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

[Ashrym]

You can, by just picking any class other than Ranger, who don't have features that actively clash with the rest of the class options.

That's not true. Every class has decision points in the action economy. The only difference here is you seem the be under the false impression that rangers should be entitled to have hunter's mark up at all times just because they have hunter's mark.

You have successfully outlined a strong reason why most games do stop right there.

That's an opinion. It doesn't change the fact the game goes to level 20 and there are players who play those levels. We can't just pretend they don't exist because it suits our argument better if they don't.

 

[Horwath]

Also I would argue the current mechanic encourages this just as much since any Martial character can dip Ranger for two free castings of HM plus 2 more 1st level spell slots. That is a huge boost.

This is also the problem,

while I hate the idea of this mechanic on a full single class ranger, as a fighter you would be dumb to not take one level dip of ranger.
4×Long rest you get +1d6 to probably 6 attack in 1st round.
5th level fighter/1st level ranger.
TWF, 3 attacks, action surge 3 attacks

why is it better on fighter than on ranger:
1. heavy armor
2. Con saves
3. Action surge 1st round burst
4. No conflict with Concentration, unless you go with EK
5. extra-extra attack later on

 

[Horwath]

The stun or other monk abilities are not as versatile at the ranger spells.

you are right, it is not versatile.
but for combat stun is simply better than 90% of ranger spells if not 100%.

 

[Horwath]

Why do YOU get to decide what a Ranger is? I think a Fighter is the stealthy nature warrior who tracks people and monsters and it fits a lot better than a Ranger does if you don't want spells. Rogue (esp Rogue Scout) would work for some themes too, but fighter works for all of them.



Let me help you- the right answer is Ranger.

Fighter or Barbarian is what you want for a stealthy nature warrior who is not a spell user.

one of the problem with the ranger is that it is stuck in the triangle of fighter-rogue-druid and everyone here has own opinion to what side or what point of the triangle should ranger lean into.

there is no clear consensus anywhere what ranger should be,
poll I asked here a year ago just slightly put spellcasting over spell-less ranger:

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

Simple question, do you prefer spell-less ranger or spellcasting ranger? That is, if they could manage to make a decent spell-less ranger. They still need to make decent spellcasting ranger.

www.enworld.org

some want more spell, some more attacks, some more skills&expertise, some more attack riders, list goes on...

 

[Minigiant]

There is no agreement on what that flavor is.

That's the core issue.

The Ranger 1st level feature would have to be choosable options.

And this would have to be spells or a pseudo+Invocations system.

 

[Minigiant]

It is WAY, WAY, WAY more than enough for a 7 encounter day. I have played multiple Rangers to level 20 and I don't think I ever ran out of Favored Foe past level 5. Not once. I did on occasion run out of spell slots, but I did not do that often either

"You can use this feature to mark a favored enemy a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest."

At level 5, you have 3 uses.

So how do you spread 3 uses in 6 fights?

I think you read the feature wrong.

 

[Horwath]

That's the core issue.

The Ranger 1st level feature would have to be choosable options.

And this would have to be spells or a pseudo+Invocations system.

one spell prepared and two casting is comparable to magic initiate 2 cantrips and one spell with once casting, more or less.
so it's about one origin feat give or take.

so ranger can get 3 skills instead or skill expert without +1 ASI, that is, skill+expertise.

now only we need value for extra casting at levels 5,9,13 and 17. give it skill or 3 tools/languages or expertise. about that value.

since we are on skills here, 13th level can be reliable talent. current makes HM reliable, we are trading HM for skills, so make them reliable.

17th level can be some damage boost. Maybe +1d6 elemental damage on attacks. still much later and worse than paladin damage bonus, but more versatile.
capstone; +4 to WIS, DEX and/or STR.

 

[CreamCloud0]

That's the core issue.

The Ranger 1st level feature would have to be choosable options.

And this would have to be spells or a pseudo+Invocations system.

it's for this reason of them having divided flavour that i've been advocating that the ranger would flourish under the warlock's pact and invocation systems for a while now, have a pact analogue 'paths' that specialises for combat, magic, skills and, because everyone else seems convinced it's the ranger's thing: animal companion, then have a list of primal invocations which can be used to customise your ranger further in more individual capabilities.

and yeah i know before anyone says it 'well every class could benefit from more granular customisation' sure, but i think the ranger would by far benefit the most from this system.

 

[Minigiant]

one spell prepared and two casting is comparable to magic initiate 2 cantrips and one spell with once casting, more or less.
so it's about one origin feat give or take

Yes it's about an origin feat in power.

+ 1 spell prepared
+2 spell slot

so ranger can get 3 skills instead or skill expert without +1 ASI, that is, skill+expertise

5e already gives out too many skills as is so additional skills via skill expert would be over doing it and be both the useless which will just cause another argument

How is do it is

Level 1: Favored Enemy
You are adept at focusing on a single foe. You always have the Hunter’s Mark, [SPELL TWO] or [SPELL THREE] spell prepared.

You can cast the chosen twice at level 1 without expending a spell slot, and you regain all expended uses of this ability when you finish a Long Rest.

This number increases to 3 at ranger level 5, 4 at ranger level 9, 5 at ranger level 13 and 6 at ranger level 17.

since we are on skills here, 13th level can be reliable talent. current makes HM reliable, we are trading HM for skills, so make them reliable.

Can't use reliable talent It's a rogue feature

17th level can be some damage boost. Maybe +1d6 elemental damage on attacks. still much later and worse than paladin damage bonus, but more versatile.
capstone; +4 to WIS, DEX and/or STR.

That's as lazy as we claim WOTC is

 

[Minigiant]

it's for this reason of them having divided flavour that i've been advocating that the ranger would flourish under the warlock's pact and invocation systems for a while now, have a pact analogue 'paths' that specialises for combat, magic, skills and, because everyone else seems convinced it's the ranger's thing: animal companion, then have a list of primal invocations which can be used to customise your ranger further in more individual capabilities.

and yeah i know before anyone says it 'well every class could benefit from more granular customisation' sure, but i think the ranger would by far benefit the most from this system.

For 6e sure. Not at the granularity of the warlock but yeah I believe that the Ranger really should have a secondary subclass system.

Choose

Beastmaster (animal companion)
Burner (arcane magic)
Pathfinder (senses)
Stalker (stealth)
Strider (warrior)
Trapper (traps)
Warden (druid magic)

Get a major class feature that levels up.

But It's not backwards compatible so completely unavailable for a 5th edition ranger.