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

[Vael]

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

To be bluntly honest, not sure, don't care. LOTR is a lovely text, but it has had too much of a stranglehold on fantasy in general and DnD in particular, so whether Aragorn could be better created as a Ranger or a Fighter in 5e rules is not high on my to do list.

I guess Driz'zt is the Ranger we ought to be talking about but I've never clicked with Salvatore's writing so I actually haven't read his books.

 

[Clint_L]

I really, really don't care about my D&D characters emulating characters from a book or a movie or whatever. So the argument that a 5eD&D ranger doesn't resemble Aragorn, or even Driz'zt doesn't interest me (if anything, that would be a problem with Driz'zt).

What I want is for the 5e ranger to play well in the context of D&D. So when I look at the OneD&D ranger, that's what I am considering: does it have a clear niche? Is it balanced? Most of all, is it fun to play? I definitely am not considering whether it should have spells or not; that ship sailed a long time ago, and the premise of OneD&D is 5e with minor revisions. So why waste time on a hypothetical? If you want that big a change to the class, time to play another game. There are many options.

The general consensus in 2014 was that the 5e ranger was a slightly weaker class, but I think it has gone up in estimation since then, particularly post Tasha's. What could improve it? I think the exploration niche is weak but it has been beefed up, which is good. The class is still a bit too dependent on DM decisions and will be better in certain campaigns that others. I, for example, prefer to run more city-based adventures than do many DMs. The ranged attacker niche is not that strong, either, and easily taken by a rogue, a ranged fighter, or basically any spellcaster.

So I do think rangers probably need a bit more to make them stand out. IMO, the best ranger in 5e is a ranger/rogue multi-class. That shouldn't be the case.

 

[Yaarel]

To be bluntly honest, not sure, don't care. LOTR is a lovely text, but it has had too much of a stranglehold on fantasy in general and DnD in particular, so whether Aragorn could be better created as a Ranger or a Fighter in 5e rules is not high on my to do list.

I guess Driz'zt is the Ranger we ought to be talking about but I've never clicked with Salvatore's writing so I actually haven't read his books.

Drizzt is a fine Ranger, but his iconic stuff such as ambidexterity is because he is a Drow, and his animal companion is a magic item, and none of it comes from the Ranger class, per se.

 

[WanderingMystic]

Even though I personally would prefer a trick, knac, or herbalism themed ranger instead of a spell casting one I think one of the biggest problems is in half casters in general. With the exception of the paladin the power of the spells at the level you get them mean that they don't have much of an impact.

Gaining spells means that the ranger is loosing out on a third and fourth attack per round. Granting specific spells known that are only available to the ranger further makes that feeling of inatiqucy grow especially when those spells don't feel powerful enough if thematic enough.

My first ranger was lone wolf so lots of skill abilities and some magical abilities which felt more like a monks abilities. This mixing with potions, poisons and oils from Witcher is what I would love to see from a ranger. Add to that a minor pet like a falcon or wolf/hound and herbal healing and I would have the perfect ranger.

As a player and DM I am fine with refluffing, I can easily have my hunters mark be my pet attacking someone and dealing a bit of extra damage. I have good berries and cure wounds as a spell that I can say is just my herbal knowledge. I can even get spells like swift quiver, Conjure barrage and Conjure vollie for martial manuvers. I would prefer that they were just limited use abilities and not "spells" but the folks at DnD seem to be bing in turning abilities for spells. They say it helps balance them but since they are being granted at a sometimes vastly higher level or have more uses they just don't end up feeling like they are really worth it.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

I think the core of the Ranger is combination of Civilized Martial and Wild Magic.
The Sword covered in Primal Fire.
The Keen Eye guided by an Magic Mark.
The flank of Hank axes and shark's teeth.
Healer's Hands guiding Nature's herbs.
A green cloak in brown oak.

I mean the iconic trope of the druid and ranger scouting is the druid turns into mouse and scouts the hobgoblin barracks wheare as the ranger summons a mouse and sees through the mouses eyes and ears.

The D&D Ranger isn't just one version of the Nature Warrior or the Hunter but all of them. They get to choose between the powers of Aragorn, Aquaman, John Show, Geralt, Dar, Tarzan, Rexxar, Wolverine, Thing, Terra, Toph, or Swamp Thing

 

[Umbran]

1984 called that doublespeak.

Cmon man. Are you a troll?

Mod Note:
Folks, it is time for both of you to tone down the rhetoric. Both of these statements sure look like they are more intended to raise ire than communicate. Intentionally raising ire is not acceptable.

So, find a more constructive way to engage with each other, or disengage, please and thanks.

 

[Vael]

Even though I personally would prefer a trick, knac, or herbalism themed ranger instead of a spell casting one I think one of the biggest problems is in half casters in general. With the exception of the paladin the power of the spells at the level you get them mean that they don't have much of an impact.

True, the half casting progression does feel limiting. Now, for Paladins and Rangers, I don't mind it too much, but it's a big problem I have with the Artificer.

 

[Clint_L]

Half-casters in general could use a way to better scale their spells by integrating them with their other abilities - as noted above paladins have this through the simple but effective smite mechanic, but other half-casters don't. For instance, an artificer should be able to directly use spell slots to directly power-up their steel defender, cannons, armour, or whatever. Similarly, ranger spells should more directly integrate with their attacks or other abilities, or those of their companion.

 

[WanderingMystic]

True, the half casting progression does feel limiting. Now, for Paladins and Rangers, I don't mind it too much, but it's a big problem I have with the Artificer.

Im playing an Artilerist artifcer right now and still just cast cantrips most of the time. My warlock who never used more than 1 spell per combat besides cantrips has felt more useful than my artifice.

As far as paladins go you are mainly casting a buff spell and then just using smite spells so everything is boosting your martial attacks. With the paladin you are not sacrificing making two sword attacks so you can cast a spell that is just so so. Rangers have hunters mark which is an amazing buff spell how ever your other combat spells in general don't work with that. The other group of combat spells your ranger has don't work with your two attacks, magical weapons or sub class abilities.

The ranger has their hunter marks and then will be using their spells for some of the utility or Healing abilities but the combat spells just seem to fall short.

 

[WanderingMystic]

For instance, an artificer should be able to directly use spell slots to directly power-up their steel defender, cannons, armour, or whatever. Similarly, ranger spells should more directly integrate with their attacks or other abilities, or those of their companion.

God yes, this would be amazing to artificers and Rangers, this would make them feel more useful and thematic instead of feeling disjointed and priced togeather.

Honestly I would love more of a tie in with sorceress subclass and how their spells are a reflection of their main theme or a bard who could use spell slots to boost their inspiration