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

[Reef]

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.

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.

 

[le Redoutable]

Ben, Rangers are Druids+Scouts+??

 

[mellored]

A spell-less ranger is just a nature rouge subclass.

3: you gain Expertise in survival.
Hunters Mark: as a bonus action, you can select a target. You can deal sneak attack againt that target no matter the situation. You can only have 1 target at a time.
Terrain master: select one of the following
Forest: you immune to difficult terrain. When traveling your allies ignore difficult terrain.
Mountain: you gain a climb speed. When traveling, you and your allies can ignore cold weather.
Plains: your move speed is increased by 10'. Your and your allies mounts and vehicle can gallop for twice as long without being exhausted.
...

9: Improvemed Hunters Mark: you always know the location of your Hunters mark. It does not benefit from being invisible or obscured, but still benefits from cover. In addition, your sneak attack dice is increased to d8 when damaging your Hunters Mark

 

[Scott Christian]

A spelless wizard would just be a book nerd...

A few systems have done it well: the scholar comes to mind.

 

[Horwath]

It makes sense when you stop thinking "Spells" and start thinking "Powers" and realize 5e is just a mangled version of 4e where nearly all means of interacting with the game got renamed into a class and fiction specific nomenclature.

spells means spellcasting and that means spell components.

Nothing says guerrilla, stealth warrior as yelling your "powers" and flapping with hands like a drunk mime.

not to mention that all your "powers" can be counterspeled, dispeled, made useless with antimagic, and next to useless with creatures with spell resistance.

 

[nevin]

Simple question, do you prefer spell-less ranger or spellcasting ranger?

That is, if they could manage to make a decent spell-less ranger. They still need to make decent spellcasting ranger.

spell casting.

 

[Reef]

The same argument works against the idea that Rangers should have magic, fyi.

You are 100% correct. It could be used both ways. My only counter is that take away the ‘mystical’ Dunedain abilities, and you are left with basically a wilderness skilled fighter. There’s not enough meat there to justify an entirely new class. A subclass, maybe. But 1e didn’t do subclasses.

 

[Yaarel]

A "Ranger" can easily be a wilderness-loving background, that any class can take, even a Wizard.

Typically, the Ranger would synergize well with the Fighter and Rogue classes, but so many concepts are available: Druid, "Green Knight" Ancients Paladin, and so on.

 

[CreamCloud0]

One is the Animal Friendship spell, and the other is Conjure Animals.
EDIT: Or just a high DC Wisdom (Animal Handling) check.

I guess it’s a matter of degrees. Having a trained animal companion isn’t magic. Being able to whistle up animals to help like a Disney Princess is.
Obviously this all just my personal preference. But I just look at all the wilderness abilities and wonder why that just isn’t a use of the Survival skill. Or the Medicine skill, or Animal Handling, Etc. The Rogue Scout takes expertise in those, and to me you’re most of the way to Aragorn.

that's kind of my point, i shouldn't be needing to cast animal friendship to calm/befriend a deer or something as a ranger but i'd want something that's more baseline reliable than just an animal handling check on them, whereas manifesting an elemental spirit from the primal energies into a coherent form and controlling it is something that makes you think 'yeah that was something that justifiably needed magic to happen'.

there's a ton of 'ranger stuff' that i think should be reliably achievable without magic but which 5e opted to design as spells because it was easier, this is more a wider system issue that the ranger is a victim of though.

 

[Emberashh]

You are 100% correct. It could be used both ways. My only counter is that take away the ‘mystical’ Dunedain abilities, and you are left with basically a wilderness skilled fighter. There’s not enough meat there to justify an entirely new class. A subclass, maybe. But 1e didn’t do subclasses.

Thing is though that the things thematic to the Ranger aren't Dunedain abilities; only his lifespan is. Likewise, his skill as a healer is both a learned skill and a matter of prophecy (the returned King shall have the hands of a healer). These are the only strict things one could point at about Aragorn and say "he's magic", and they aren't tied to his Rangering.

And actual Ranger stuff does justify having it as an archtype, as theres more to the Ranger than just Aragorn. Theres also Faramir, Robin Hood, Will Treaty, and a host of others.

And thats before you start conflating stuff like Dar the Beastmaster or Geralt of Rivia with the archtype (both of which actually are their own archtypes in the Beastmaster and Monster Hunter respectively)