D&D (2024) The Lackluster Ranger

[Charlaquin]

the moment you did that all the people who want a primal half-caster who are pretty quiet being vaguely satisfied with the current ranger would come out the woodwork, so if those people want that, shouldn't they also be given it shouldn't they?

Yes. There seems to be two very distinct, very passionate camps regarding ranger preferences, and I think just making two different classes to appeal to those two different camps of ranger factions is the best solution. At minimum, a casting Ranger should have a non-casting subclass or vice-versa. But really, two different classes would be the ideal solution. You could even let the casters keep the name Ranger and call the non-casting one a Scout or something.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

you misspelled 5th level.

No. I am not. At 5th level would be way too early. In tier 2 rangers are good.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yes. There seems to be two very distinct, very passionate camps regarding ranger preferences, and I think just making two different classes to appeal to those two different camps of ranger factions is the best solution. At minimum, a casting Ranger should have a non-casting subclass or vice-versa. But really, two different classes would be the ideal solution. You could even let the casters keep the name Ranger and call the non-casting one a Scout or something.

The non casting variant is called fighter.
I liked the UA fighter scout.

 

[Minigiant]

Yes. There seems to be two very distinct, very passionate camps regarding ranger preferences, and I think just making two different classes to appeal to those two different camps of ranger factions is the best solution. At minimum, a casting Ranger should have a non-casting subclass or vice-versa. But really, two different classes would be the ideal solution. You could even let the casters keep the name Ranger and call the non-casting one a Scout or something.

This still overall dodges both problems if you split ranger.


1) No fantasy publisher ever commits to creating interesting spells for the spellcasting Ranger until the game is long in the tooth and desperate for sales

2) No fantasy publisher seems to get a high fantasy noncasting Ranger to not step on or limit their fighter or rogue classes

 

[Charlaquin]

The non casting variant is called fighter.

No, it’s not. Because contrary to what the non-casting Ranger haters claim, people who want a non-casting Ranger don’t just want another fighter.

 

[ECMO3]

Even accepting for the sake of argument that a spell-light or spell-less ranger would just be another fighter (though for the record I disagree strongly on that point), if it’s what most players want, give it to them.

I don't think that is what most players want. There are some, especially on message boards, but I think most players want more magic, not less.

I see a ton of Rangers multiclassed with Clerics and Sorcerers to get more diverse spell choices

 

[RoughCoronet0]

I don't think that is what most players want. There are some, especially on message boards, but I think most players want more magic, not less.

I see a ton of Rangers multiclassed with Clerics and Sorcerers to get more diverse spell choices

I am someone who wants rangers to have more "magic" they can use, in one of two ways.

More ranger specific spells, including Smite-like spells that the ranger can cast to deal different types of damage and/or create different effects that can be used with ranged weapons (which would be unique to that class like how the melee smite spells are unique to paladin).

Or you can give the rangers a non-spell ability that uses their spell slots on to augment their martial combat or give them other abilities. Like the Paladin Smite or the Spell Storing feature from Artificer.

 

[GnomeWorks]

The folks Minigiant and I were discussing, who want a spell-light or non-spellcasting ranger.

I mean, I was there, we were happy with it. Believe me or don’t, but I’m not lying when I say it.

...ah, I missed the context.

I am also fond of non-spellcasting rangers.

Again though I don't think using 4e for comparison is terribly useful. Fighter and ranger occupied different and specific niches in 4e, in ways that can't really be replicated in 5e without a lot of changes. You probably could do a find-replace on "ranger" with "fighter," rename the actual fighter to something else, and aside from some power names and options that are obviously more classic ranger-flavored, no one would bat an eye.

Part of the problem in differentiating ranger from fighter, at least in 5e, is that fighter has no identity. It's a vanilla action hero, and while I'm sure various subclasses wind up tacking on some specific flavor, the core chassis is bland and vague. That leads to it covering a lot of conceptual ground, including much of what non-spellcasting rangers would lean into.

 

[abirdcall]

Even accepting for the sake of argument that a spell-light or spell-less ranger would just be another fighter (though for the record I disagree strongly on that point), if it’s what most players want, give it to them.

There are 12 classes.

I want some of them to be for the minority who don't like what the majority like.

 

[Rushbolt]

You aren't missing anything. Rangers are OK, they are totally playable, but they are easily the weakest class in the game. Not by a gigantic margin, but enough to make it feel bad for anyone who loves playing them.

I really think you hit the nail on the head as to why the community has an issue with the design.