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

[Horwath]

way more spell slots, etc. I'm not even saying we should go back to "pure" Vancian, but designers need to consider more how magic and skills interact.

what way more spell slots?
5E has less spell slots than 3.5e, not to mention if you play sorcerer.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Let's be honest, this isn't a Ranger problem, it's a problem with D&D. D&D originated as a game where skills didn't really exist, and the effects of that design paradigm still live on to this day, even when D&D has had skills for 20+ years now, because the magic system was designed for a game without skills. It's very difficult to make a game that's faithful to legacy D&D spells and has a good skill system, because the spells simply do things way better than skills ever can.

You would need to re-design D&D from the ground up, considering skills and magic as complementary systems, making sure they don't step on each other's toes. Just have most spells focused on combat applications, with some other spells that can be useful as utilities, but for a reasonable cost. Maybe you could even build some cool stuff on top of the skill system, like "skill contests" or something like that, I'm sure D&D fans would embrace a system like that-

I think this speaks to the fundamental issue for why so many classes get spells. Even something like adding graduated success to the skills like Pathfinder 2e or PbtA just doesn't help because at their core skills just do less. The spell system is so overwhelmingly better than any other mechanic or system in the whole game that when they add a new mechanic, it's unimpactful by comparison. So, everyone complains that the new mechanic doesn't do enough and is boring. If they were to introduce more mechanics that would keep up with spells it would be clear that they're just superpowers, while simultaneously further eclipsing every other mechanic that isn't spellcasting even more. So everyone just gets spells because that's known and available.

I had an opportunity while playing Descent to Avernus to play the game with no primary spellcasters for several months. We had an Artificer, Ranger, Paladin, Monk, and Rogue/Barbarian (not multiclass, the Rogue died and was replaced with a Barbarian). And the game felt amazing the entire time. From level 4 to level 11, we had a ball. Everyone felt important to the group, and all resources felt important. Then at level 12, one of the players we have returned from a long absence and started playing their Wizard again. And immediately, the game was about what the Wizard could solve for us. It was one of the most stark lessons in how weirdly warped the game is. Things that would take the whole party working together with spells and skills suddenly were solved with a single Wizard spell. It really soured our experience with 5e, I think, because we haven't started another D&D campaign since then.

 

[Bacon Bits]

what way more spell slots?
5E has less spell slots than 3.5e, not to mention if you play sorcerer.

3e features infamously overpowered spellcasting classes. Ludicrously so.

The fact that 5e manages to get under the 3e bar does not mean that it's still not easily clearing the bar for spellcasting being overpowered.

 

[Reef]

I think this speaks to the fundamental issue for why so many classes get spells. Even something like adding graduated success to the skills like Pathfinder 2e or PbtA just doesn't help because at their core skills just do less. The spell system is so overwhelmingly better than any other mechanic or system in the whole game that when they add a new mechanic, it's unimpactful by comparison. So, everyone complains that the new mechanic doesn't do enough and is boring. If they were to introduce more mechanics that would keep up with spells it would be clear that they're just superpowers, while simultaneously further eclipsing every other mechanic that isn't spellcasting even more. So everyone just gets spells because that's known and available.

I had an opportunity while playing Descent to Avernus to play the game with no primary spellcasters for several months. We had an Artificer, Ranger, Paladin, Monk, and Rogue/Barbarian (not multiclass, the Rogue died and was replaced with a Barbarian). And the game felt amazing the entire time. From level 4 to level 11, we had a ball. Everyone felt important to the group, and all resources felt important. Then at level 12, one of the players we have returned from a long absence and started playing their Wizard again. And immediately, the game was about what the Wizard could solve for us. It was one of the most stark lessons in how weirdly warped the game is. Things that would take the whole party working together with spells and skills suddenly were solved with a single Wizard spell. It really soured our experience with 5e, I think, because we haven't started another D&D campaign since then.

That’s an interesting point. I would suspect part of the reason is that the spell system is so explicit in what each one does. It’s laid out in black and white, and there’s no need (or opportunity) for it to vary depending on the table and the DM.

The skill system is much more freeform. It’s meant to handle a whole host of scenarios that aren’t spelled out specifically. We’ve seen some of that in this thread, where some people feel a high Survival skill is sufficiently Ranger, while others want specific spell-like (but not spell) abilities to cover their expectations.

I like that about the skill system. As a DM, I like that a skill can cover a lot of potential scenarios. I certainly don’t want another 10 pages in the PHB listing all possible skill applications. But I’ll admit it does (on paper) put skills at a disadvantage to spells (or spell-like class abilities). Especially because it leaves the interpretation up to each individual table. Which again, is both a strength and a weakness.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I think this speaks to the fundamental issue for why so many classes get spells. Even something like adding graduated success to the skills like Pathfinder 2e or PbtA just doesn't help because at their core skills just do less. The spell system is so overwhelmingly better than any other mechanic or system in the whole game that when they add a new mechanic, it's unimpactful by comparison. So, everyone complains that the new mechanic doesn't do enough and is boring. If they were to introduce more mechanics that would keep up with spells it would be clear that they're just superpowers, while simultaneously further eclipsing every other mechanic that isn't spellcasting even more. So everyone just gets spells because that's known and available.

It doesn't help that spells have stolen all the design space for discreet abilities. If you want to do a specific thing reliably, it must be magic now or you're stuck gambling on a skill and DM fiat.

 

[Incenjucar]

It doesn't help that spells have stolen all the design space for discreet abilities. If you want to do a specific thing reliably, it must be magic now or you're stuck gambling on a skill and DM fiat.

What's frustrating is that any glance at a Monster Manual will show that discrete non-magical abilities are all over the game, but there's never an actual list of them for use.

 

[Bacon Bits]

It doesn't help that spells have stolen all the design space for discreet abilities. If you want to do a specific thing reliably, it must be magic now or you're stuck gambling on a skill and DM fiat.

Yeah, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, especially in 3e.

Spells are so good, so to keep it balanced they make everything into spells to keep some semblance of order and then give out more spells. That increases reliance on spells, and makes spells more valuable as a resource, which means other mechanics can't complete with spells.

That's why the only remotely similar thing -- feats -- got so much of the rest of the design space. Every optional rule that couldn't fit into a spell was automatically slotted as a feat. That meant every optional rule that didn't use feats almost felt like a cheat. It also meant that nothing could be more powerful than an individual feat, so you'd have to make feat chains.

And once we get to 4e, everything becomes a power or a feat explicitly. And every class gets the same number of powers and feats. Leaning into the design as heavily as possible.

Like the other option would be to create a mechanic that's just like spells only you can't get them when you have spells. Except they have that mechanic already. It's called a different spell list.

 

[Charlaquin]

When you have a table, you have a starting point, it's easier to go +/- 5 than to invent DCs from nothing, maybe missing the mark by 10.

Which is why 5e gives the advice to use 10 for easy tasks, 15 for medium, and 20 for hard, and says a game where you only use those three DCs will run just fine.

 

[Charlaquin]

Problem is 'let' becomes 'force' when you remove other options. And making up DCs on the spot all the times because some people like doing extra work isn't getting more people lining up to DM.

On the flip side, you don’t need a person to DM if everything is pre-formulated. The advantage of TRPGs over CRPGs is that the former are run by humans instead of computers. Reducing DMing to following instructions removes that advantage.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Which is why 5e gives the advice to use 10 for easy tasks, 15 for medium, and 20 for hard, and says a game where you only use those three DCs will run just fine.

They say a lot of things that actually aren't true in real play.