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

[Reef]

Could be, but I suspect it's dissatisfaction with the particular ways they're having the Ranger use spells (i.e. instead of attacks/abilities) that's bleeding through. It's a much more extremely spellcast-y version than the PHB Ranger.

That's actually a very good point. I was thinking more about the current Ranger, not the playtest version. I can see where the changes there might be stirring up more vehemence.

 

[Minigiant]

That problem would have been solved with better companion rules, not making Trigger a faerie that isn't even around most of the time.

They even already fixed this 'problem' three times! Master of the Wild, That Complete Book I can't Remember the name of, Primal Power.

Edit: The best fix was just not make the companion a thing the DM can target or kill at all.

Sure.

But I still think a satisfying Beastmaster only comes as its own class.

But that is besides my point.
My point is almost no primary IP holder is going to rewrite the whole Ranger spell list as "not-spells".

Even those who have a spell-less ranger as a primary goal won't hit 25% of the ranger spells.

The best option to me is

1. A spellcasting Ranger Class
2. A spell-less nonmagical Strider class
3. A spell-less but magical Beastmaster class
4. A spellcasting Warden class
5. And no Seekers

 

[Vaalingrade]

My point is almost no primary IP holder is going to rewrite the whole Ranger spell list as "not-spells".

Good. Half the spell list is filler to justify it out as a full spell list anyway.

 

[Greg K]

I want the ranger as spell-less by default with a subclass option to cast spells.

 

[Minigiant]

Good. Half the spell list is filler to justify it out as a full spell list anyway.

Most of the spell list is as @Emberashh stated, a replacement of a lack of working complex skill system.

Most of it is justified to match the abilities of characters seen as iconic rangers. Aragorn healing a divination, Beastmaster's beast sight, Aquaman's summoning and best speech,

The 5e Core Spell list is one of the best Core lists as most of the spells are iconic character features or sensible tools and effects any survivalist or hunter would seek. Better that 2e and 3e where it's just low level druid stuff.

The spells themselves just suck.

That's always the problem. If no one is willing to give rangers good spells... sorrow for the sap who wants good not-spells

 

[Emberashh]

Based on 5e's sales number, I'm going to go out on a limb and say there are at least a couple of us.

If that isn't called an appeal to capitalism already, it should be.

That something sold well is not an indicator of the quality of any particularly aspect of it.

Especially when said something is constantly criticized for how poorly it does the very thing you're saying it should be praised for.

But please stop accusing me of not reading your posts, not understanding your posts, not discussing in good faith, trying to shut people up, or assuming my likes are everyone's likes, just because you and I don't agree.

You'll notice I quoted different people, and fact of the matter is, responding to someone explicitly saying that by doing skills this way, the Wilderness is not locked off to just one or two classes by then asserting that, by doing skills that way, I'll be locking off the Wilderness to one class is ignoring what I said.

You may not feel comfortable having this incongruence pointed out to you, but thats how cognitive dissonance works. Its normal to not feel good when you do it.

 

[Yaarel]

I want the ranger as spell-less by default with a subclass option to cast spells.

That is kinda my view of the Monk.

 

[Yaarel]

If the Fighter class splits into two classes, Knight and Skirmisher (Athlete!), then the Skirmisher (Athlete!) is both the spell-less Ranger and the spell-less Monk, and the swashbuckler, plus the Strength Rogue. Its subclasses can be any of these.

 

[Shardstone]

Words have meanings.

Not everything that is fantastical is magical in the same way not all rectangles are squares. You're essentially getting mad at people for disagreeing after you come in saying 'Pi is exactly 3'.

Magical elements belong to a larger group of fantastical elements. Fireball: Magic and Fantastical. Griffin: Just Fantastical.

Are you the type of person that if I bring up academic and peer reviewed evidence you'd be down to play or are you the type of person that if I start bringing up citations and stuff you'll just stop responding? Need to know before I start actually gathering resources to make my argument.

Note, your analogy doesn't fly with me. I strongly think that the definition of magic used by specifically by longterm D&D players is at odds with both literature (as in, fantasy and greater speculative literature), tradition, and a few fields of thought when it comes to genre theory etc etc. I think because of the definition longterm D&D players use, the ability to actually to create something that satisfies both parties (in this case, spellless ranger vs spell ranger) is hindered, but not actually impossible, just hindered.

 

[James Gasik]

So thinking about this, a lot of the problem still comes down to "what is a Ranger, anyways?".

Is Tarzan a Ranger? He can survive in the jungle with nothing but a loincloth, and has befriended many different animals, who he can call upon with his trademarked yodel. Is he a Barbarian skilled in survival and animal handling? Or is he summoning animals due to a primal connection with nature itself?

In a similar vein, The Beastmaster is basically a Barbarian who, again, can communicate with animals; an explicitly supernatural ability, but he doesn't cast spells.

And why should Rangers be better at survival and woodcraft than Druids anyways? Radagast the Brown probably knows his way around the woods just as well as Aragorn (or Beorn, for that matter). Heck, let's not forget Legolas is a Wood Elf, and likely is just as handy in the wild as anyone.

The Ranger hails from a time where we needed a specific class to play a type of character. You want to play Aragorn, here's the Ranger. You want to play Remo Williams, here's the Monk. Want to be Conan? Here's the Barbarian! But most fictional and folkloric characters are complex, and can be interpreted in different ways, so often, a given character could belong to several different classes.

For example, Drizzt Do'Urden in the books was basically a Fighter with survival skills for quite some time; he'd go on and on about his Ranger training, but the truth is, it was years before his author bothered to actually have him emulate the Ranger class (casting spells that weren't innate Drow magic or even picking up his favored enemy...and dispensing with the feature by overcoming his hatred in the same short story!).

Conan is a Barbarian, but we know he's also a Thief, which means all you need to be a Thief is the right skill set, no Rogue class required.

Robin Hood is either a Fighter or a Rogue. Hank the Ranger? He has a magic bow? And so on.

The point is, the current Ranger isn't a class that's based on anything in particular; it's occupying some conceptual Venn diagram between Barbarian*, Druid, and Rogue; a Frankenstein's Monster that has some elements of each, but with no solid identity.

*Or maybe it's a Chimera, with a Fighter head, a Barbarian head, a Druid head, and a Rogue tail, I dunno.

What the Ranger's problem is, really, isn't that it's a mashup of different ideas. It's that nothing about the class is greater than the sum of it's parts. What does the Ranger do that's unique? A couple of ribbon features that should be Background features or Feats? Heck, some of the Hunter subclass abilities should belong to the Fighter, if you think about it. What's a Ranger doing with Whirlwind Attack?

I voted for spells, btw, mostly because I realized you could cut off the Druid head of the beast, but that would actually manage to make it less unique (and it's not very unique to begin with, other than as a pure D&D-ism.