D&D (2024) The Lackluster Ranger

[Rushbolt]

just add that ranger auto-succeed on DC20 or lower for checks involving climbing and swimming.

I wouldn't argue with that either.

 

[ezo]

Not very familiar with the 2024 Ranger (big shock, I know!) but IMO more of the issue comes when other classes can do what a Ranger can do already. The Scout Rogue is a primary example.

Differentiating the Ranger from Fighter and Rogue through its features is key in my mind for making it more distinct, even if similar. For instance, Rogue might have Expertise in Stealth while a Ranger does not, but via Natural Explorer the Ranger should have advantage on Stealth checks in favored terrain.

But then you have the issue of the Ranger gaining Expertise via a feat or multiclass or whatever, and now you can have a Ranger as good as the Rogue in Stealth, but better in some terrain due to advantage. Yet, then the Rogue strikes back with Reliable Talent to have a floor of 10+ bonus, which the Ranger (even with advantage) will roll under over 20% of the time.

IMO a Rogue should generally be at some sort of disadvantage in the wild, while the Ranger would be weaker in more "urban" settings.

Concerning the spellcasting / spell-like "magical" / and non-magic Ranger:

I am not a fan of the spellcasting Ranger, but can get on-board with the "magical" Ranger to a point. I don't want them to actually have magical powers, but to be SO GOOD at what they can to to seem magical is fine. Certain skills should be theirs by default, and they should be very good at those skills. In combat, they should excel against favored foes, but the generic "mark" ability for a damage boost is lackluster to me.

I know my ideal Ranger would differ greatly from what others would prefer, but I do feel like we should nail down precisely what it means to be a Ranger and how that differs from other classes, such as Fighter and Rogue. If we cannot agree on at least that, HOW we get to those features and abilities that makes the Ranger more distinct really doesn't matter.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I actually think the level 6 ability Roving is a perfect example of the design issues that are tanking this class. It appears to make the Ranger amazing at climbing. Then you playtest it with any Ranger build that didn't take Athletics/boost Strength, and to be honest that's going to probably well over half of them in my estimation, and you realize the DC 15 check that is given as an option to represent a difficult to climb surface in the rules glossary basically nullifies the feature because the Ranger has less than a 50 percent check to even make the ability check required to move on that surface. Worse yet, it means they fall off much more often than characters that focus on Strength and take Athletics as a skill. This is your King of exploration class. I have no idea why advantage on Climb and Swim checks was not included in this ability. It just makes me feel this class was not playtested at all.

correct me if i'm wrong but i always assumed having a climb or swim speed bypassed any need to make a check for performing those activities? it's a movespeed, that was it's point, you don't need to 'attempt' to climb you just do

 

[RoughCoronet0]

correct me if i'm wrong but i always assumed having a climb or swim speed bypassed any need to make a check for performing those activities? it's a movespeed, that was it's point, you don't need to 'attempt' to climb you just do

That was my assumption as well.

 

[Ashrym]

I actually think the level 6 ability Roving is a perfect example of the design issues that are tanking this class. It appears to make the Ranger amazing at climbing. Then you playtest it with any Ranger build that didn't take Athletics/boost Strength, and to be honest that's going to probably well over half of them in my estimation, and you realize the DC 15 check that is given as an option to represent a difficult to climb surface in the rules glossary basically nullifies the feature because the Ranger has less than a 50 percent check to even make the ability check required to move on that surface. Worse yet, it means they fall off much more often than characters that focus on Strength and take Athletics as a skill. This is your King of exploration class. I have no idea why advantage on Climb and Swim checks was not included in this ability. It just makes me feel this class was not playtested at all.

Rangers are amazing climbers and swimmers with the roving feature. The don't have to pay the extra cost of movement and qualify as "with a swim speed" or "with a climb speed" so they don't have disadvantage with weapons fighting underwater or make CON saves against exhaustion in deep water as examples of other benefits.

Being at home any environment with limited resources requires incredible mental fortitude. The Ranger should absolutely be a martial with a high ability to resist mind-controlling spells. They should be at the top with the Monk. This would indicate proficiency in WIS saves initially, not DEX. This also fixes one glaring issue in consistency because right now the Ranger is the only spellcaster not proficient in the saves that match it's spellcasting ability modifier. This is step one in fixing the class, but backwards compatibility probably shot this idea down if the designers considered it during playesting. We're stuck with this mistake because it was made ten years ago. Just flip WIS saves to class creation and provide DEX saves early in tier two when the Paladin gets to boost all it's saves. You have the Gloom Stalker ability Iron Mind just do INT or CHA since the Ranger already has WIS saves. I didn't break the class there at all as I changed very little. But it sure plays differently now.

Oh, and I don't like the Monk saving throw setup either. I understand that DEX and WIS at level one would be unbalancing, but I absolutely think the Ranger and Monk should lead off with WIS saves and gain DEX saves as part of their class features early in tier two as the Paladin basically gets to boost all their saves at level six.

That mental fortitude is inherent to the WIS focus of the class. The "need to be top" is subjective opinion that I think needs better validation. Good at doesn't necessitate best at.

correct me if i'm wrong but i always assumed having a climb or swim speed bypassed any need to make a check for performing those activities?

That's at the discretion of the DM.

Edit adding a pit trap example.

Hidden Pit​

Nuisance Trap (Levels 1–4)

Trigger: A creature moves onto the pit’s lid
Duration: Instantaneous
This 10-foot-deep pit has a hinged lid constructed from material identical to the surrounding floor. When a creature moves onto the lid, it swings open like a trapdoor, causing the creature to fall into the pit. The lid remains open thereafter.

A creature that falls into the pit takes 3 (1d6) Bludgeoning damage from the fall.

Detect and Disarm. As a Study action, a creature can examine the section of floor that forms the pit’s lid and make a DC 15 Intelligence (Investigation) check, detecting the pit on a successful check. Once the pit is detected, an Iron Spike or a similar object can be wedged between the pit’s lid and the surrounding floor to prevent the lid from opening, thereby making it safe to cross. The cover can also be held shut using Arcane Lock or similar magic.

Escape. A creature needs a Climb Speed, climbing gear, or magic such as Spider Climb to scale the pit’s smooth walls. (You can make the pit easier to escape by adding cracks in the walls big enough to serve as handholds and footholds.)

 

[James Gasik]

correct me if i'm wrong but i always assumed having a climb or swim speed bypassed any need to make a check for performing those activities? it's a movespeed, that was it's point, you don't need to 'attempt' to climb you just do

So this is what the rules say about it:

Climbing, Swimming, and Crawling​

While climbing or swimming, each foot of movement costs 1 extra foot (2 extra feet in difficult terrain), unless a creature has a climbing or swimming speed. At the GM’s option, climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds requires a successful Strength (Athletics) check. Similarly, gaining any distance in rough water might require a successful Strength (Athletics) check.

Normally, one doesn't need to make rolls to climb or swim at all, and all the speed does is let you ignore the movement reduction. But the GM can always ask for a check to climb or swim in adverse conditions- having a special movement speed does not exempt you from this.

 

[ECMO3]

correct me if i'm wrong but i always assumed having a climb or swim speed bypassed any need to make a check for performing those activities? it's a movespeed, that was it's point, you don't need to 'attempt' to climb you just do

Generally yes. Also WRT the swim speed it lets you use whatever weapons you want without disadvantage.

 

[Ashrym]

Not very familiar with the 2024 Ranger (big shock, I know!) but IMO more of the issue comes when other classes can do what a Ranger can do already. The Scout Rogue is a primary example.

The scout rogue can't do what the ranger does, and we're comparing a subclass to a class at that point. A fey wanderer can do a lot. ;-)

Differentiating the Ranger from Fighter and Rogue through its features is key in my mind for making it more distinct, even if similar. For instance, Rogue might have Expertise in Stealth while a Ranger does not, but via Natural Explorer the Ranger should have advantage on Stealth checks in favored terrain.

Deft explorer allows the ranger to take expertise in stealth. 2024 rangers gain expertise in 3 skills instead of the 4 bards or rogues gain, but pass without trace makes that moot. It's 15 DC to hide and perception isn't great on most monsters so DEX bonus + proficiency bonus + spell bonus is plenty without expertise.

2014 and 2024 rangers are great at stealth. I think the point of contention is using magic to supplement it.

But then you have the issue of the Ranger gaining Expertise via a feat or multiclass or whatever, and now you can have a Ranger as good as the Rogue in Stealth, but better in some terrain due to advantage. Yet, then the Rogue strikes back with Reliable Talent to have a floor of 10+ bonus, which the Ranger (even with advantage) will roll under over 20% of the time.

2024 rangers don't need a feat or multiclass for expertise, and the +10 bonus from pass without trace is better than the minimum roll from reliable talent.

IMO a Rogue should generally be at some sort of disadvantage in the wild, while the Ranger would be weaker in more "urban" settings.

Access to proficiency in the survival skill gives rangers an advantage in the wilderness rogues don't have.

Add roving (movement benefits), tireless (removes exhaustion; often caused by environmental factors), and several nature oriented spells. They can also choose druidic warrior instead of a fighting style.

Concerning the spellcasting / spell-like "magical" / and non-magic Ranger:

I am not a fan of the spellcasting Ranger, but can get on-board with the "magical" Ranger to a point. I don't want them to actually have magical powers, but to be SO GOOD at what they can to to seem magical is fine. Certain skills should be theirs by default, and they should be very good at those skills. In combat, they should excel against favored foes, but the generic "mark" ability for a damage boost is lackluster to me.

I know my ideal Ranger would differ greatly from what others would prefer, but I do feel like we should nail down precisely what it means to be a Ranger and how that differs from other classes, such as Fighter and Rogue. If we cannot agree on at least that, HOW we get to those features and abilities that makes the Ranger more distinct really doesn't matter.

This where arguments appear. Not everyone likes the spellcasting and not everyone wants to get rid of the spellcasting. What we have in both cases is still going to be spellcasting at this point so that preference becomes moot outside of 3PP and homebrew.

I am a fan of adding more ranger specific spells including more marking spells, and changing favored enemy to be a selection of one of the marking spells as a way to improve the class. Without getting carried away on OP spells. ;-)

 

[ezo]

The scout rogue can't do what the ranger does, and we're comparing a subclass to a class at that point. A fey wanderer can do a lot. ;-)

The point was the Scout Rogue steps on the toes of the Ranger, weakening its role and position in the game.

Deft explorer allows the ranger to take expertise in stealth. 2024 rangers gain expertise in 3 skills instead of the 4 bards or rogues gain, but pass without trace makes that moot. It's 15 DC to hide and perception isn't great on most monsters so DEX bonus + proficiency bonus + spell bonus is plenty without expertise.

Granting the class expertise is not the right thing IMO. Everyone has expertise, then what makes the Rogue special?

Again, giving the toys of one or two classes (Bards should not have it, either IMO!) is a big no-no and poor design.

2014 and 2024 rangers are great at stealth. I think the point of contention is using magic to supplement it.

2014 isn't that great at stealth without magic IME, but they should have been.

2024 rangers don't need a feat or multiclass for expertise, and the +10 bonus from pass without trace is better than the minimum roll from reliable talent.

See the points above. Don't give everyone expertise, magic should not be the equilizer IMO.

Access to proficiency in the survival skill gives rangers an advantage in the wilderness rogues don't have.

Add roving (movement benefits), tireless (removes exhaustion; often caused by environmental factors), and several nature oriented spells. They can also choose druidic warrior instead of a fighting style.

Rogues can easily get Survival via background, so that is not a big deal.

The other features should help certainly, but with Rogues getting Reliable Talent at 7th level now... And of course with Cunning Action in combat Rogues can still move further than the Ranger??

This where arguments appear. Not everyone likes the spellcasting and not everyone wants to get rid of the spellcasting. What we have in both cases is still going to be spellcasting at this point so that preference becomes moot outside of 3PP and homebrew.

Yep. Non-spellcasting "magical" Rangers are the middle-ground IMO.

I am a fan of adding more ranger specific spells including more marking spells, and changing favored enemy to be a selection of one of the marking spells as a way to improve the class. Without getting carried away on OP spells. ;-)

To each their own--as seems to be the case with Ranger lol.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

having a special movement speed does not exempt you from this

That might be technically true if we interpret the lack of a direct reference to it exempting creatures with such speeds, but I think it's fair to say about 90% of tables do generally run it that way, including, I strongly suspect, the tables of the D&D designers.

I think that you could call for such a roll but it'd be in extremely exceptional circumstances, just like you might call for an athletics or acrobatics check in exceptionally high winds for a flyer, but would probably have a lower threshold for asking for rolls from someone in a hang-glider. Like, someone trying to swim with no swim speed in normal rapids would probably be asked for an Athletics check by most DMs, but I really think few DMs would call for the same for a being with a swim speed. And I suspect different DCs would be offered to someone with no swim speed trying to swim in 10ft waves in an ocean storm and someone with a 30ft swim speed in the same.