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

[Minigiant]

In my eyes, the main meanings of "ranger" are:

• military covert ops (= mobility)
• remote border patrol (= survivalist)
• hunter
• forest protector (= Druid-ish ecologist)

The Ranger class may or may not use spellcasting for any of these themes.

For ops, spells might feature mobility spells like flight and teleport, perhaps stealth spells like invisibility and shapeshift as well.

Remote border patrol is about being an effective warrior far from civilization.

The Hunter - the Ranger class handles this well enough, albeit there can easily be a noncaster version of this. Essentially, the same skillset for hunting has dual use for combat.

The ecologist "wilderness witch" focuses on elemental Earth, Plant, and Beast. It has much like the Druid in flavor, but lacks the fully elemental magic of the Druid. The Druid can function as a "weather witch" whereas the Ranger not really.

The problem is that, which is brought up in the first few pages, is that class isn't needed with the Fighter, Rogue, and Druid on your roster.

It brings nothing unique.

Especially when anytime some gives the ranger something unique, other fans display their desire to give it to Fighter, Rogues, or Druids as well.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That's not enough to base a class on.
That's the issue.

But "fight good" is? How about "deals with traps"? After all, what can a rogue do that a fighter can't? Fighters can hide, deal damage, ect. "Build things with magic" isn't enough for a class either, know how I know? Because the artificer can do more than just build things with magic.

You didn't ask "what solely and completely must the entire class be based upon!" You asked what, specifically in nature, the Ranger does better than the druid. If I knew you were going to demand that whatever answer I gave must be a complete class concept, I would have written a class proposal.

By all that is holy man, this is practically a bait and switch. Druid half-casting, plus improved stealth and tracking skills, combined with martial abilities such as extra attack. That is plenty for a class. But you didn't ask for that.

Tracking is not enough to build a class on. Many group skep this.

If Ranger and Druids both share Nature and Rangers and Rogues bother share Stealth, the Ranger needs to have its own approach to both or they are wasting space that a multiclass can fulfill.

Come off it. You are putting words in my mouth and making declarations that have nothing to do with what I said or what you even asked. So what? The Rogue does stealth therefore no other class in the game can ever focus on stealth? Let me introduce you to Bards/Sorcerers/Warlcocks/Wizards if you want to talk about overlap.

Traditionally rangers had different approaches and mechanics to Stealth and Nature.

Fans roleplayed these out.

And surprise surprise they roleplayed out all the uniqueness out of rangers in lore and mechanics.

Give the ranger nothing unique. Don't be surprised it is bland.

Never said not to give them anything unique. You didn't ask the question you wanted answered, you asked something so you could berate your strawman.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It is a severe failure of design for druids and rangers to be at all interchangable.

And if you simplify classes done to just vague statements of capabilites, you get fighting-man, magic-user and healer. And if you really want, you can combine magic-user and healer.

They are plenty different as they are.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The problem is that, which is brought up in the first few pages, is that class isn't needed with the Fighter, Rogue, and Druid on your roster.

It brings nothing unique.

Especially when anytime some gives the ranger something unique, other fans display their desire to give it to Fighter, Rogues, or Druids as well.

What does the rogue uniquely bring to a roster that has the Bard, Fighter, and Monk?

This is a silly argument.

 

[Minigiant]

But "fight good" is?

Nope. It isn't. Fighter is its own problem.

How about "deals with traps"?

Nope. Another issue

After all, what can a rogue do that a fighter can't?

Rogues get reliable talent. But that's high level.
But outside that. Not much.

That's the problem.

If you bleed the fighter, rogue, ranger, druid, monk, etc into each other AND have a comprehensive feat system AND always freeform multiclassing then classes become redundant.

And no publisher will waste ink on obvious redundancy.

So unless every class interacts with their shared elements in different unique ways, there is no need for them. And the desire for a composite class in a system with comprehensive feat, multiclassing, or some other customization system will never be fulfilled by a major publisher.

If Druids are better naturalists, scouts, and survivalist than Rangers, Fighters are better warriors than Ranger, and Rogues are better sneaks than Rangers, there is no reason to have rangers both mechanically and narratively. Especially spell-less ones.

 

[Scribe]

I dont understand the whole 'its not spells, but its still outside of the bounds of reality, but since its not spells, its 'spell-less'.'

I'm 100% fine with a mundane ranger, just give them skills/abilities/whatever which are exclusive, and not spells or spell like, or outside the bounds of reality.

Just like mundane fighters, you then give them gear to do magical things.

 

[Yaarel]

The problem is that, which is brought up in the first few pages, is that class isn't needed with the Fighter, Rogue, and Druid on your roster.

It brings nothing unique.

Especially when anytime some gives the ranger something unique, other fans display their desire to give it to Fighter, Rogues, or Druids as well.

I agree.

The original 1e Ranger is in fact a Fighter subclass.

Maybe it is no surprise: the D&D Ranger "tradition" ends up being exactly the same thing as a Fighter subclass.

Meanwhile, 3e and especially 4e evolved an effective Dexterity Ranger concept, whose tradition 5e inherits as the Scout Rogue.

And the Ranger who is a Druid/Fighter gish is moreorless the same thing as an Eldritch Knight who swaps the spell list. In other words, a Fighter subclass.


Nevertheless, regardless how the Ranger traditions reincarnate into 5e, the basic concepts are:

• military covert ops (= mobility)
• remote border patrol (= survivalist)
• hunter
• forest protector (= Druid-ish ecologist)

These are what the D&D Ranger traditions cover, and they are salient character concepts.


The Ranger has diehard fans. The most important thing is the fans are happy.

At the same time, if I am "objectively" designing an efficient way to organize the Ranger concepts, I would simply make it a 5e Background that can add onto any class, including Fighter, Rogue, or Druid.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's not a more or less thing. It's a difference of approach.

The wolf growls at the the druid. The druid uses magic to display that she is part of nature and friends.

The Ranger on the other hand goes meme-Cesar Milan and displays his dominate energy that he is pack leader or literally growling back at the wolf or having some random animal tell the wolf "Chill out or we all will get in trouble" or calm in down with a touch on their head.

Druid: Animal Friend
Ranger: Animal Trainer

The subclass are called Hunter, Beastmaster, Monster Slayer, Swarmkeeper, and Drakewarden.

You’re stretching so far it’s a comic book superpower.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Answer the first question first.

Because a Druid can swing weapons.

Only by such a bare technicality that it’s irrelevant.

 

[Emberashh]

An extremely relevant video on why the question of a spell-less Ranger is important: