D&D (2024) The Lackluster Ranger

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

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

You seem to favour heavy optimisation in your character builds. Stands to reason the other players you come across have the same viewpoint? Multiclassing Rangers, especially for that reason, seems more like an optimiser thing rather than a choice someone playing for the flavour of the class, which is the point of the post you're responding to.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

There are 12 classes.

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

You may have missed this earlier post:

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.

 

[mellored]

Bonus Hunter's Mark with two weapon fighting, a side of expertise, and utility spells is plenty early on.

They just don't scale very well. I would probably stop at level 5, maybe 9. Then multiclass fighter and/or rogue.

But that still covers a lot of campaigns.

 

[mellored]

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.

There is a Scout.
No magic, expetise in nature and survival, mobile, good with two weapons or a bow.


It's a rogue subclass in Xanathar's.

 

[abirdcall]

I don't think it is good design to just make more classes either.

Make some new subclasses with Ranger flavour? Sure. We got the Scout right and they could lean in more on that with both Rogue and Fighter.

A Fighter with the right background can already have the flavour of a spell-less Ranger as it currently is.

 

[Charlaquin]

There is a Scout.
No magic, expetise in nature and survival, mobile, good with two weapons or a bow.

It's a rogue subclass in Xanathar's.

It’s also not a non-spellcasting ranger. It’s a very lightly wilderness-themed rogue.

 

[Zardnaar]

Bonus Hunter's Mark with two weapon fighting, a side of expertise, and utility spells is plenty early on.

They just don't scale very well. I would probably stop at level 5, maybe 9. Then multiclass fighter and/or rogue.

But that still covers a lot of campaigns.

I've been thinking war domain cleric.

Fighters and Rogues work though.

 

[Zardnaar]

A Fey Wanderer optimized for Control is amazing at control from level 7-16, amazing as a face from level 3+ and it is ok at damage and exploration at all levels, but you need to go all in with Wisdom and feats to do it. The best feats for this are things that cause charmed and frightened, specifically Magic Initiate as your Origin for Cause Fear and Friends and Shadow
Touched at level 4 for Wrathful Smite. Fey Touched for Dissonant Whispers is also a good add but probably not worth delaying Wisdom 20.

For race if you have 2014 species you want an Eladarin or Leonin or if you have both 2014 feats and species a Dragonborn (Dragonfear Feat). If you are stuck with 2024 species I think you want a celestial.

IMO if done this way it can be one of the strongest "Martial Classes" and probably the strongest martial class if you are looking across all 3 pillars, but it is not one of the strongest characters when it comes to martial combat.

Cause feat as a lvl 1 spell?

 

[Zardnaar]

It’s also not a non-spellcasting ranger. It’s a very lightly wilderness-themed rogue.

Between that and fighter you essentially have a striker which is more or less the 4E ranger. It was a good striker terrible ranger.

 

[mellored]

It’s also not a non-spellcasting ranger. It’s a very lightly wilderness-themed rogue.

And yet, every time I ask people to define a non-magical ranger, they end up describing a wilderness themed fighter/ rogue.