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

[Yaarel]

Which wasn't really a thing until people started pushing back against the bow wizard.

Bow Wizard?


Relatedly, I wish the Arcane Archer was a Wizard subclass rather than a Fighter one.

 

[Yaarel]

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

It is possible for the Fighter class to take the Scout Rogue subclass.

They have the same number of subclass levels.

The only difference is, the Fighter will access some of the subclass levels a few levels sooner − which is fine.

Also, the DM needs to decide how to handle the mod to the Sneak Attack, but at its high level, it is probably fine too.

 

[FrogReaver]

It is possible for the Fighter class to take the Scout Rogue subclass.

They have the same number of subclass levels.

The only difference is, the Fighter will access some of the subclass levels a few levels sooner − which is fine.

Also, the DM needs to decide how to handle the mod to the Sneak Attack, but at its high level, it is probably fine too.

Scout would be a terrible fighter subclass

 

[Minigiant]

Wilderness challenges, high level beasts, strange weather effects. High level NATURE. Not a high level class. You completely misunderstood what I said.

Out I understand now.

Yes, 5e doesn't have a good examples of high level Nature. 3e and 4e did. How like I said to @Vaalingrade, WTC is biased to arcane classes that the wilderness and primal is last supported. And with 5e's slow content production, high level nature is being printed slowly.

So people who only ever played 5e. 1e, or 2e don't have the experience of high level nature.

Which wasn't really a thing until people started pushing back against the bow wizard.

Nah. that was in 2e and 3e.

Again WOTC is so slow on ranger support that and hasn't converted nor created much ranger magical content.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Again WOTC is so slow on ranger support that and hasn't converted nor created much ranger magical content.

Or good ranger content either.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The best part of Enworld is when people jump on obvious jokes that they clearly indicate they got as a part of an argument to rail against.

Except, you were seriously pushing back against my argument as well. So, what? I am simply supposed to assume which of your points are jokes I should ignore and which are things you think are serious criticisms? You have seriously argued that because the rule system isn't how you'd like it, then the class cannot perform well within the confines of the system. I would have assumed that was a joke too.

You can't get frustrated with someone when you aren't clear which of your points are silly goofs, and which are actual arguments. Especially after engaging seriously with the point twice.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Except, you were seriously pushing back against my argument as well. So, what? I am simply supposed to assume which of your points are jokes I should ignore and which are things you think are serious criticisms?

So... you didn't get it and were seriously defending Everest's honor then?

You have seriously argued that because the rule system isn't how you'd like it, then the class cannot perform well within the confines of the system. I would have assumed that was a joke too.

Are we back to alleging things I didn't actually say?

It's nothing about preference, it's about math. The bad match the entire design philosophy is built around and depends on DM fiat to get past.

You can't get frustrated when someone doesn't agree with the basis of your argument. Well I mean you can, but if we're forbidding people from doing things they aren't...

 

[Minigiant]

Ideally I'd increase Primal to 4 classes

Druid

• Full caster
• Channel Nature: Wildshape

Ranger

• Fighting style and Weapon Mastery
• Expertise
• Extra Attack
• Ranger's Marks
• Spellcasting 1/2 caster

Strider

• Fighting style and Weapon Mastery
• Quarry (1d4 damage to marked for as part of attack or bonus action)
• Poultices (craft potions in wilderness)
• Expertise
• Extra Attack

Beastmaster

• Beast Companion
• Channel Nature: Restore Companion
• Channel Nature: Align Animal
• Beast Followers (summon gang of tiny beasts)
• Cantrips
• Chimera (fuse 2 beasts or beast with master)

 

[Chaosmancer]

So... you didn't get it and were seriously defending Everest's honor then?

Yes, I was seriously defending my choice of using Everest as an example, which you appeared to dismiss because you were fixated on the modern day. Again, you don't get to complain that you made your joke indistinguishable from your actual points, then chose not to clarify it when you realized I was choosing to take you seriously.

Are we back to alleging things I didn't actually say?

It's nothing about preference, it's about math. The bad match the entire design philosophy is built around and depends on DM fiat to get past.

What Math?

Mountains being DC 15 isn't math. Me choosing to allow it to go up to 20 isn't math. The idea of taking 10 and using a passive score isn't math, it is a rule. Page 175 of the PHB. It is for repeated tasks, and spending days or weeks doing the same thing is a repeated task, isn't it? Also, not math.

Is it DM Fiat? No more than it is DM Fiat that the Ranger has to roll Survival to navigate at all, since it is DM Fiat when a roll is called for. No more than advantage or disadvantage could be applied, since that is DM Fiat. Every part of a skill usage is "DM Fiat".

Also, "the entire design philosophy" is... the rules of the game. Which, again, I stated that Rangers PER THE CURRENT RULES OF THE GAME are great explorers. Which you scoffed at, stating if I thought it was true it wasn't even worth discussing the ranger with me, because clearly I was so completely off-base. Yet, AGAIN, you point to the problem being the "design philosophy", the rules are the problem you have. You don't like how the rules work. Which is fine and a valid point... but not a counter-point to my assertion which is firmly WITHIN the rules.

You can't get frustrated when someone doesn't agree with the basis of your argument. Well I mean you can, but if we're forbidding people from doing things they aren't...

I'm not getting frustrated by that. I'm getting frustrated that you are deciding I'm wrong because you are ignoring the premise. It would be like someone saying "But if you have to eat at a Pizza Place, Domino's is good" and you saying, "No, you are wrong, the best fast food is Wendy's!" Sure, you may have a point, but it doesn't have anything to do with picking a Pizza place.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Ideally I'd increase Primal to 4 classes

Druid

• Full caster
• Channel Nature: Wildshape

Ranger

• Fighting style and Weapon Mastery
• Expertise
• Extra Attack
• Ranger's Marks
• Spellcasting 1/2 caster

Strider

• Fighting style and Weapon Mastery
• Quarry (1d4 damage to marked for as part of attack or bonus action)
• Poultices (craft potions in wilderness)
• Expertise
• Extra Attack

Beastmaster

• Beast Companion
• Channel Nature: Restore Companion
• Channel Nature: Align Animal
• Beast Followers (summon gang of tiny beasts)
• Cantrips
• Chimera (fuse 2 beasts or beast with master)

Nope, if you are going to expand Primal, one of them is the Barbarian.

Beast Master is best as subclasses for Barbarian, Ranger, and Druid.