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

[Incenjucar]

Ya know, this is a crazy thought, because we are only talking about professionals with decades of experience with their craft and massive amounts of data on their audience... but they could have been right too. Like, they could have actually been correct that the system they were working on was getting too complicated to be reasonable to include. That's also a possibility.

Too bad those "decades of experience" didn't give them the skill to make simpler rules!

 

[Rocker26a]

Thinking about it... I think Rangers are the generic one's here. Phrasing, to explain, Clerics draw on divine power (generic) whereas Paladins draw on divine power, or on their oaths, but it is fully this fervor and belief that drives paladins (specific)

I think Rangers are the generic ones in this relationship. They draw on natural, primal magic. Maybe from a wide variety of sources and being a general "spirit friend". Meanwhile, Druids go through a specific style of ritual to bind their soul to the forces of the natural world. The specifics of the ritual might change, but all Druids are bound to the power of the planet they are on. This explains why every single druid can turn into animals.

This also sort of makes sense meta-textually. Clerics serve many different gods and have many different powers, but Druids ALL serve "Nature" and mostly have the same powers, their only differences coming from which ASPECT of nature they are particularly embodying. Paladins become more specific because every paladin has a unique drive of morals and goals, seperate from any god or divine power, paladins are in general highly unique individuals. Rangers though are the more generic group, covering a wide range of abilities and motivations.

Sure, I think that makes a degree of sense. Rangers being the Generalist to the Druid's Specialist, contrary to what you might assume.

It's frustrating how decidedly uncool these descriptions are, regardless of accuracy. "The generic ones", "lack of dedication", these are not flattering.

 

[Horwath]

I think where this misses the point is easiest explained with a recent conversation I had.

I have a new job, found some people to eat lunch with, and one them mentioned they wanted to get into DnD but they weren't sure what class to pick.

Do you think it is more reasonable to present and talk about 13 options, or 65 options, over a short lunch conversation? Do you honestly think you could reasonably present and discuss 65 different options and their pros and cons in anything resembling a quick conversation?

then you do your job as an experienced player.

Ask them what kind of character new player wants to play and help build it.

its not that hard.

We had a new player for our last campaign.

Started at level 5.
Not a good level for new players, I know...

But, even though she admitted later that the character was a little too much for her as a new player, it was pretty good. Better job than I would do as a noob player.
What character?:

Tiefling aberrant mind sorcerer with Shadow touched and Fey touched feats(house rule; bonus 1st level feat).
That is 7 cantrips and 12 spells known. 6 of them have 1/day free casting.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Ya know, this is a crazy thought, because we are only talking about professionals with decades of experience with their craft and massive amounts of data on their audience... but they could have been right too. Like, they could have actually been correct that the system they were working on was getting too complicated to be reasonable to include. That's also a possibility.

And yet...

 

[Minigiant]

Ya know, this is a crazy thought, because we are only talking about professionals with decades of experience with their craft and massive amounts of data on their audience... but they could have been right too. Like, they could have actually been correct that the system they were working on was getting too complicated to be reasonable to include. That's also a possibility.

It is exactly what I said at the start if the thread.

An actual exploration subsystem would easily get complex. Meaning it would be in the DMG.
And no one reads the DMG.
And many tables skip mechanical exploration as is.

So if you tie the ranger to a subsystem in the DMG....

 

[Chaosmancer]

Too bad those "decades of experience" didn't give them the skill to make simpler rules!

Yeah, they should be more like Engineers, after all everyone knows that engineers who have a decade of expeirence never make a single mistake, right? Or coders, we all know if someone says they have been a coder for a decade then their second draft of a code never has a single mistake in it, no bugs ever!

Oh wait...

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sure, I think that makes a degree of sense. Rangers being the Generalist to the Druid's Specialist, contrary to what you might assume.

It's frustrating how decidedly uncool these descriptions are, regardless of accuracy. "The generic ones", "lack of dedication", these are not flattering.

I agree, but I find the same to be true of the Bard and to an extent the wizard.

 

[Chaosmancer]

then you do your job as an experienced player.

Ask them what kind of character new player wants to play and help build it.

its not that hard.

I did. They wanted to discuss their options. Do you think you could adequately discuss 65 options during a lunch conversation?

We had a new player for our last campaign.

Started at level 5.
Not a good level for new players, I know...

But, even though she admitted later that the character was a little too much for her as a new player, it was pretty good. Better job than I would do as a noob player.
What character?:

Tiefling aberrant mind sorcerer with Shadow touched and Fey touched feats(house rule; bonus 1st level feat).
That is 7 cantrips and 12 spells known. 6 of them have 1/day free casting.

Did you do that over lunch, with no capability to help her make the character?

Because I asked the lady at my lunch table two or three days later how it went... BECAUSE IT WASN'T MY GROUP SHE WAs JOINING.

Should we just assume that every group has an expeirenced player willing and able to spend multiple hours working them through all their options?

 

[Chaosmancer]

And yet...

People would rather insult and deride them as clearly incompetent based on nothing more than their assumption that the system could not possibly have been too complicated?

 

[Incenjucar]

People would rather insult and deride them as clearly incompetent based on nothing more than their assumption that the system could not possibly have been too complicated?

I fully believe that they are honest about coming up with a system that didn't work, I just wish they would come up with one that does.