D&D (2024) What type of ranger would your prefer for 2024?

[Vaalingrade]

The ranger is a wilderness rogue with a free fighting style and terrible DM-dependent class features.

Someone already said it. It's true. we can just finally bury Aragorn's corpse in a shallow grave and move on by introducing a new class or resurrecting one of the MANY that got sacrificed.

 

[Mephista]

I agree to a certain extent. However, spellcasting components are a legitimate balancing factor for spell-casting classes. They can cast fireballs and divinations and alter reality in wats, but unless they have an ability saying they can cast those spells "subtly" (like sorcerers can), it is obvious that they are casting spells. It doesn't mean they are yelling and flapping their hands like a drunk muppet, but it is clear they are visibly (for Somatic) and audibly (for Verbal) casting a spell. No unheard whispers or hidden gestures. I allow absolutely no exceptions outside of accepted rules, which makes Sorcerers the go-to casters who want to be subtle in their spellcasting.

That said, I do have a house rule for the Silence spell. It no longer has a V component, and it has an additional optional function to choose from. Back in 2E there was a "Sound Bubble" spell that created a barrier that sound couldn't pass through. If someone wants to have a conversation or cast a spell without being overheard, they can surround themselves with the Sound Bubble option of the Silence spell. (I like giving spells bullet point options for flexibility, when they make sense to me.) As of UA6, it looks like Silence is only in the Divine and Primal spell lists, so it isn't available to Arcane Bards, interestingly.

There's a difference between subtly casting a spell so that no one knows you've just hit someone with a Suggestion, and someone who's hiding in a tree with a bow aiming a shot.

Like if you're in a conversation with someone, casting Suggestion is obvious because of the actions and accompanying words. I'm not arguing that. Sorcerers are, indeed, king of using subtle magic in social encounters.

But if someone is hiding in a tree, the Vocal component, as far as I can tell, doesn't have the drawback that it ruins stealth. Its drawback is that, if silenced somehow (either via Silence spell, a gag, or tongue cut out), you can't cast the spell with that component.

Context matters here. One is face to face socialite, one is a hunter hiding behind foliage that naturally dampen sound, aiming at someone at a distance and speaking in a normal volume of voice at the loudest.

 

[Emberashh]

And many of them do. Getting supernatural beings to do things for you is a well established thing we have mechanics and limits for that entire classes are based on. Undermining a good chunk of the game is not a good argument.

And I say that ignoring core book established differences is a cop out on your part.

See how just calling something a cop out is extremely unhelpful of an argument, just because someone disagrees with you?

I'm sensing a double standard.


Yes, yes you did. You are suggesting taking everything like Monster Hunter and Beast Master that's a key component of "Ranger" for many people out and moving them to later, separate classes so you can have a Ranger that fits your ideals.

Literally a spellcasting monster hunter would have the core book Ranger mechanics. Because that's a huge pillar of what makes the Ranger a Ranger. A hunter of monsters.

If you're going to continue to talk past me then I see little reason to respond further.

And how is not that just someone with a high Survival skill? Or if that isn’t a high Survival skill, what is a high Survival skill for?

And Survival as a skill needs to be split up; boiling down the entire concept of wilderess skills to a single binary pass/fail is not good game design and is a big reason why people such as yourself so deeply undervalue what others want out of these things.

The game frames these things in a way that completely obscures their value to you and rather than trust in those who recognize the value despite the games shoddy implementations, you would rather ignore what we tell you the value is.

There's no good reason any class shouldn't have fantastical abilities in the D&D baseline.

You're conflating fantastical with magical. They are not the same thing.

It always struck me that the reason 1E rangers could cast both magic-user and druid spells was because why wouldn't someone who is often a solo operator use all the tools at their disposal in a magical world?

The actual reason is because the mechanics to do Aragorn didn't exist when the class was homebrewed into existence, and no attempt was made after it became official until 5e to try to make bespoke mechanics.

 

[Reef]

There’s already Survival and Animal Handling. How much finer do you want it sliced? Do we have to go back to the days of Move Silently and Hide being discrete? Listen and Spot Hidden being separated skills?

At this point, you’re not asking for class changes, you are asking for an entirely new subsystem dealing with Wilderness, just so you can justify creating a class that’s only niche is dealing with it.

If you get your way, what do parties without a Ranger do to deal with all the Hunting, Tracking, Find Animal, Climb Trees, Hide in Wilderness, and Move Silently in Wilderness skill checks?

 

[Emberashh]

There’s already Survival and Animal Handling. How much finer do you want it sliced? Do we have to go back to the days of Move Silently and Hide being discrete? Listen and Spot Hidden being separated skills?

Pathfinding
Foraging
Tracking

Split out of Survival, with Survival itself covering camp-making and general wilderness knowledge (Nature poofs out of existence in a spasm of logic).

Meanwhile, Animal Handling and Herbalism take on their own forms as more elaborate crafting and taming mechanics get introduced that will be beneficial to a wide range of characters, not just Wilds focused ones (such as Rangers, Druids, Beastmasters, and Hedge Mages).

All of these steps are not only essential for delivering a mechanically defined and interesting to explore Wilderness, but also provide much the necessary steps to not make the Wilderness only for Wilds specific classes.

Those skills split out of Survival would be beneficial to a wider range of characters than just the Wilds specific ones, and more importantly it makes better logical sense as theres no reason someone skilled in only one of those skills would automatically be just as competant at the next. And in an even more ideal set up (like Ive created), even non-Wilds classes would have a good reason to, if nothing else, dabble in these skills, even Survival, because they get benefits from it that they'll want for the stuff they actually want to focus on (like better stats).

A novice alchemist rummaging in the woods for ingredients isn't going to be able to track down a wild animal, and likely isn't going to know much about navigating or staying alive in the woods than the bare minimum to not trip on a proverbial rock and die.

Likewise, a bounty hunter isn't going to know the good mushrooms from the bad ones just because he can track anybody through any terrain.

The Ship Captain can navigate like no others, but is worthless at trying to make a fire.

Etc etc.

(If it isn't obvious, this is all stuff Im doing for my own RPG and these are the reasons why Im doing it this way. DND isn't LNO, but that doesn't mean DND couldn't benefit from some actual effort in these areas for a change)

 

[le Redoutable]

Use Strict! ( i.e. Perl Programming Language )

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

You're conflating fantastical with magical. They are not the same thing.

The actual reason is because the mechanics to do Aragorn didn't exist when the class was homebrewed into existence, and no attempt was made after it became official until 5e to try to make bespoke mechanics.

Fantastical vs magical is just splitting hairs in 5E. 3E had magic, supernatural, extraordinary, etc, but 5E doesnt. It has magic and a couch potato's idea of what a guy at gym can do.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Pathfinding
Foraging
Tracking

LOL. Oh Hai Skill Bloat. What everyone loves, spending more character points to do the same thing as you could do before the new hyper niche skill was introduced. Lets split sneak into hide and move silently, perception into listen and spot, and athletics into swim, climb and jump while we're at it! Didnt think I'd see the day where someone claimed skills did too much in 5E!

5E's skills are big umbrellas. They should have leaned into the idea of different attributes for the same skills and done away with Acrobatics while they were at it. Want to tumble? Athletics (Dex). Want to know about a famous strongman? Athletics (Int).

 

[Emberashh]

Fantastical vs magical is just splitting hairs in 5E. 3E had magic, supernatural, extraordinary, etc, but 5E doesnt. It has magic and a couch potato's idea of what a guy at gym can do.

And in OneDND, that is not a circumstance that is set in stone as of yet.

Particularly in the context of a topic thats seeking out preferences, not a confirmation of what already exists.

 

[Reef]

Pathfinding
Foraging
Tracking

Split out of Survival, with Survival itself covering camp-making and general wilderness knowledge (Nature poofs out of existence in a spasm of logic).

Meanwhile, Animal Handling and Herbalism take on their own forms as more elaborate crafting and taming mechanics get introduced that will be beneficial to a wide range of characters, not just Wilds focused ones (such as Rangers, Druids, Beastmasters, and Hedge Mages).

All of these steps are not only essential for delivering a mechanically defined and interesting to explore Wilderness, but also provide much the necessary steps to not make the Wilderness only for Wilds specific classes.

Those skills split out of Survival would be beneficial to a wider range of characters than just the Wilds specific ones, and more importantly it makes better logical sense as theres no reason someone skilled in only one of those skills would automatically be just as competant at the next. And in an even more ideal set up (like Ive created), even non-Wilds classes would have a good reason to, if nothing else, dabble in these skills, even Survival, because they get benefits from it that they'll want for the stuff they actually want to focus on (like better stats).

A novice alchemist rummaging in the woods for ingredients isn't going to be able to track down a wild animal, and likely isn't going to know much about navigating or staying alive in the woods than the bare minimum to not trip on a proverbial rock and die.

Likewise, a bounty hunter isn't going to know the good mushrooms from the bad ones just because he can track anybody through any terrain.

The Ship Captain can navigate like no others, but is worthless at trying to make a fire.

Etc etc.

(If it isn't obvious, this is all stuff Im doing for my own RPG and these are the reasons why Im doing it this way. DND isn't LNO, but that doesn't mean DND couldn't benefit from some actual effort in these areas for a change)

@Emberashh, first off, I just wanted to say thank you taking the time to explain what you are looking for in that level of detail. I sincerely appreciate it.

It does show me that I was right, with the point this isn’t necessarily about the Ranger class for you. You’re looking for a whole Wilderness overhaul.

Personally, that’s not a level of detail I am looking for. I certainly don’t want a skill list any longer than it is now. The idea of separate crafting skills, or breaking Survival up any finer makes my eyes glaze over. I’m not looking for a camping simulator, although I accept some people are.

But even if they did go all the way and add the level of detail to those areas that you want, the Ranger would still be a problem. If the skills are critical, or the consequences of them are dire, the Ranger becomes essential. Or, if they aren’t that bad, the Ranger ends up being a ‘get out of jail free’ card that bypasses all that too easy.

In the old days, Rogues (or Thieves) were the only ones who could Find and Remove traps. So having one became critical in any dungeon that had traps. A party without one ate a lot of unnecessary damage, or the DM stopped using traps. 5e eliminated that issue by making trap finding skill/tool based, and not locking them behind one class. Sure, the Rogue might have Expertise, but another class could quite easily get the skill required not to need a Rogue. To my mind, this is excellent. It opens up party composition possibilities immensely.

What I think you’re asking for goes back to making one class necessary for an aspect of the game. Or requires that aspect to be avoidable enough that basing a whole class around those skills is questionable.

Anyway, while I disagree with you, I do appreciate you being willing to discuss it with me (us).