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

[Minigiant]

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

So?
Aren't most ranger inspirations book superheroes?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So?
Aren't most ranger inspirations book superheroes?

Unless it fits your argument to call them all low level, of course.

 

[Yaarel]

Before designing a "spellless" Ranger, it is necessary to have a clear idea about who a player becomes to roleplay this kind of character.

With regard to the Ranger, and for Martial classes generally, the vision is clear for the low tiers, but less clear about what is going on at the high tiers.

Whether the mechanics use spell slots or not is almost besides the point.

What is it that the Ranger needs to do at the Legend tier? What is the end game?


By contrast, if what the player wants to become is a warrior who is at home in the wilderness, then the appropriate mechanics is a Background, with skills and a level-0 feat to be at home in the wilderness.

 

[Emberashh]

What is it that the Ranger needs to do at the Legend tier? What is the end game?

See my multidude of previous posts.

 

[Yaarel]

See my multidude of previous posts.

Heh. It is more helpful to summarize your relevant point, than to ask other people to research your internet activity.

 

[Emberashh]

Heh. It is more helpful to summarize your relevant point, than to ask other people to research your internet activity.

Post #3 in this topic

 

[Charlaquin]

Having just read through this entire thread, I find something darkly amusing.

Who here wants a spell-less Druid?

Nobody, because spellcasting is part of the fantasy of the druid.

Because, people want Rangers to speak with animals, but not as a spell. Why can't Druids do that?

I think they should, personally.

People want Rangers to make healing or poisonous poultices out of plants. Why can't Druids do that?

They can, actually - they have herbalism kit proficiency. More than that, Druids don’t really need, because they’re spellcasters.

People want Rangers to have devoted animal companions. Why can't Druids do that?

I think they should be able to.

People want Rangers to be able to track people through the jungle. Why can't Druids do that?

Because tracking has nothing to do with the fantasy of the druid.

People want Rangers to find plenty of food and water in the wilderness. Why can't Druids do that?

Similar to healing, they can to an extent - they have access to the nature and survival skills. More than that, they don’t need because they have spells that do it better.

The "fantasy" of a ranger is being able to go into the woods and come out three months later perfectly fine. But a Druid goes into the woods... and never comes back out because THEY LIVE THERE. So, every time we are stating "the Ranger is really in-tune with the natural world so they should be able to do X, Y or Z without spells." then we have to ask... why can't a Druid do that without spells?

This is exactly where the difference lies though. Rangers aren’t just mini-druids with better weapons, or at least, they shouldn’t be. They have fundamentally different relationships with the natural world. The druid is magically in-tune with nature - so much a part of it that they have mystical control over it. The ranger conquers nature. They are not native to it, but they have learned to survive within it, and to help others do so. Where the druid attunes themselves with nature, the ranger attunes nature with themselves.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So Paladins are just incompetent clerics, but that's okay because they have good and useful abilities? But Rangers don't have any good abilities, so they can't be incompetent Druids and must be made into something else so they are allowed to have good and useful abilities?

Vaal.... I think you have your argument mixed up. This doesn't sound like an argument to split Rangers from Druids and never the twain shall meet. This sounds like an argument to give Rangers actually good and useful abilities, so they can fill their niche like Paladins fill theirs.

Good thing that's not the argument I'm making. And it's super weird that you're ascribing it to me.

I'm talking about what is, not what should be done.

I don't think Rangers should have to be incompetent Druids at all. They can be like, actually good outdoorsmen without having to stoop to using magic as a band-aid because we're afraid to make non-magical abilities.

 

[Yaarel]

Post #3 in this topic

I would summarize that as: the Ranger class is someone who "wields" the terrain (rather than someone who "adapts" to the terrain).

This concept has high tier potential, including summoning high tier creatures in the terrain, inflicting high tier damage and conditions, and similarly mobility/barrier (including teleportation) and detection/stealth within the terrain.

 

[Charlaquin]

Vaal.... I think you have your argument mixed up. This doesn't sound like an argument to split Rangers from Druids and never the twain shall meet. This sounds like an argument to give Rangers actually good and useful abilities, so they can fill their niche like Paladins fill theirs.

So… the exact thing people are asking for…