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

[CleverNickName]

I decided to try my hand at writing a version of my own.

https://www.enworld.org/threads/clevernicknames-special-ranger-recipe.699097/post-9084833

It's mostly Ranger-As-Written, but with the optional features in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything and a rewritten Spellcasting mechanic.

 

[ECMO3]

We keep coming back to this fallacy that nothing can be powerful without being a spell.

Things that are not magic should not be able to accomplish the same things that magic can accomplish, or it should be a lot more difficult. It is not "can be" but "should be".

Magic should move mountains.

 

[Incenjucar]

Things that are not magic should not be able to accomplish the same things that magic can accomplish, or it should be a lot more difficult. It is not "can be" but "should be".

Magic should move mountains.

You realize we've been moving mountains without magic longer than we've had writing.

 

[James Gasik]

Ok, how about "things without magic and/or a small army of engineers should not be able to accomplish the same as those things". I mean, bringing up technology is all well and good, but we're talking about what an individual Ranger can accomplish, aren't we?

Even if you consider characters with PC classes extraordinary in their worlds (a topic for another thread, as opinions vary wildly here), there's a limit to how much one person can do without a significant force multiplier. In the Ranger's case, you have three things that make them stand out- special skills, special knowledge, and magic. Two of those things can be taught or learned to a large amount of people (or if there is some hidden requirement, we don't know what it is by default, as characters of any age, species, or ability scores are allowed to be Rangers in 5e).

And even magic isn't really that unique as several races and feats can give you limited spellcasting ability, but the Ranger's ability to gain more spell slots over time is largely what separates them from other characters.

The crux of this discussion comes back to "what is unique about a Ranger?" and the answer is, not a lot. You have a light to medium armored, martial weapon using, 1/2 caster with expert survival skills, knowledge of terrain, and techniques for hunting down monstrous foes...and most of the latter abilities are effectively ribbon abilities for many campaigns.

If I sat down at a table with an Oath of the Ancients Paladin with something like the Outlander Background and called them a Ranger, what am I really missing? Bonus damage on ranged attacks?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Things that are not magic should not be able to accomplish the same things that magic can accomplish, or it should be a lot more difficult. It is not "can be" but "should be".

Magic should move mountains.

Aaand I'm back to spell-less wizards.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Turning toward divine grace?


When was I trying to convince them? They already have druid and druid lite.

If I'm not mistaken, the thread was titled 'which do you prefer' not, 'convince people of a thing'.

I will never understand making a claim ("the warden can't be the non-magical forest person because we will only have Rangers in the game") and then refusing to back that claim.

If you don't care about convincing people, why make an argument at all?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Again, everyone should be using spells to tie their shoes, swing their sword, etc. using this logic.

Spells and mundane things have different limitations and benefits. Magic has the downside of being fire and forget with very few interactions, while physical things can be part of more complicated scenarios like setting up traps or combining with other things. A wizard can cast acid arrow but they can't tied a screaming whistle to the end of their acid arrow and fire it as a distraction.

Sure, but you are missing the point of what I was saying.

You can't go forth and act like you've unlocked a new and innovative way of doing things if you just give Martials "Acid Arrow, but it is physical so it is better". Like, if you do so, which was the proposal I will remind you, just taking spells and making them items for martials to use, you have fundamentally done the same design work as giving them those spells, just with none of the limitations of spells.

Yes, a grenade that is in every way identical to fireball, except has none of the weaknesses, and has even more utility in trap-making would be a very nice thing for all fighters to have. Just like giving them Subtle Spell Fireballs would be, because fundamentally... that's the same thing.

 

[Minigiant]

The crux of this discussion comes back to "what is unique about a Ranger?" and the answer is, not a lot. You have a light to medium armored, martial weapon using, 1/2 caster with expert survival skills, knowledge of terrain, and techniques for hunting down monstrous foes...and most of the latter abilities are effectively ribbon abilities for many campaigns.

If I sat down at a table with an Oath of the Ancients Paladin with something like the Outlander Background and called them a Ranger, what am I really missing? Bonus damage on ranged attacks?

at fear of being called elitist, most people who want to play Rangers just want to play Fighters with a bow.

The unique part is.. The Ranger
1) has High skills
and
2) has magic to not play honest

The different between a druid and the ranger is the ranger's skill modifier and attack modifier is (supposed to be) much higher.
It's easier to see in 3e.
The 3e ranger had more skill points and more class skills than the druid.

When the rogue tracks, they have a large modifier and can defeat te high DCs. But when they hit a river where the tracks end. GAME OVER. The tracks are gone.

When the druid can tracks accross a river by wildshaping into a dog and sniffing out the trail in the air., they have a large modifier but their modifer is low +4.

The ranger can cast scent and track over water. With their +10 to the check.

 

[Incenjucar]

Sure, but you are missing the point of what I was saying.

You can't go forth and act like you've unlocked a new and innovative way of doing things if you just give Martials "Acid Arrow, but it is physical so it is better". Like, if you do so, which was the proposal I will remind you, just taking spells and making them items for martials to use, you have fundamentally done the same design work as giving them those spells, just with none of the limitations of spells.

Yes, a grenade that is in every way identical to fireball, except has none of the weaknesses, and has even more utility in trap-making would be a very nice thing for all fighters to have. Just like giving them Subtle Spell Fireballs would be, because fundamentally... that's the same thing.

A normal person can make over a dozen of rope traps in a day.

 

[James Gasik]

at fear of being called elitist, most people who want to play Rangers just want to play Fighters with a bow.

The unique part is.. The Ranger
1) has High skills
and
2) has magic to not play honest

The different between a druid and the ranger is the ranger's skill modifier and attack modifier is (supposed to be) much higher.
It's easier to see in 3e.
The 3e ranger had more skill points and more class skills than the druid.

When the rogue tracks, they have a large modifier and can defeat te high DCs. But when they hit a river where the tracks end. GAME OVER. The tracks are gone.

When the druid can tracks accross a river by wildshaping into a dog and sniffing out the trail in the air., they have a large modifier but their modifer is low +4.

The ranger can cast scent and track over water. With their +10 to the check.

But it hasn't always been that way, so I'm a little confused why it's "supposed to be" this way. I get that people would like that to be the case, but it was really only true in 3e. In 1e AD&D, the Ranger didn't have skills as we know them outside of Tracking (Druids, meanwhile, possessed "the druid can identify plant type, animal type, and pure water. He can also pass through overgrown areas such as tangled thorns and briar patches at normal movement rates without leaving a trail.").

And the 1e Barbarian actually had a host of special abilities the Ranger lacked, such as climbing trees, hiding in natural surroundings...heck, I'll just copy what Unearthed Arcana has to say:

As you can see, many of the abilities one associates with the Ranger are actually Barbarian abilities, and part of that class fantasy! 3e did Barbarians a disservice by taking away their superior ability to survive in the wilds and replacing it with "grr am angry", IMHO.

In 2e, the Ranger didn't have any more proficiency slots than other Warriors, and again, only had Tracking (which anyone could do, but carefully reading the rules showed that the Ranger was vastly superior to this than anyone else, since non-Rangers took a hefty penalty to Track) as well as Hide in Shadows/Move Silently (halved when not in forest terrain).

In 4e, the Ranger had no special skills either.

Technically, even in 3e, Tracking was a Feat, so anyone could acquire it, and you could easily make a non-Ranger who could Track just as well just by taking the Feat (Druids, for example, had decent skill points and a higher emphasis on Wisdom, not to mention a +2 bonus on the checks as a class feature!).

So why this class fantasy of the Ranger being this great skills guy who is better than anyone else at tracking and outdoor survival exists is a bit odd, since historically, that has almost never been true.