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

[Vaalingrade]

A Triceratops has 13 AC and can't cast spells.

Come on, man. Being able to turn into stuff. You know what I'm talking about. No need to go all engineering reddit about this.

Also, every druid casts spells. Getting the cast off class features is the topic here.

 

[James Gasik]

And the bladesinger is often regarded as overpowered.

That may be so, but you said a Druid with extra attack and a fighting style would break the game in half. The bladesinger hasn't managed to do that by it's existence.

The issue with being good at melee and being good at magic at the same time is that you can mostly only do one or the other. You're not often throwing out leveled spells and making weapon attacks simultaneously. Some classes can do this, in a limited fashion (action surge, quicken spell), but if one were to staple extra attack onto the druid with no other features, it wouldn't really have a large effect, I mean, what, your shillelagh DPR doubles, but it's still less than Eldritch Blast damage, and the Druid isn't really built to wade into melee all that well using melee weapons.

 

[Minigiant]

Come on, man. Being able to turn into stuff. You know what I'm talking about. No need to go all engineering reddit about this.

Also, every druid casts spells. Getting the cast off class features is the topic here.

That's the point.

Full spellcasting is too power to be given some cast off class features unrestricted. Especially if it can overcome the intended class fantasy.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That's the point.

Full spellcasting is too power to be given some cast off class features unrestricted. Especially if it can overcome the intended class fantasy.

They're too powerful for it to matter.

The don't care about attacks when they have abilities that let them win instead of gambling on some damage.

 

[Incenjucar]

They're too powerful for it to matter.

The don't care about attacks when they have abilities that let them win instead of gambling on some damage.

"How many weapon attacks per round would it take before you would use weapons instead of spells" is a fun question.

 

[Vaalingrade]

"How many weapon attacks per round would it take before you would use weapons instead of spells" is a fun question.

Unlimited Blade Works.

 

[CleverNickName]

"How many weapon attacks per round would it take before you would use weapons instead of spells" is a fun question.

Unlimited Blade Works.

This is the reason why Eldritch Blast is considered superior to Firebolt, isn't it?

 

[Incenjucar]

This is the reason why Eldritch Blast is considered superior to Firebolt, isn't it?

It's basically equivalent to the 4 attacks a fighter gets with a better damage type, crazy range, and different bonuses that can be applied to it (Hex, etc.).

Firebolt is much riskier to use and can only gain bonuses once and target a single creature, so it's only better if you have a huge single-use damage multiplier.

 

[CleverNickName]

One of my past DMs had some interesting ideas about what characters "should" be able to do in his campaign. I think he had a big chip on his shoulder about fighters who use magic/wizards who use swords. He took a hard line with paladins and rangers especially: I think there was even a houserule about them never getting spellcasting or spell slots? I do remember that multiclassing wasn't allowed, but feats were: so if you wanted your wizard to be proficient with swords and armor, you'd have to spend your ASIs on feats.

I got a lot of grief from him when my Human Fighter took the Spell Sniper feat (eldritch blast) at 1st level. He grumbled again when I chose Magic Initiate (toll the dead, green flame blade, hellish rebuke) a month or two later, at 4th level. He took me aside and told me that I needed to stop picking spells for my fighter, because "fighters aren't supposed to be magical in this campaign." I was confused because I thought I was doing what he wanted us to do: his house rules specifically mentioned using feats to gain magic.

I'm not sure why he had a problem with it, but whatever--I'm an easy-going guy. I dropped my plans to take Fey Touched, Ritual Caster, etc., and stuck with your garden-variety suite of fighter feats instead (Sentinel, Slasher, that sort of thing). It was fine.

But I tell you what: my fighter got a lot of mileage out of that eldritch blast cantrip. It's a game-changer, especially when coupled with Action Surge and the Spell Sniper feat.

 

[Minigiant]

That may be so, but you said a Druid with extra attack and a fighting style would break the game in half. The bladesinger hasn't managed to do that by it's existence.

The issue with being good at melee and being good at magic at the same time is that you can mostly only do one or the other. You're not often throwing out leveled spells and making weapon attacks simultaneously. Some classes can do this, in a limited fashion (action surge, quicken spell), but if one were to staple extra attack onto the druid with no other features, it wouldn't really have a large effect, I mean, what, your shillelagh DPR doubles, but it's still less than Eldritch Blast damage, and the Druid isn't really built to wade into melee all that well using melee weapons.

Combat buffs, off turn attacks, bonus action spell activation

But ultimately my central point is

A Druid with a bow would not create the Mystic Ranger fantasy. Not mechanically.

The mystic spellcasting ranger, the martial nonspellcasting ranger and , the full spellcasting druid fulfill different class fantasies. And those fantasies are so different to the fans who care about them that they cannot be encompassed with the same classes in 5e at a reasonable progression. Even with multiclassing. Doing so with subclass can and likely will push a class so far it not only overshadows other classes, breeds into another class fantasy at together

I mean that's why most new core base classes exist in D&D over the years in the first place