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

[WanderingMystic]

This is exactly the point I was trying to get across yesterday. Rangers have always been magical in D&D. This isn’t so much an attempt to fix them, as it is to change them into something they’ve never been.

And look at what’s been suggested as needed in order to ‘fix’ them:

1. New wilderness rules in the DMG (I’ve seen around 10 pages worth suggested)

3. Overhaul of the skill system to create more specialized skills and crafting.

So as far as I am concerned the need to implement a better more robust rules for crafting and skills onto of a more fleshed out rules for the exploration pillar of DnD is separate from the ranger. Crafting is a big part of a lot of other ttrpgs as well as video game RPGs, it also had some ok rules in other editions and it's has always felt like a side note at best if not just ignored in 5e.
Exploration is supposed to be one of the three pillars of gameplay and is mostly handwaved by 5e to the point hat we have tgames like Level Up and companies like Cubicle 7 treating complete 5e systems due to the lack of one in the core game.

The ranger as i just so happens could highly benefit from both, coupled with the fact that their higher level spells don't seem to be all that worth while by the time you get them or compleatly cooperate with other class abilities instead of synergizing with them is what bothers me.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think5e rangers are spellcasters because that has always been part of the D&D ranger so it has a history going back 45 years, has a lot of fans, and works, though like most things there could be improvement (i.e. better integration between spells and attacks, IMO).

5e rangers are spellcasters because way back in the very first days of the D&D Next project, before playtesting had even started, WotC ran several polls about what elements people thought were essential to each of the core classes. One of these polls was regarding the ranger and spells, and IIRC had options for “the ranger should not cast spells,” “the ranger should cast spells,” and “the ranger should cast some spells, but only a few and only at at high levels.” I actually voted for a few spells at high levels, but I’m pretty sure that was the least popular option; people who wanted no spells obviously didn’t like it because it some spells is more than no spells, and people who did want spells didn’t like it because if you only get a few spells at high level, they won’t be of any use anyway.

From what I remember, spells won by like 2/3, but it was a long time ago so my memory of the numbers is probably not accurate. Regardless, at the time more people wanted spells than not, but there was still enough desire for no spells that they at least tried spelless ranger twice in Unearthed Arcana. Predictably, people didn’t like the specific execution of the concept so WotC dropped the concept entirely. Like they do.

 

[Reef]

So as far as I am concerned the need to implement a better more robust rules for crafting and skills onto of a more fleshed out rules for the exploration pillar of DnD is separate from the ranger. Crafting is a big part of a lot of other ttrpgs as well as video game RPGs, it also had some ok rules in other editions and it's has always felt like a side note at best if not just ignored in 5e.
Exploration is supposed to be one of the three pillars of gameplay and is mostly handwaved by 5e to the point hat we have tgames like Level Up and companies like Cubicle 7 treating complete 5e systems due to the lack of one in the core game.

The ranger as i just so happens could highly benefit from both, coupled with the fact that their higher level spells don't seem to be all that worth while by the time you get them or compleatly cooperate with other class abilities instead of synergizing with them is what bothers me.

I certainly wouldn’t mind some more robust crafting rules myself. But you sort of underlined one of the problems with this sort of thing…finding agreement amongst the proponents. Crafting rules might be enough to satisfy your ranger wants, but there are definitely more drastic demands being made.

Another example…there’s been at least one call to remove Goodberry entirely as being antithetical to the Ranger class, while another poster highlighted as something suitably ranger-y.

 

[Clint_L]

idea that ranger is a spellcaster also is not a great idea for lot of people.

True. But let's be real: it's not changing for OneD&D. We all know that. Which is why I suggested this discussion should happen in a more appropriate forum, because the question of whether TSR got "ranger" wrong 45 years ago is really what folks are debating.

 

[Horwath]

True. But let's be real: it's not changing for OneD&D. We all know that. Which is why I suggested this discussion should happen in a more appropriate forum, because the question of whether TSR got "ranger" wrong 45 years ago is really what folks are debating.

true,
maybe if enough people naughty word on this last playtest, maybe we can get some variant class somewhere down the line.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is exactly the point I was trying to get across yesterday. Rangers have always been magical in D&D. This isn’t so much an attempt to fix them, as it is to change them into something they’ve never been.

It’s simply not true that rangers have never been nonmagical. Up until 3e, they were nonmagical for the majority of their adventuring careers, only gaining a few low-level spells at the very end of their class progression, and well after such low level spells were likely to still be useful. Spellcasting on the pre-WotC ranger was practically a ribbon, there to express the Ranger’s connection to nature crossing the threshold of the mundane into truly supernatural territory, not as a real power boost. And in 4e they had no magic at all, until Essentials came around and gave them a subclass with a secondary primal power source, mostly granting utility and a little bit of battlefield control. Spellcasting as a significant part of the Ranger’s kit has really only been a thing in 3e and 5e. And as a staunch advocate for the non-casting ranger, I would actually be fine with going back to a small amount of mostly utility spellcasting. Making half the class’s power come from spellcasting is not true to the class’s design roots, any more than it is to the literary archetype. Give me a 1/3 casting ranger, with at least one subclass that gains no spellcasting at all, and I’ll be a very happy camper.

 

[Horwath]

Give me a 1/3 casting ranger, with at least one subclass that gains no spellcasting at all, and I’ll be a very happy camper.

or no casting ranger with 1/3 casting subclass.
Or maybe 1/2 casting subclass. 1/3 casting is rubbish anyway.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Here are the core 1st level rangers spells of 5e.

1. Alarm
2. Animal Friendship
3. Cure Wounds
4. Detect Magic
5. Detect Poison and Disease
6. Ensnaring Strike
7. Fog Cloud
8. Goodberry
9. Hail of Thorns
10. Hunter's Mark
11. Jump
12. Longstrider
13. Speak with Animals

I got time. Let's start roughing out woodcraft right here in the thread.

First up is...

Alarm: You may rig an area with noise-making traps. Rigging a 5 square by 5 square area takes thirty minutes and a Survival check and you can gather the materials to rig a number fo such areas equal to 1 + your INT modifier. Creatures attempting to enter an area rigged with alarms must succeed on a Perception check opposed to your Survivalor suffer a -10 + your INT modifier penalty to Stealth checks made while entering or moving through the rigged squares.

 

[Minigiant]

The designers sure, they've shown that. You haven't demonstrated any evidence for the community, however.

Particularly when what you're actually referring to is being caused by the designers depressing the quality of the related mechanics which in turn depresses the value of the mechanics for those who never knew any better

The designers specifically wrote open ended undefined skilled to remove 5e from the backlash of 3e and 4e's skill and in a attempt to pull back AD&D GMs who didn't want any rules.

 

[Emberashh]

Rangers have always been magical in D&D

And not because magic had anything to do with the fantasy being captured, but with the fact that in the late 1970s the mechanics to do a non-magical Ranger did not exist.

And look at what’s been suggested as needed in order to ‘fix’ them:

Those are all things the game needs to do regardless. Those things don't just benefit one class.

That is new edition territory.

Yes. An apology edition is not made better with bandaids.