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

[Incenjucar]

In theory, I agree. The trouble is that if you want this to be a function of a skill, you either have to leave it up to DM discretion what the ranger is capable of doing with that skill (in which case you risk DMs sticking strictly to mundane applications), you you have to explicitly codify that the ranger can use their skills in this particular way (which implies that non-rangers can’t use their skills in that way, and in turn limits the potential scope of those skills for everyone else).

This is why I favor giving rangers good skill proficiencies, in addition to features that explicitly allow them to do fantastical things without skills. Is that similar to spells? Yes. But it doesn’t have to literally be spells, and in my opinion shouldn’t be.

The skill roll would just be determining the degree of success. It should be an explicit ability that is powered by the skill. This also allows for ranger differentiation based on skill sets; a non-proficient ranger may not be as good, and a ranger proficient with arcane may be able to go an extra step.

 

[Charlaquin]

I am literally advocating giving them a tool. You are literally advocating keeping it from them and making them do it themselves.

No, we are advocating for giving them different tools. You are advocating for giving them a menu of stock DCs they can choose from. I am advocating for teaching them how those DCs are determined so they can set them for any conceivable situation that might arise.

This is looking at people needing help and guidance and just saying 'lol, bootstraps'.

Not at all. Like I said, I think the actionable DM advice out there right now is woefully lacking. In part, because we rely too much on telling DMs exactly what to do in specific cases, instead of teaching them how adapt to any case that might arise. I’m not advocating for taking away example DCs and leaving DMs with no guidance. I’m advocating for teaching DMs how to set DCs so they don’t need examples.

 

[Charlaquin]

The skill roll would just be determining the degree of success. It should be an explicit ability that is powered by the skill. This also allows for ranger differentiation based on skill sets; a non-proficient ranger may not be as good, and a ranger proficient with arcane may be able to go an extra step.

Ok, cool. I like that idea.

 

[MockingBird]

It's pretty close in the poll.

 

[nevin]

You can give all the tables rules etc but the only way they learn is experience. I can look at a party and pick out an appropriate DC encounter to wipe them in any edition. There are too many variables to have a simple solution. DM has to know what the character abilities are and know how they play and what they are likely to do. Not a fan of wiping parties but I've wiped a party with a low level magic user pretending to be a vampire. They could have hobo'd him at anytime but he got his bluff in and they panicked and died running away.

 

[Minigiant]

The issue isn't about taking the control or giving the control to a DM.

It's that typically DMs do not have the knowledge of Rangery stuff to adjudicate them nor is a core gauge within the system to base DCs of these actions offf like Armor Class.

It is not fair to put the entire ranger class uniqueness on a gauge based on the whim and uninformed imagination of the DM with no link to the system.

It becomes doubly problematic where the only core DCd are made only for low level and no wilderness challenges above level 5 are in the core books.

EDIT:
This is why pass fail turn off spells for rangers work.

Because you can't really trust a person who has zero knowledg of ranger stuff to know what is Easy, Medium, or Hard without a gauge.

Or you'll end up with the 1e unambushable murderblade ranger because the designer DM overuned it to heck.

Or like the 3e ranger on the opposite end

 

[Emberashh]

What would help with educating GMs on appropriate wilderness stuff is not collapsing all interaction with it into a two binary skills called "Survival" and "Nature" that just by the names alone doesn't even adequately cover what all goes into a proper wilderness.

Almost like I poofed the latter out of existence and expanded the former into a bunch of new skills for a reason.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The other issue with 'lump it all on the DM' is it further erodes continuity between D&D games.

If we're letting the ranger use skills to be rangery, I'm now left to guess how hard the DM thinks it is to find food an an ISO Standard Totally Not European Oak Forest. It's going to be entirely dependent on the DM's actual knowledge plus bias, plus just how much Dunning-Kruger they have for that thing.

Maybe being able to survive is going to be super easy, barely an inconvenience because they watch Survivor and think they're better than those people, so obviously it's Easy, or maybe they're an Army Ranger who just got done surviving a desert training and is just feeling that people without training are inherently going to suck and die and it's Hard, so my first level Ranger better have a feat and maybe multiclass into Rogue or Bard to have reasonable skill in the thing they're supposed to be competent with.

But no, tough love for newbies and the feeling of being elite for doing it all yourself trumps that.

 

[Shardstone]

Itd be cool if rangers got different actions keyed off their skills. At higher tiers, you get more FANTASTICAL options.

 

[Clint_L]

This is the problem with those spells,

They have replaced most of the skill system with "I win buttons".
There is no challenge, no improvisation.
Either you have the spell and you succeed or you don't and you fail.

I really hope for 2024 that they include massive skill tables of DCs, and what can be done with what check, and what gives advantage and what gives disadvantage.

I.E: at what distance do you have Disadvantage on Perception check?

This is my nightmare. No thanks; I much prefer to handle that in collaboration with the players and in the context of what is happening in the story.