D&D (2024) Ranger playtest discussion

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Yes, we have a new community of D&D players... that has been playing rangers with magical abilities throughout 5e's increasingly popular tenure, more magic than the 1e-3e time frame. So, why would you expect them to want a magicless ranger?

Yeah, this is something that's been bugging me about the whole "Rangers shouldn't have magic" mindset that this forum seems to love for some reason. We have a generation of newer players that have only every played Spellcasting Rangers. To them, Rangers are half-casters. It's core to the class's identity to a lot of newer players. Just go check the discussions on the Ranger on sites where the community is much younger than this one (D&D Beyond and Reddit for example).

5e is the most popular edition of the game and has more newer players than any other edition. The game is 8 years old now, and a huge chunk of the majority of the modern fanbase is only familiar with Rangers that can cast spells. I don't think that changing the class so much that it doesn't get spells would fly.

And, to those saying "but Aragorn, Drizzt, and Katniss can't cast spells and they're rangers!", class identity never maps perfectly onto pop culture. Conan the Barbarian is a Fighter/Rogue. Charlemagne's Paladins didn't have divine magic. D&D Druids are a strange combination of Shamans/Elementalists. Clerics are all war-priests for some reason that have no historical basis.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

They actually don't anymore..

They do if they choose Expertise in Sleight of Hand. Ability Checks with Thieves' Tools are based on Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) now.

 

[Neonchameleon]

5e is the most popular edition of the game and has more newer players than any other edition. The game is 8 years old now, and a huge chunk of the majority of the modern fanbase is only familiar with Rangers that can cast spells. I don't think that changing the class so much that it doesn't get spells would fly.

That doesn't mean it couldn't be eased back heavily. And it doesn't mean that turning the Ranger into a Spells Prepared class so every single ranger gets access to every single level appropriate ranger spell isn't a huge leap in the wrong direction.

As I've mentioned although Paladins have as much casting on paper as rangers it doesn't feel remotely as casting based even now because the Smite feature is so good and Lay on Hands covers the healing. This means that it's relatively rare that a paladin uses a first or second level spell slot on casting a spell.

I think rangers would be helped by a couple of equivalent utility based 'this is a good use of low level spell slots that isn't actually a spell' things so they don't have do to muuch more than coincidental casting. I mean for example, rather than Goodberry, I'd like Rangers to be able to burn a first level slot on Healing Herbs that you need a short rest to use but heal 2d6+stat mod hp (making them more effective than Cure Wounds by a non-cleric) and some guidance abilities for second level spell slots (the entire party gets advantage on a skill the Ranger is trained in as a second level slot, with a secondary effect based on the skill). Between those and Hunter's Mark although the ranger has slots a ranger need not actually cast spells on your average day until level in the double digits.

And, to those saying "but Aragorn, Drizzt, and Katniss can't cast spells and they're rangers!", class identity never maps perfectly onto pop culture. Conan the Barbarian is a Fighter/Rogue. Charlemagne's Paladins didn't have divine magic. D&D Druids are a strange combination of Shamans/Elementalists. Clerics are all war-priests for some reason that have no historical basis.

But none of those are people you meet right now in the real world. Forest Rangers and Army Rangers both are. I doubt that one modern player in three has heard of Charlemagne's paladins or read any Conan.

And the only thing wrong with clerics compared to modern fantasy archetypes is that some of them should be robe-wearers. Although I suspect that can be managed by Divine Soul Sorcerers.

 

[niklinna]

That's confusing. We need a word for "spells" that aren't spells.

Like, I dunno, "power".

I already poked that bear once in this thread.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

That doesn't mean it couldn't be eased back heavily. And it doesn't mean that turning the Ranger into a Spells Prepared class so every single ranger gets access to every single level appropriate ranger spell isn't a huge leap in the wrong direction.

People hate Known spells. Prepared spells is objectively superior and it's been a really common request on sites like D&D Beyond and Reddit for them to transition to Prepared casting.

As I've mentioned although Paladins have as much casting on paper as rangers it doesn't feel remotely as casting based even now because the Smite feature is so good and Lay on Hands covers the healing. This means that it's relatively rare that a paladin uses a first or second level spell slot on casting a spell.

I'm pretty sure Smite is going to change quite a bit in the Priest UA. And, I've DMed for several paladins and rangers, and both of them cast spells about equally in my experience.

I think rangers would be helped by a couple of equivalent utility based 'this is a good use of low level spell slots that isn't actually a spell' things so they don't have do to muuch more than coincidental casting. I mean for example, rather than Goodberry, I'd like Rangers to be able to burn a first level slot on Healing Herbs that you need a short rest to use but heal 2d6+stat mod hp (making them more effective than Cure Wounds by a non-cleric) and some guidance abilities for second level spell slots (the entire party gets advantage on a skill the Ranger is trained in as a second level slot, with a secondary effect based on the skill). Between those and Hunter's Mark although the ranger has slots a ranger need not actually cast spells on your average day until level in the double digits.

Making abilities that consume spell slots might as well be the same thing as making a new spell.

But none of those are people you meet right now in the real world. Forest Rangers and Army Rangers both are. I doubt that one modern player in three has heard of Charlemagne's paladins or read any Conan.

And the only thing wrong with clerics compared to modern fantasy archetypes is that some of them should be robe-wearers. Although I suspect that can be managed by Divine Soul Sorcerers.

People know what the Knights Templar are. And forest rangers equivalent class in D&D having a mystical connection in a fantasy world where nature is magical is logical.

Also, the idea that Divine Soul Sorcerers are D&D's version of real world priests/clergy is funny. I think that changing the cleric class to not automatically get proficiency with weapons and armor would be a good move to further separate the thematic and mechanical niches of paladins and clerics and also make clerics fit real-world priests better.

 

[TheSword]

Hey remember how people complained (and still do) that 4e classes are lIteRallY aLl thE SamE because they had a unified progression?

Well now every ability that isn't swinging a pointy stick is "a wizard did it."

Yes. Things that look like spells, act like spells and have effects like spells… are actually spells.

Shock horror. Stop the press.

 

[Haplo781]

Yes. Things that look like spells, act like spells and have aftereffects like spells… are actually spells.

Shock horror. Stop the press. How can you survive workouts this superfluous guidance.

Cool except that now your nonmagical volley of arrows can be counterspelled.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I dunno. We all have different images in our heads, but I think of Paladins as infused with divine power, so it makes sense (to me) that they cast spells, whereas Rangers are knowledgeable and tough as nails, but not very magical.

But I also think it’s a losing battle.

 

[Minigiant]

Rangers are knowledgeable

This is the core issue.

"rangers are knowledgeable" doesn't say anything.

50% of stuff people attribute to Ranger Knowledge is only allowed to be done with magic in D&D.

That number grows to 100% past level 9 or so when the OP magic, mystic nature, and fantastic monster show up.

 

[Neonchameleon]

People hate Known spells. Prepared spells is objectively superior and it's been a really common request on sites like D&D Beyond and Reddit for them to transition to Prepared casting.

Some people hate Known Spells - and others hate too few known spells but are more than fine if there are enough known spells. The Sorcerer was literally invented to be a Known Spells class because some people really wanted it to exist. But the implementation of Known Spells at the launch of 5e was obviously terrible because the known spells casters knew fewer spells than the prepared casters could have prepared at any one time. So people wanted it changed - and these calls to have it changed have almost vanished since Tasha's put in good sorcerer subclasses and brought the ranger up to four rather than two spells per spell level known.

So what you are saying here is that because some people like crunchy peanut butter and others like smooth peanut butter we should listen only to the people who like crunchy and erase smooth from existence based on there having been a few jars of rancid smooth peanut butter. Rather than have some classes (e.g. the Paladin) having prepared casting and others (e.g. the Ranger) having known spells.

Making abilities that consume spell slots might as well be the same thing as making a new spell.

No it isn't. Or more accurately for people who don't care and think that all magic is fine they are the same thing. For those who don't like Everything Is A Spell then they mostly aren't.

People know what the Knights Templar are. And forest rangers equivalent class in D&D having a mystical connection in a fantasy world where nature is magical is logical.

You can have a mystical connection without being loaded down with spells. All editions before 5e managed to have very few ranger spells per day.

Also, the idea that Divine Soul Sorcerers are D&D's version of real world priests/clergy is funny.

That's because you're inventing something I didn't say.

If we look at e.g. WoW or Final Fantasy the clerical healer, whether White Robe or Priest wears cloth armour. That's the archetype that needs covering - either by adapting the cleric to an unarmoured variant or taking the Divine Soul sorcerer that's already unarmoured (and is already a Spells Known class so it covers things the cleric doesn't).

I think that changing the cleric class to not automatically get proficiency with weapons and armor would be a good move to further separate the thematic and mechanical niches of paladins and clerics and also make clerics fit real-world priests better.

It would also divorce the Cleric from literally every previous D&D edition. Before 4e all clerics in all basic books (there were some specialty exceptions in splatbooks) were proficient with all armour. Meanwhile for weapon proficiency the cleric only gets simple weapons by default - which is only a slightly larger list than the wizard. This also goes back throughout the history of D&D.