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

[Minigiant]

It's a nonsensical and irrelevant claim, and it's obvious half of players don't even want that fantasy.

But it is not nonsensical to the half who want that fantasy.

That's the point. The 2 sides want 2 different things you can't put together unless that is a initial design priority.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Probably. 5E is lacking some of the minor customization slots that would make that easy to do, sadly.

So the Speak with Animals spell I used in that example was just one of over a dozen spells that many classes get access to because they are spells.

Using your logic, are you saying that any spells that any class can use should just be a nonmagical class ability for all those classes?

Or are you saying that those spells should be turned into unique, non-magical abilities that are siloed into different classes so fewer classes get access to them?

Or are you suggesting that there should be a huge nonmagical list of abilities that aren't spells that classes can choose from and they shouldn't be called spells because you don't like them being called spells?

What is it you are advocating for exactly, and most importantly how does that fit into 5E?

 

[Incenjucar]

Do we need a spell for tying shoelaces? Do we need a spell for using a compass? Do we need a spell for tasting if something is bitter?

 

[CleverNickName]

Maybe I'll just say it in a blunt and simple manner.

A 1/3 Spellcaster does not have enough spells per day nor progress through the spell levels faster enough to produce the Magical Ranger Class Fantasy.

A 1/2 caster barely does.

It sounds like you're describing a druid, not a "magical ranger."

Not that there's anything wrong with that. I love me some druids.

If you need your ranger to be a full-caster, the druid is probably the best place to start. I think it would be a lot easier to create a new subclass for Druid, than it would be to rewrite the ranger base class.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So the Speak with Animals spell I used in that example was just one of over a dozen spells that many classes get access to because they are spells.

Using your logic, are you saying that any spells that any class can use should just be a nonmagical class ability for all those classes?

Or are you saying that those spells should be turned into unique, non-magical abilities that are siloed into different classes so fewer classes get access to them?

Or are you suggesting that there should be a huge nonmagical list of abilities that aren't spells that classes can choose from and they shouldn't be called spells because you don't like them being called spells?

What is it you are advocating for exactly, and most importantly how does that fit into 5E?

Oh I thought you were asking an honest question, not engaging in a cheap and failed attempt at gotcha. I'm willing to have an honest discussion, but not on your terms when you open with a dishonest attempt at a gotcha.

 

[Minigiant]

It sounds like you're describing a druid, not a "magical ranger."

So when don't need a paladin with smites or healing either right?

I mean
A ranger whose job is to protect an area and hunt their enemies within would use the tools available

AND all the tools are spells.
Because like I said waaay in the first pages of this thread

• TSR
• WOTC
• The D&D player community
• THE D&D designer community
• The people who used to play D&D but don't anymore

will keep making more and more spells but not give ranger the tools to do their job in non-spell manners.

If we only ever support spells and magic items as tools then a ranger in a D&D setting would eventually use....

 

[Incenjucar]

There has never been fire without lightning or lava therefor there can never be fire without lightning or lava put down those rocks and stop rubbing those sticks together Bob.

 

[CleverNickName]

So when don't need a paladin with smites or healing either right?

Sorry, you're going to have to go down that weird tangent by yourself. I'm over here talking about full-caster options for rangers.

Honestly, the more I look at it, the more I like the idea of just giving Druids the option to choose the Hunter subclass. It would need to be modified a bit to give them better weapon and armor options, but that's not hard to do. Just add something like "You gain proficiency with martial weapons, all armor, and shields when you select this subclass. Oh and that absurd armor restriction no longer applies."

 

[Minigiant]

There has never been fire without lightning or lava therefor there can never be fire without lightning or lava put down that those rocks and stop rubbing those sticks together Bob.

DMs and D&D designers: You can't throw a net on a Stone Giant. They are too big and immune and bladdity bladdity blah
Ranger Fans: But my rangers favored enemy is giants. Surely he would know skills to help slay giants.
DMs and D&D designers: Net no work. Giant too big. You too small.
Magical Ranger Fans: Screw it. My ranger hates giants so he prepared and casts Entangle.
DMs and D&D designers: Fine
Magical Ranger Fans: Wow that fight was tough. Cure Wounds.. As for the fire breathing dragon we also hate...

And Rangers became more and more magical over time. Except that one period when DMs and D&D designers kinda let ranger do their jobs from the start. Kinda.

Sorry, you're going to have to go down that weird tangent by yourself. I'm over here talking about full-caster options for rangers.

There are fractions between 1/2 and 2/2.

 

[Incenjucar]

DMs with bad house rules can ruin anything.