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

[Vaalingrade]

Considering it is mostly done by rich people, with no skills, relying on a team of poor locals who actually have the skills?

Yeah, sorry, not talking about sitting in your heated tent while someone with actual skill does the job. Talking solo here.

That's what' climbing Everest' is now. and why it's no longer a benchmark for achievement.

For an hour.

And yeah, turns out when you can only work in 5% intervals, things get a bit wonky.

The game cn compensate for that. It just doesn't because that's not in the current bad design philosophy.

That's what the rules say. Mountain navigation is DC 15.

'Mountain'.

There's a difference between navigating say White oak Mountain where they let school children travel to the peak and Kilimanjaro, which has a literal forest of knives for a foothill.

Which again, the game could handle if it wasn't for 'simple' game design.

And besides, it isn't like everything has to be done in a single roll. You can have perception checks and dex saves too (other things rangers are good at) And, again, let's say you make it DC 20. If you can take 10, and you travel at a slow pace, the ranger is getting a passive 21.

But, yeah, if you look at the rules of the game, and what they state, and don't make up things that aren't in the rules...

So...

Again, if the DM favors you and does the dev's job in your favor.... yeah, it's a good class. Pity if that's not the case though.

 

[Minigiant]

That's because we don't have a solid conception of high-level nature. The game doesn't give it to us,

We do. It's just in spell form. Usually is spells that work better rangers than druids because they have better combat stats and skill checks.

The issue is WOTC tends to take forever to design ranger only spells or update spells like

• Banebow
• Foebane
• Implacable Pursuer
• Snakebite
• Spear of Valarian

I never forgot the time in 3e when my party needed to get in a castle and I asked the DM to come with me into the kitchen. After telling him at the spells I'd cast and roll some checks on the counter. Then coming back to the table saying I jumped into a tree, jumped out of tree, and announce every guard within a tree is fead and her are the locations of all the survivors.

The game doesn't give it to us, and most people are stuck on "it would be really hard to live in the woods, like our ancestors did, because I've never done it and don't know how" when the survival skill is 90% of what you need to be a survivalist (the hint is in the name)

Exactly.

That's why most spell-less ranger homebrews are just fighters with sneak attack dice and low level "not-spells".

 

[Greg K]

Again, you could design the paladin that way, sure, but no one actually wants it. No one actually wants a spell-less paladin, a normal paladin, a paladin with no spells but divine feature, a paladin that is basically just a cheap knock-off fighter, ect. Just like you could design a wizard that heals, or a fighter that has divine magic, or a barbarian who casts spells. You can design them, but that doesn't make doing so a good idea.

I'd take a spell-less Paladin with divine features or one that receives spells much later.

 

[Minigiant]

I'd take a spell-less Paladin with divine features or one that receives spells much later.

We tried that in older editions. It wasnt... great... except for Crusaders.

 

[Greg K]

We tried that in older editions. It wasnt... great... except for Crusaders.

Well, you are entiteld to your opinion. I preferred the flavor of the Paladin in older editions.

 

[Minigiant]

Well, you are entiteld to your opinion. I preferred the flavor of the Paladin in older editions.

The flavor was great. The mechanics were bad.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm not criticized that any mechanics are perfectly designed.

I've been consistently saying that the spellless ranger never happens because the community can never agree on any abilities for spellless rangers for higher level.

Few people ever design the level 9, level 14, and level 20 features for the spellless ranger. And when they do, the other fans criticize it.

Heck people criticized the spellcasting Ranger 's capstone but offer no replacement.

Random thoughts

1) There are very limited subsystems in 5e. Everything is either a skill check or a spell. Without some structures to interact with it's impossible to create features. For example: Paladin's Aura keys of saving throws. If saving throws weren't codified, we couldn't even have the idea of an ability that makes you better at that. So essentially spell less ranger (my preference) is just skill buffs and a few spell like wilderness themed abilities. Doesn't feel great as it's own class - unless we codify the aspects of the game they impact

2) Honestly a nature themed fighter subclass would probably suffice for mechanically implementing a true spellless ranger. Give me this and do whatever you want to with the Ranger

3) Other half casters tend to get something special they can do with their slots. They also have a strong support style feature based on their theme (Paladin auras and channel divinities, Artificer Infusions and Flash of Genius). Both of these classes feel solid. Thus, spell casting Rangers should have some features that support the party but aren't explicitly spells. They also probably need something special to do with spell slots beyond just cast spells.

Marking could be the Rangers alternate spell slot using feature. Hunter's mark becomes a class feature and then give him a few other marks as well.

At level 6 give him something that buffs the party, could be stealth, perception, survival, initiative, eliminating surprise, attack, ac or damage buff, movement speed buff, etc.

Give him improved Marking at level 10 (possibly allows allies to benefit in some way from the marks).

Keep his spell casting as is.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's because we don't have a solid conception of high-level nature. The game doesn't give it to us, and most people are stuck on "it would be really hard to live in the woods, like our ancestors did, because I've never done it and don't know how" when the survival skill is 90% of what you need to be a survivalist (the hint is in the name)

We don't have a solid conception of high level martials for that matter. A common critique (and one I support) is that the fighter stops scaling after level 11 and had fallen behind by level 8. And trying to get a spell-less ranger when the high level fighter has major issues is a problem.

 

[Horwath]

We don't have a solid conception of high level martials for that matter. A common critique (and one I support) is that the fighter stops scaling after level 11 and had fallen behind by level 8. And trying to get a spell-less ranger when the high level fighter has major issues is a problem.

fighters, barbarians, monks, rangers(without spells) should get extra attack(s) at levels 5,9,13 and 17 for starters if they want to scale with damage later on.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

What primal magic?

I just went over the level 1 list in its entirety and it's cleric spells and basic woodcraft written as spells except for esnaring arrow.

If the spell is on the Primal spell list, it is magic accessible via the Primal source. Hence, Primal magic.

Low level spells are not always crazy elaborate or unique to a specific source. The Magic Source spell lists are designed with some overlap in mind for cohesive design purposes.