D&D (2024) The Lackluster Ranger

[ezo]

Having to put a high score in non combat stats meant that it was always a tradeoff. Then fighters could specialize in weapons (better) on top of it.

For a paladin, a 17 put in charisma was not put in str, con or dex.

Still waiting for @S'mon to respond.

 

[Minigiant]

Having to put a high score in non combat stats meant that it was always a tradeoff. Then fighters could specialize in weapons (better) on top of it.

For a paladin, a 17 put in charisma was not put in str, con or dex.

Well that goes with the other topic. The Coville one.
Depends on the topic

If you roll straight Str to Cha, it would be rare that you could qualify be a paladin or ranger. And for 1e STR and CON were required. So it was a wash unless you rolled high STR and CON but low INTand WIS.

The Slightly Higher STR and CON fighter
vs
The High STR, CON, INT, and WIS ranger with ranger features and XP penalty.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

i think doing that does give them a kind of meaning, just as more of a commentary on the caster's capabilities towards certain types of magic, a bard is more competent at charm spells, this can be represented by them being able to cast those spells while requiring lower level spell slots to do so than what a wizard requires.

Then it is better to steal something from the sorcerer and let them kind of metamagic upcast them. Or maximise them. Or heighten them.

 

[Horwath]

i think doing that does give them a kind of meaning, just as more of a commentary on the caster's capabilities towards certain types of magic, a bard is more competent at charm spells, this can be represented by them being able to cast those spells while requiring lower level spell slots to do so than what a wizard requires.

then you give bonuses on specific spells.

I.E. simple bonus for pyromancer: +1 damage per die roll for fire spells.

bard is better at charm spells:
disadvantage on a save, double duration, extra effects, immune to damage breaking concentration, not needing concentration on certain spells that do have Conc tag, not needing spell components, double range, being able to affect creatures normally immune to charm, bonus usages of specific spell(s),

 

[Nefermandias]

Define "we" .

My group, whom actually played 4e from 2008 up to 2014, were plenty happy with that Ranger's niche and presentation.

 

[Minigiant]

My group, whom actually played 4e from 2008 up to 2014, were plenty happy with that Ranger's niche and presentation.

Before I leave for the fam.

I think many people who want a noncaster ranger would have been well served by a 4e hybird, 3e Gesault, 2e dualclass option were you could level fighter and rogue at the same time.

I don't know how it world work.
Perhaps not getting duplicate of class features and no or only 1 subclass. sublclass.

 

[Corinnguard]

I think many people who want a noncaster ranger would have been well served by a 4e hybird, 3e Gesault, 2e dualclass option were you could level fighter and rogue at the same time.

PF1's Multiclass archetypes would probably work better here. The PF1 Fighter would be the primary class while the PF1 Rogue would be the secondary class. You would then replace the PF1 Fighter's Bravery, Weapon Training and Armor Training with features from the PF1 Rogue.

You would probably need to use feats for those Ranger features that aren't be used by either the Fighter or Rogue class though.

Would this multiclass archetype be a noncaster? Yes. Would it be satisfying to those of us who want a noncaster Ranger? It's hard to say. Some of us can already look elsewhere for a noncaster Ranger, like Level Up.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

My spelless ranger:

D&D Beyond Character Sheet

The World's most intelligent Dungeons and Dragons Character Sheet.

www.dndbeyond.com

Swap farmer for guide if you think that they should have a few spells.

Instead of battlemaster 4, you can raise barbarian to 9 and rogue to 11.

 

[ECMO3]

When I was playing 1E the formula was simple for choosing your class.

Unearthed Arcana were official rules, unlike today. When they were published they changed character creation and you automatically qualified for a class if you were a human.

Assuming you were going to play a Lawful Good human here is what you did:

Before UA:
Before UA you rolled your stats and if you qualified for a Paladin you played a Paladin (I don't think I ever saw this in play). If you did not qualify for a Paladin but did qualify for Ranger you played a Ranger. If you did not qualify for either you played a fighter

After UA:
Under the rules for UA single class characters chose class before rolling, they had a pool of dice based on the choice and anything below the minimum was raised to the minimum. After these rules came out the Lawful Good martials were all Paladins, and the non LG martials were mostly Cavaliers. Occasionally there was a Ranger thrown in there, but usually only on Elf or Half-Elf characters.

 

[Horwath]

ah, the ranger, poor SOB, at 9th place, well he didn't compare direct damage if cleric and wizard, those would be lower, but 9 out of 12 classes in direct damage.

and paladin is in 2nd place with all the extra's.
And, I do not care what theoretical utility ranger can bring over paladin, counter argument is always; Aura of protection(and it's upgrades).