D&D (2024) Ranger 2024 is a bigger joke than Ranger 2014:

[TiQuinn]

I don't want to play a Druid. There is only 2 classes I have never played since 2014, even in a dip, and which I have no desire to play. Druid is one of them (Barbarian is the other).

Druid has nothing that I want thematically or mechanically.



Rangers are spell casters and have been spellcasters in I believe every version of D&D published by TSR/WOTC.

Also Hunter's Mark is a spell. It is disingenuous to suggest you want a Ranger less focused on spells while defending 4 class features, including a capstone, that are specifically focused on spell casting.

I think what you’ve described is pretty much a spellcaster and if I’m thinking nature based caster, it’s Druid, not Ranger.

The fact that they made Hunter’s Mark a spell instead of an ability is kind of lame, I agree. Even if an ability is magical or supernatural in nature, making it a spell amounts to just flavorless shorthand, IMO.

 

[ECMO3]

I think what you’ve described is pretty much a spellcaster and if I’m thinking nature based caster, it’s Druid, not Ranger.

Ranger is a spellcaster and has always been a spell caster, in every version of D&D. Moreover I never said I wanted something "nature-based". I want something Magical and Supernatural with expertise and a lot of spells.

Also Druid does not have any subclass I want to play. Ranger is the only class I want with the subclasses or even anything close to the subclasses I want to play.

The fact that they made Hunter’s Mark a spell instead of an ability is kind of lame, I agree. Even if an ability is magical or supernatural in nature, making it a spell amounts to just flavorless shorthand, IMO.

The fact that they made Hunter's Mark at all is kind of lame, but spells are an integral part of the Ranger.

 

[ECMO3]

Not really. But hey.

You just slapped a wizard and a sorcerer ability on them. That is some lazy design.

The original D&D Ranger had Magic-User spells and none of their spells resembled Hunter's Mark in any way. Further the original AD&D 1E Magic-User class included both Wizards and Sorcerers.

"More" is a relative term and giving them Wizard and Sorcerer abilities it is "more" fitting than giving them Hunter's Mark.

Everything about Hunter's Mark represents "lazy design" and adding it as a class ability doubles down on that laziness.

 

[TiQuinn]

Ranger is a spellcaster and has always been a spell caster, always in every version of D&D. Moreover I never said I wanted something "nature-based". I want something Magical and Supernatural with expertise and a lot of spells.

Also Druid does not have any subclass I want to play. Ranger is the only class I want with the subclasses or even anything close to the subclasses I want to play.




The fact that they made Hunter's Mark at all is kind of lame, but spells are an integral part of the Ranger.

Then I go back to the same question I've asked others - what do you define a ranger as then?

As for being a spellcaster, yes, they've had spells but it's never been their raison d'etre. It's always been an ancillary ability. 5e turned almost every class into a spellcaster, so being a spellcaster now is not really special in and of itself.

Hunter's Mark, if it were an ability used X times a day, would be perfectly fine, similar in effect to the core special abilities of other classes.

 

[ECMO3]

Better and worse is comparative. If the other options start to overshadow them then they are worse.

No it isn't. Having an objectively poor choice does not hurt anyone.

On the other hand, an objectively bad feature you get no choice in does hurt play.

 

[ECMO3]

Then I go back to the same question I've asked others - what do you define a ranger as then?

Magical and Supernatural, expertise and lots of spells .... It is actually written in the part you quoted. I will add thematic flexibility to that.

As for being a spellcaster, yes, they've had spells but it's never been their raison d'etre. It's always been an ancillary ability.

In terms of castings per day Rangers were closer to full casters in 5E with TCE than they were to other half-casters.

You can play with it being an ancillary ability, but you can also play with it being the primary defining ability of the class. That is a choice, and one that is more difficult and comparatively weaker with the new Ranger design.

Hunter's Mark, if it were an ability used X times a day, would be perfectly fine, similar in effect to the core special abilities of other classes.

Hunter's Mark is a spell, it has always been a spell. Whether it would or would not be fine if it was mechanics that were not a spell is irrelevant to this discussion because it is a spell.

 

[TiQuinn]

Magical and Supernatural, expertise and lots of spells .... It is actually written in the part you quoted.

That could be a wizard. That could be a bard. That could be a cleric. That's before you even look at multi-classing.

 

[TiQuinn]

Hunter's Mark is a spell, it has always been a spell. Whether it would or would not be fine if it was mechanics that were not a spell is irrelevant to this discussion because it is a spell.

The discussion is about the ranger and whether it could be improved or not. It's perfectly relevant.

 

[ECMO3]

That could be a wizard. That could be a bard. That could be a cleric. That's before you even look at multi-classing.

Or it could be a Ranger ... and as someone who has played all of these classes extensively, what I want thematically works best as a Ranger.

 

[TiQuinn]

Or it could be a Ranger ... and it works best as a Ranger.

Ah. So you want a classless system. Got it.