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

[Chaosmancer]

A ranger is not just an incompetent druid who uses weapons to compensate. The classes have different knowledge and skills. The fact that this is even a discussion shows how bad ranger spellcasting is for their identity.

Are paladin's incompetent Clerics who use weapons to compensate? Is that the paladin identity?

Because if that is how you see our argument, then that is how you see the paladin.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Druids can't do that. Druids revere nature and seek to balance nature.

Rangers have no obligation of equality to nature.

A ranger can burn down a forest to kill some orcs. Even evil druids would not do that without ensuring the animals can escape and the endangered plants are safely relocated first.

"Druids within the Circle of Wildfire understand that destruction is sometimes the precursor of creation, such as when a forest fire promotes later growth. These druids bond with a primal spirit that harbors both destructive and creative power, allowing the druids to create controlled flames that burn away one thing but give life to another."

Nothing in this write-up says anything about relocating plants and animals. So... seems like something you made up.

This one?
"The Circle of Stars allows druids to draw on the power of starlight. These druids have tracked heavenly patterns since time immemorial, discovering secrets hidden amid the constellations. By revealing and understanding these secrets, the Circle of the Stars seeks to harness the powers of the cosmos.

Many druids of this circle keep records of the constellations and the stars' effects on the world. Some groups document these observations at megalithic sites, which serve as enigmatic libraries of lore. These repositories might take the form of stone circles, pyramids, petroglyphs, and underground temples-any construction durable enough to protect the circle's sacred knowledge even against a great cataclysm."

No mention of plants or animals at all.

What about this one?

"Druids of the Circle of Spores find beauty in decay. They see within mold and other fungi the ability to transform lifeless material into abundant, albeit somewhat strange, life.

These druids believe that life and death are parts of a grand cycle, with one leading to the other and then back again. Death isn't the end of life, but instead a change of state that sees life shift into a new form.

Druids of this circle have a complex relationship with the undead. Unlike most other druids, they see nothing inherently wrong with undeath, which they consider to be a companion to life and death. But these druids believe that the natural cycle is healthiest when each segment of it is vibrant and changing. Undead that seek to replace all life with undeath, or that try to avoid passing to a final rest, violate the cycle and must be thwarted."

Why would this druid care about killing animals? Life and death are a cycle.


Also, yeah, you are a crap ranger if your solution to some people hiding in a forest is burning the entire place down. That's like saying "Well, we were pretty sure there were some criminals in that city... so we just carpet bombed the entire thing so we didn't accidentally miss them."

 

[Chaosmancer]

The problem is people due to other media, don't understand that the D&D ranger's druid magic is a tool. They used to have wizard spells too like blade thrist and still do have wizard spells like flame arrow and ashardalon's stride.

The ranger is allowed to hate nature and take animals, plants, and fey as their enemy. Love of nature in not required. An evil ranger might have fey and elementals locked in their treehouse basement, tortuously extracting them for magic.

Evil Druids also exist.

 

[Chaosmancer]

1) Because we're stuck with the 3e core classes plus Warlock forever.

2) Shapeshifting is the priority.

3) Everyone keeps talking about the text when I'm talking about what people are actually looking for and doing with the druid. You guys can stop now.

Well, as a Druid player... you are wrong. Wildshape and shapeshifting was a neat toy, but it wasn't what I was looking for or what I did with my druid. Nor was it what was done or looked for by a friend who played a druid. Nor was it for an entirely different friend who played a druid.

We all sought a deep spiritual connection with nature. That was the POINT.

 

[Minigiant]

My druid reveres nature by acting like a dang dog and roaming the wilds with a pack of wild beasts. Keep your traditional views away from my primal worship.

The point is the lore is druid revere nature. Even dark, wild, or evil ones.

A ranger does not have to. A ranger can be played straight and be indifferent, adversarial, antagonistic, or even openly hostile to nature.

A ranger can employ tactics and actions a druid would never do. They can employ all aspects of zoology, cryptozoology, herbology, geology, etc.

Druids LIVE there. Druids are one with nature. But they need to use magic to show they are friends? They CAN'T do this with skills? Because the alpha-male ranger who chews hard tack is dominating nature instead of seeking understanding and cooperation, so they can befriend animals with skill and the druid needs magic? Why?!

Also, like, yes I'm aware of names. Felines are hunters. Slayer is just a word for killing, which is a predator thing. How is a swarm keeper different than a queen bee? Warden literally means protector. Like, they are fun names, but they don't paint the Ranger as a chaining down nature and subjugating it to the will of civilization. That's not what the class fantasy IS.

That's what the ranger lore.

You might not like it or think it is outdated. But that what the lore it.

Druids form a deep connection with nature and thus interact wih it primarily with match.
Rangers' connection does not have to be deep and interact with nature primarily with skills and enhanced that with magic.

 

[Minigiant]

Evil Druids also exist.

And?
Evil druids still have to respect nature and don't get artificial nonnatural spells by default.
Rangers don't have to make a deep connection to nature.

 

[le Redoutable]

You could say, Rangers are 3/4 martial and 1/4 primal ( so at level 4/8/12/16/20 they get one Druid level ) ( or at level 5/10/15/20 as an option if 1/5 primal )

 

[Chaosmancer]

The point is the lore is druid revere nature. Even dark, wild, or evil ones.

A ranger does not have to. A ranger can be played straight and be indifferent, adversarial, antagonistic, or even openly hostile to nature.

A ranger can employ tactics and actions a druid would never do. They can employ all aspects of zoology, cryptozoology, herbology, geology, etc.

What aspects of herbology are denied to a druid? Where do you see that listed? Where does it say that Druids can't use all aspects of zoology?

Heck, you can play a cleric or a paladin who is indifferent or antagonistic to the gods, does that mean that the cleric and the paladin have nothing to do with the gods? Yes, those types of rangers can exist. So what?! You can do the same thing with Druids.

That's what the ranger lore.

You might not like it or think it is outdated. But that what the lore it.

Druids form a deep connection with nature and thus interact wih it primarily with match.
Rangers' connection does not have to be deep and interact with nature primarily with skills and enhanced that with magic.

Okay, so Druids make a connection with nature and it MUST be with spells and magic.

Rangers make a connection with nature, but they can do it with skills that the Druid can't, because Rangers are civilized and Druids just have secret knowledge of nature that no one else does? How does this make sense to you? That isn't even what the Lore states.

And?
Evil druids still have to respect nature and don't get artificial nonnatural spells by default.
Rangers don't have to make a deep connection to nature.

What the heck is an artificial non-natural spell? Something like Charm Person? Druid list. Find Traps? Druid List. Locate Object? Druid list. Feign Death? Druid List. Dispel Magic? Confusion? Blight? Polymorph?

Or is that the ranger gets these unnatural spells? Like.. what? Hail of THORNS? Lighting Arrow? What parts of the Primal spell list given to rangers is unnatural and artificial here?

Also, seriously, expand you conception of Druids. Evil Druids can include:

"Nature is red in tooth and claw, so since I'm the strongest I kill and take what I want, even subjugating animals to my whims."

"Nature is about adaptation. I will use my magic to force these creatures into new, superior forms, making them stronger than ever to make the ulitmate life form"

"The natural state of the land was the flame and burning rock before life. I will return it to that!"

These aren't positions of balance with nature, but they make sense for EVIL druids, because it turns out EVIL doesn't often care about things like Balance. Turns out that is kind of EVIL's whole schtick, is being out of balance.

Seriously, it is trivial to make a druid who is a rancher or a farmer, and fit perfectly within the druid aesthetic. You are making a distinction for the sole purpose of avoiding the realization that spell-less rangers would logically lead to spell-less druids, something that no one wants.

 

[Minigiant]

Okay, so Druids make a connection with nature and it MUST be with spells and magic.

Rangers make a connection with nature, but they can do it with skills that the Druid can't, because Rangers are civilized and Druids just have secret knowledge of nature that no one else does? How does this make sense to you? That isn't even what the Lore states

Let me ask you a question. A potential pair.

What does a Ranger do Naturewise better than a Druid?

If Nothing, why aren't potential rangers just druids instead?

 

[James Gasik]

Because some people would rather swing weapons at people than play a full caster.

For that matter, some full caster players would rather swing weapons at people than cast spells all the time too.