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

[Horwath]

There's no mechanics for it in the PHB.

And the mechanics in the DMG are weak and skipped.

That's the whole problem. No one wants to read or expand the DMG rules. Nobody wants to make room for it in the PHB. So ranger is a spellcaster.

then the problem lies in lazy writing of skills, skill challenges, determining DC, what can be done with no proficiency, what can be done with proficiency and what can be done with expertise.

maybe for Detect magic you should not need a ritual, maybe expertise in Arcana could be enough to "see" auras.

animal friendship could be ability for expertise in Animal handling and detect poison and disease expertise in Medicine?

 

[Emberashh]

It's different groups. Designers, old school gamers, new school gamers.

The issue is none of the groups. Not the designers nor the community are willing to cut 10 pages of the PHB to fit in 10 pages of wilderness rules.

The designers sure, they've shown that. You haven't demonstrated any evidence for the community, however.

Particularly when what you're actually referring to is being caused by the designers depressing the quality of the related mechanics which in turn depresses the value of the mechanics for those who never knew any better.

Its dreadfully easy to make any idea sound bad and undesirable when the current implementation is cruddy and better implementations have the spectre of "homebrew" or "old school" attached, as though either of those things has any actual correlation or bearing on the quality of game design.

Also has to be said that theres an argument to be made for bridging the gap. Exploration, survival, etc don't have to be insufferable bookkeeping, and theres more than a few ways to integrate them better into the gameplay loop.

Likewise, we don't actually need to hold ourselves to the extremely limited binary design of 5e Skills. We can more with them and thread the needle on depth and simplicity by using symmetric design where it works.

Some ideas should actually feel mechanically similar (if not identical) despite being ostensibly different things in the fiction.

We don't need entirely unique Crafting mechanics for every single type of crafting, for instance. If you instead figure a core mechanic (like my 7Dice mechanic), and then apply rules exceptions to it based on the specific activity, then you can make an easy to learn mechanic that can have practically endless depth without requiring people to relearn new mechanics over and over, just process the same information theyd already be processing.

Efficiency, essentially, is what needs to be strived for, and I can say for my game thats been a big benchmark for everything.

 

[Clint_L]

I think5e rangers are spellcasters because that has always been part of the D&D ranger so it has a history going back 45 years, has a lot of fans, and works, though like most things there could be improvement (i.e. better integration between spells and attacks, IMO). A lot of folks in this thread seem to assume that "ranger" is an inherently mundane class that TSR tacked spells onto. I don't see it that way. I see "ranger" as an inherently magical class and I find the idea of a mundane ranger odd; I honestly don't see how that makes it different from a fighter or rogue.

There is also the separate issue in that there is a significant design problem with building a class around a specific environment, "wilderness" (and often a specific type of wilderness). If you theme rangers too heavily around "wilderness" they can become vulnerable to the story setting, excelling when the party is outdoors but becoming kind of pointless in the city, dungeons, and other common D&D environment. We've repeatedly seen this problem with rangers. Having access to magic gives the class more flexibility and less vulnerability to getting stuck in a campaign with little wilderness action.

Overall, though, I think folks should recognize that the idea that "ranger" is an inherently mundane class is not true for a lot of people, and the magical ranger has always been the D&D ranger. So it's not like WotC are doing the ranger wrong, because it's a subjective concept.

 

[Charlaquin]

Alarm

Thematic, but not essential. Should frankly be something anyone can do with a bell and some string, the fact that it’s a spell speaks to deep fundamental flaws in D&D’s design.

Animal Friendship

I’d agree that this is a pretty iconic ranger ability. Again, no reason this needs to be magical, but I do think this kind of effect warrants a feature that specifies its function rather than relying solely on DM fiat to do without magic. This could also probably be a subclass ability, as not all rangers are going to want to focus on taming animals.

Cure Wounds

Not a ranger ability in my opinion, at least not as expressed by the spell. Granted, Aragorn could heal, but he did so via herblore, not channeling positive energy or whatever. Herbalism Kit proficiency already allows crafting potions of healing and antitoxins; perhaps give the ranger a feature to do so in less time, and maybe create greater potions of healing, etc. at higher levels.

Detect Magic

Doesn’t seem necessary for rangers IMO.

Detect Poison and Disease

Makes sense for a ranger, but could probably be relegated to Medicine proficiency.

Ensnaring Strike

This is exactly the kind of thing I don’t want rangers doing.

Fog Cloud

This is another potentially thematic but far from essential ability for rangers in my opinion.

Goodberry

This one is a great fit, and ties in with the idea of healing via herblore. This and the cure wounds stand-in could easily be rolled into the same feature.

Hail of Thorns

Nope, not something I want rangers doing.

Hunter's Mark

This is a pretty essential ranger ability, but there’s absolutely no reason it needs to be a spell.

Jump

Entirely unnecessary

Longstrider

Fits with rangers but shouldn’t be a spell.

Speak with Animals

Same deal as Animal Friendship. Makes sense as a non-spell feature, and could potentially go into a subclass. Though, honestly I think this should be considered a ribbon, no different from Druidic or Thieves’ Cant, and could easily be a 1st level feature for all rangers.

 

[Reef]

I think5e rangers are spellcasters because that has always been part of the D&D ranger so it has a history going back 45 years, has a lot of fans, and works, though like most things there could be improvement (i.e. better integration between spells and attacks, IMO). A lot of folks in this thread seem to assume that "ranger" is an inherently mundane class that TSR tacked spells onto. I don't see it that way. I see "ranger" as an inherently magical class and I find the idea of a mundane ranger odd; I honestly don't see how that makes it different from a fighter or rogue.

There is also the separate issue in that there is a significant design problem with building a class around a specific environment, "wilderness" (and often a specific type of wilderness). If you theme rangers too heavily around "wilderness" they can become vulnerable to the story setting, excelling when the party is outdoors but becoming kind of pointless in the city, dungeons, and other common D&D environment. We've repeatedly seen this problem with rangers. Having access to magic gives the class more flexibility and less vulnerability to getting stuck in a campaign with little wilderness action.

Overall, though, I think folks should recognize that the idea that "ranger" is an inherently mundane class is not true for a lot of people, and the magical ranger has always been the D&D ranger. So it's not like WotC are doing the ranger wrong, because it's a subjective concept.

This is exactly the point I was trying to get across yesterday. Rangers have always been magical in D&D. This isn’t so much an attempt to fix them, as it is to change them into something they’ve never been.

And look at what’s been suggested as needed in order to ‘fix’ them:

1. New wilderness rules in the DMG (I’ve seen around 10 pages worth suggested)
2. Potential removal of some wizard spells to make room for some of that in the PHB
3. Overhaul of the skill system to create more specialized skills and crafting.
4. Going over the spell list to remove spells (like Goodberry) from other classes that would step on the new ranger

And that is before you get to:

5. Completely rewrite the Ranger from the ground up (subclasses and all), and restrict the spell list to maybe one new subclass).

That is new edition territory. There is no way anyone would do all that for a rules update. Not for just one class. And not when (at best) only 50% of the responders to this poll even want.

@Emberashh may be convinced that they’ve created a vastly superior set of rules, and it’s only the cowardice (or ineptness) of the D&D designers that stop them from implementing something similar. I’d argue that it’s just not as clear cut as they think, and by having to balance the time and resources, historical precedent of the class, and the wants of the entire community, the designers are doing their best to keep the largest groups happy.

 

[Incenjucar]

A lot of the more magical ranger abilities could be a feat or a specific character option, like "Mystic Woodlore".

Fog Cloud could just be an alchemical item.

--

Edit: Rangers also had to be good in past editions, or else become fighters. They also used to get followers automatically. They also used to only get spells after several levels.

 

[Horwath]

I think5e rangers are spellcasters because that has always been part of the D&D ranger so it has a history going back 45 years, has a lot of fans, and works, though like most things there could be improvement (i.e. better integration between spells and attacks, IMO). A lot of folks in this thread seem to assume that "ranger" is an inherently mundane class that TSR tacked spells onto. I don't see it that way. I see "ranger" as an inherently magical class and I find the idea of a mundane ranger odd; I honestly don't see how that makes it different from a fighter or rogue.

in 3.5e there were several additions(alternate class features) that gave options for rangers to trade spells for something else.
So, it's not that it was always a great idea to give them spellcasting.
And PF1 had 10 of those variants.

Also we got the Scout class in Complete adventurer as overhaul of "spell-less" ranger.

There is also the separate issue in that there is a significant design problem with building a class around a specific environment, "wilderness" (and often a specific type of wilderness). If you theme rangers too heavily around "wilderness" they can become vulnerable to the story setting, excelling when the party is outdoors but becoming kind of pointless in the city, dungeons, and other common D&D environment. We've repeatedly seen this problem with rangers. Having access to magic gives the class more flexibility and less vulnerability to getting stuck in a campaign with little wilderness action.

problem is with creativity and designing rangers "favorite" features.
That is; favored terrain and favored enemy, and that are too focused and niche in use, when they should have far more broad benefit from them.

Overall, though, I think folks should recognize that the idea that "ranger" is an inherently mundane class is not true for a lot of people, and the magical ranger has always been the D&D ranger. So it's not like WotC are doing the ranger wrong, because it's a subjective concept.

idea that ranger is a spellcaster also is not a great idea for lot of people.

 

[Horwath]

A lot of the more magical ranger abilities could be a feat or a specific character option, like "Mystic Woodlore".

Fog Cloud could just be an alchemical item.

smoke bomb.

 

[Incenjucar]

smoke bomb.

Incidentally, in 2E, when I realized the ranger wasn't rangery enough, I played a ninja instead.

 

[le Redoutable]

@Emberashh Dungeons and dragons