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

[Charlaquin]

Really, it comes down to WOTC deciding that just like there is a half-caster divine caster in between Fighter and Cleric (Paladin), there should be a half-caster primal caster in between Fighter and Druid. Which makes a lot of sense for game reasons (to me).

The problem seems to be, that due to legacy reasons, this class is called a Ranger. I sometimes think that if they just dropped Ranger altogether and called this class a Warden or some such, none of this would be an issue.

Yep, which is why I’ve accepted that the 5e ranger is just the nature Paladin. It’s not the class I want “ranger” to be, but it’s not an unreasonable class to have in the game.

But Rangers have had access to magic since 1e. Granted, they have more now, but practically every caster does. All this clamouring for a non-magical Ranger is asking for a version of the class that has practically never existed.

A class not having existed before is a terrible reason not to make one now. Also, that version of the ranger has existed, so even that terrible reason shouldn’t stop them from making it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Honestly other than being called a ranger and his tracking skills Aragorn has nothing else that ties him to 1st ed ranger. Only because Gandalf called him a ranger does he even get included in the discussions.

Aragorn gets included in ranger discussions because the class was originally created specifically to allow a player to play a character who was like Aragorn. We can argue about whether or not the execution of that concept was sound, (and I think we can all agree that the modern incarnation of the class bears basically no resemblance to Aragorn), but it was the original intent.

 

[Charlaquin]

No, I’ve just never seen anyone come up with an example of a magic-less ranger in fiction that justified a class. Like I said, Robin Hood? How is that a Ranger?

What is a Ranger to you? What does it need (that isn’t mystical) in order for it not to be a scout, or a dex fighter? What woodland ability does it need that isn’t covered in a high Survival or Animal Handling skill. And what do you use those skills for, if not the things that people seem to want a magic-less Ranger to do?

The “not mystical” provision is the problem here. The fictional ranger is mystical, they just aren’t a spellcaster.

 

[Charlaquin]

You forgot the "for me" in there, friend. You may come from that perspective but its far from universal, and its not certainly not true going by the book. Divine miracles and primal spirit invocations feel vastly different from a more academic manipulation of raw magic.

All spells are not the same.

Except they are, literally, the same. The only thing that’s different about them is how they learn/prepare the spells, but the function of spells is the same regardless of who casts them. Sure, you can describe your spells differently if you want, but that’s just fluff. The actual gameplay is identical.

 

[Incenjucar]

Having a swim speed equal to your walking speed is very much not possible for a human being, for example.

 

[Charlaquin]

From my experience

A spell-less ranger is never agreed on of what it can do by more that 20% of those asking for it.

And many mostly would be happy with or just want to play a fighter/rogue multiclass.

So a spellcasting ranger is the best ranger for the core D&D ranger.

Then maybe an alternative fightery roguish class of another name in a future book.

Except literally everyone who says they want a spelless ranger also says that a fighter or rogue with some nature skills doesn’t satisfy what they want from a spelless ranger. So, no, they would clearly not be happy with just a fighter/rogue multiclass. If they would, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

If you want to be that hostile and dismissive, I can counter that after a point you may as well take this logic to its natural conclusion and reduce skills down to a single on/off button.

And it is funny though to throw around "hyper-niche" like I didn't list 3 examples off the top of my head of characters that would benefit from not being inundated with things that have nothing to do with what they should be good at.

You call it skill bloat, but thats just a consequence of the cruddy, shallow skill system 5e uses that you're taking as a given rather than something thats just as much worthy of replacing as anything else.

I feel bad for the character who takes the foraging skill. Like... do you even goodberry? All of the exploration ribbons that the ranger does is handwaived by magic anyways to get to the fireworks factory rather than dealing with counting sticks, bars of hard tack, etc. People like to pretend torch counting mattered in old school, but continual light was a 2nd level spell. Purify Food and Drink was 1st level, allowing you to eat basically anything. Goodberry was 2nd level, as was Rope Trick, the "players demand a rest now" spell. Gold and magic items rained from the sky even in 1e/2e by the treasure table rules (and published adventures). The dirt farmer grubbing coppers to buy a lantern was a myth by the rules and official adventures. We could strip all the magic out to let the ranger shine at scavenging, but scutwork isn't an exciting niche for most people. There ARE games that focus on that, but D&D hasn't really for a long time (and I'd argue never really did past level 1 or 2).

I think a better area of focus would be on using terrain in interesting ways, ambushes, countering monster abilities and creating/exploiting weaknesses.

The skill system is shallow because there aren't mythic/legendary applications of skills, and only binary pass/fail, not because skills arent broken up into even more options for people to pick something the DM never calls for. Hell, even modern Call of Cthulhu has better skill rules, with degrees of success and pushing rolls which introduces "success with consequence".

 

[Horwath]

Phelps swam at almost 10 kph and 14 kph with monofin

Having a swim speed equal to your walking speed is very much not possible for a human being, for example.

 

[Incenjucar]

Phelps swam at almost 10 kph and 14 kph with monofin

And Bolt reached a top running speed of 43.99 kph with shoes.

 

[Minigiant]

If the spelless ranger was just a wilderness warrior, sure. But the ranger should be more than that. They’re a survivalist, a tracker, an ambusher, a monster hunter… And they should be preternaturally capable of all those things.

Ultimately I think this comes down to the same fundamental point of disagreement as any casters vs. martials argument does: should it be possible to exceed mundane limits without casting spells? If no, obviously the ranger should cast spells. If yes, then doing so without casting spells is going to be more thematically appropriate for the ranger.

I don't really think that's the issue at all.

To me it really comes down to...

Designing the 20-45 iconic Rangery effects
Or
Reusing the 20-45 spells that already exist in the game that are similar to the iconic Rangery effects.

It's the same reason why druids wild shape into the same animals in the PHB & DMG.

Martial limits is not a real factor. It's page length.