic because they still have the entire strength of the base class on which to build. A rogue with an enhanced mage hand is pretty great, as is a fighter who can pop the shield spell.

For instance, what if both artificers and rangers got an ability at, say, level 2 that let them combine their attack action with a spell a number of times equal to their proficiency, refreshing on a long rest.

Bladesingers got mix of cantrips and attack in Extra attack feature.
maybe something similar?

 

[Horwath]

Spells for utility, animal communication or control, environmental control, etc. I would prefer combat to be martial.

that sounds like 1/3 caster subclass.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Half casters, or the ranger and artificer at least, i wish had sharper spell slot progression, yes you only go up to 5th level spells but that doesn’t mean they have to only start getting 5th level slots at 16th level or whenever they get them

You could have them on the fullcaster spell tier progression but just have them not earn as many slots and none past fifth, their power boosts are more just getting to cast them more rather than getting to cast higher.

 

[Minigiant]

Some of those, I would argue, are more like Druids than Rangers, but that speaks to my point- iconic characters are rarely an exact match for D&D character classes, as they are often fairly complex and multifaceted.

Much of this is because iconic Rangers are closer to comic book heroes. A warrior with 2-4 upgradable powers.

Warrior with heals and divination
Warrior with animal summoning and speech
Warrior with rock armor and magic weapons.

It's a D&D problem for years. Decades. It doesn't cover superhero type characters without making full on half casters.

 

[Sulicius]

Pretty clear result that spellcasting ranger is the preference. Especially when you realize that WotC requires a 70+% in favor on most changes.

 

[Emberashh]

Is Tarzan a Ranger?

Barbarian. How a character fights and would be assumed to carry themselves is a variable as well.

Plus, Barbarians should be a class thats good out in the Wilderness. Not as overtly skilled as a Ranger, but not entirely helpless either.

The Beastmaster is basically a Barbarian who, again, can communicate with animals

The Beastmaster is its own trope.

Drizzt Do'Urden

Drizzt was always a Fighter. His label as a "Ranger" is weird confluence in DND history.

Conan is a Barbarian, but we know he's also a Thief, which means all you need to be a Thief is the right skill set, no Rogue class required.

Ignoring that entire subsections of the game shouldn't be locked off to one class anyway, that would be called a multiclass.

Robin Hood is either a Fighter or a Rogue.

Robin Hood is a Ranger, because he is neither just a Fighter or just a Rogue, and because his proclivity for the forests and wilds of England inform how the character presents. Ergo, Ranger.

The point is, the current Ranger isn't a class that's based on anything in particular

But we're not talking strictly about the 5e Ranger and what that is, we're talking about the broader idea of a Ranger and how it should be designed.

What does the Ranger do that's unique?

That depends on the class design chosen, and I posted my take earlier.

What's a Ranger doing with Whirlwind Attack?

The single ability in the 5e Ranger that best enables an Aragorn like character.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The one that mainly casts ritual spells.