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

[Shardstone]

Now, I know I've been talking a lot of smack about the idea, but what about a truly martial Ranger that does something like this?

A Ranger that gains access to new Actions and shares them with their allies is the core idea. Essentially, the Ranger's knowledge opens up new ways of doing things, focused mainly on exploration firstly and combat secondly (this coming through their subclass, to match the current subclass-focused power budget). For example, depending on your terrain (keeping the fact you can have multiple at a time), you can have [bonus] actions (ambuscade, escaping restraints without rolling, attacking every creature in a cone) or passives (blindsight, ignore difficult terrain, dig speed) or even reactions (evasion, interrupting enemy spells, preventing poison and avoiding the saving throw) that you enjoy and grant to your party.

This makes the Ranger a character that's focused on knowledge, using that knowledge (wisdom) to help others, and reflects the eclectic information base rangers tend to have. It also gives them a unique martial-support angle that the game doesn't really support beyond Paladin auras right now. And, you can add magi-- sorry, fantastical abilities to the bonus abilities so you can have options to opt into a more...m-m-m-magical ranger.

A design like this would take a good bit of testing, but I don't see why it couldn't be made to work. You basically would have packages of abilities/kits and you choose the kits you wanna give to your team. Also gives you the vibe of making your party into a makeshift band of rangers, which I think is a VIBE.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

I am the type that will respond derisively at the idea of going to cherry pick the internet for 'peer reviewed' studies to 'prove' fantastic is the same thing as magical followed immediately by hedging like:

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.

 

[Shardstone]

I am the type that will respond derisively at the idea of going to cherry pick the internet for 'peer reviewed' studies to 'prove' fantastic is the same thing as magical followed immediately by hedging like:

Ah cmon man, it woulda been fun. Maybe another time.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Ah cmon man, it woulda been fun. Maybe another time.

I remember my days of doing research to fight on the internet. That time has passed me by. Go enjoy Twitter while you still can.

 

[Shardstone]

The mantle passes down generation by generation...

 

[Vael]

At this point DnD is a genre unto itself, which to me means a DnD Ranger is a spellcaster. Sorry Aragorn. I'm not against trying other things, but the UA with the spell-less Ranger was not it and I don't know if it's worth making another attempt for the 2024 PHB.

That said ... I do hope that we see more classes after the 2024 PHB, and some non-magical ones

 

[Yaarel]

At this point DnD is a genre unto itself, which to me means a DnD Ranger is a spellcaster. Sorry Aragorn. I'm not against trying other things, but the UA with the spell-less Ranger was not it and I don't know if it's worth making another attempt for the 2024 PHB.

That said ... I do hope that we see more classes after the 2024 PHB, and some non-magical ones

Out of curiosity, what can Aragorn do that the 5e Fighter cant?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

And what's particularly sad is pop-culture is absolutely chock-full of characters who are inspirations for a potential Ranger, but D&D's lead designers, who are, frankly, hopelessly out-of-touch culturally.

As I've said before, the easiest modern example of a Ranger is Katniss Everdeen. Stealthy, careful, woodwise huntress, using all sorts of "nature tricks", who is also tactically adept. Again as I've noted before, her story is in many ways very similar to that of Aragorn, particularly with both becoming somewhat unwilling leaders. She should be easy to model with a D&D Ranger, instead she's impossible (and a poor fit for Rogue or Fighter too).

At this point DnD is a genre unto itself

That's exactly how you vanish up your own arse and become culturally irrelevant though, especially when you're "the" fantasy RPG, and still selling yourself on the basis that you offer the full breadth of "class fantasies".

D&D isn't succeeding because it's "different from other fantasy" or "its own kind of fantasy". It's succeeding because it's still kind of in the middle ground, the meeting point, of a bunch of fantasy. But current leadership and the fact that 5E is based on the "apology edition" is unfortunately kind of dragging it towards the "own arse" event horizon, as it were. It's still a distance off yet, but I could see it getting there.

To put it another way, 5E's designers are in danger of turning D&D into almost a fantasy heartbreaker by failing to change with the times

 

[Shardstone]

And what's particularly sad is pop-culture is absolutely chock-full of characters who are inspirations for a potential Ranger, but D&D's lead designers, who are, frankly, hopelessly out-of-touch culturally.

As I've said before, the easiest modern example of a Ranger is Katniss Everdeen. Stealthy, careful, woodwise huntress, using all sorts of "nature tricks", who is also tactically adept. Again as I've noted before, her story is in many ways very similar to that of Aragorn, particularly with both becoming somewhat unwilling leaders. She should be easy to model with a D&D Ranger, instead she's impossible (and a poor fit for Rogue or Fighter too).


That's exactly how you vanish up your own arse and become culturally irrelevant though, especially when you're "the" fantasy RPG, and still selling yourself on the basis that you offer the full breadth of "class fantasies".

D&D isn't succeeding because it's "different from other fantasy" or "its own kind of fantasy". It's succeeding because it's still kind of in the middle ground, the meeting point, of a bunch of fantasy. But current leadership and the fact that 5E is based on the "apology edition" is unfortunately kind of dragging it towards the "own arse" event horizon, as it were. It's still a distance off yet, but I could see it getting there.

To put it another way, 5E's designers are in danger of turning D&D into almost a fantasy heartbreaker by failing to change with the times

I think the culture analysis is very valid when it comes to D&D. There is a definite lack of modern day fantasy ideas in D&D and integrating them IMO would only make the game better.

Let's get a mana pool.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Out of curiosity, what can Aragorn do that the 5e Fighter cant?

Succeed reliably at skills, but that's a universal issue.