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

[Minigiant]

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.

Yes and no.

Part of the problem is the lack of a gauge and no onus to scale. Splitting things int Zoology and Geology doesn't matter then.

A DM or Player who knows nothing on mountaineering and doesn't swim does not know how easy or hard spotting the danger zone of an avalanche prone area or how easy or hard crossing a river is.

It's all fine when no one has the expectations of being good. Just roll and fail if you roll under 11. But when there is an expectation of being good and the investment of effort into something that matters, the system shouldn't be whims.

This is why traps in D&D isn't and shouldn't be adjudicated as low thought spurs of the moment. The rogue is governed by thought out opposed checks of Stealth and Deception and a purposely design trap system..

Rangers are on the other hand governed by beasts and rocks who mostly don't exceed CR 5 and a wilderness system mostly guessed by the DM's mood at the time. The number of beasts above CR 5 is tiny. And there are 6 natural hazards in the DMG.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's pretty close in the poll.

Yeah, it has been all along, but at time of posting, no-spells is actually in the lead, which I hadn’t expected.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

I don’t think continuity between different tables is a virtue. It’s not a bad thing, but I don’t think it matters.

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

This has nothing to do with my desire for better DMing advice.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Rangers are on the other hand governed by beasts and rocks who mostly don't exceed CR 5 and a wilderness system mostly guessed by the DM's mood at the time. The number of beasts above CR 5 is tiny. And there are 6 natural hazards in the DMG.

Easy fix here is to let normal-ass animals that just happen to not exist on Earth like griffins and owlbears to just be normal-ass animals.

My playtesters made me change normal-ass animal to Natural Animal in my game, the spoil sports.

 

[Emberashh]

A DM or Player who knows nothing on mountaineering and doesn't swim does not know how easy or hard spotting the danger zone of an avalanche prone area or how easy or hard crossing a river is.

In-game skills is part of how you would inform on that.

The books are supposed to be educational in regards to playing the game. Having to give a quick breakdown of how Outside works isn't that egregious an ask.

 

[nevin]

Id say hard YES on that question

 

[Clint_L]

Yeah, it has been all along, but at time of posting, no-spells is actually in the lead, which I hadn’t expected.

I'm not surprised but I don't think it is very representative of the actual 5e player base. This forum includes a lot of people who don't really like or play 5e (or even D&D); as this thread shows, plenty have fundamental issues with 5e's basic design. This whole thread is essentially tilting at windmills as far as OneD&D goes, since there is no possibility of the ranger becoming a non-caster, or even changing from being a half-caster.

 

[Minigiant]

In-game skills is part of how you would inform on that.

The books are supposed to be educational in regards to playing the game. Having to give a quick breakdown of how Outside works isn't that egregious an ask.

Only works if you have 20 levels of content.

D&D wilderness doesn't have 20 levels of content unless you go magical.

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah, it has been all along, but at time of posting, no-spells is actually in the lead, which I hadn’t expected.

It should be.

Like I keep saying many people mostly just want a low level wilderness experience and you don't need spells for. Most fantasy rangers are low level.

The spell-less ranger in the description many people described in this thread completely breaks down the second you ask for a 20 level experience as a class different from the fighter or barbarian. Or even 10 levels.

 

[Emberashh]

Only works if you have 20 levels of content.

D&D wilderness doesn't have 20 levels of content unless you go magical.

So add the content. Generate more value for the game.

The spell-less ranger in the description many people described in this thread completely breaks down the second you ask for a 20 level experience as a class different from the fighter or barbarian. Or even 10 levels.

Only if you're assuming the same wilderness has to support 20 levels of content.

And thats without getting into the trap of fixating on the Ranger being only about the wilderness and how you'd be kneecapping your own efforts by constraining yourself that way.