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

[Vaalingrade]

Ranger might be one of the worst victims of them being repulsed by just making a new damn class instead of awkwardly retrofitting the existing ones that simply don't have the underpinning mechanics to support them.

 

[Mephista]

What nature spirits? Learning to talk to squirrels doesn't mean learning to talk to magical ghosts separate from regular squirrels.

5eR Primal Magic has effectively defined nature spirits as critters from the Elemental Planes (and the Feywild, it sounds like).

If you're asking an Awakened squirrel to do something on your behalf, then generally speaking, that's a kind of spirit magic the druid and ranger use.

You're effectively arguing that, because you can ask a god or an angel to do something for you, clerics shouldn't need to use spells and shouldn't be considered magical. Just for druids and rangers instead of clerics and paladins.

 

[le Redoutable]

Rangers, either Texas Rangers or Power Rangers

 

[Mephista]

The issue is that the VSM system doesn't have a meaningful impact on how the abilities feel in play; its still a spell at the end of the day, and that it is a spell is the problem.

The fiction matters, and how a spell is cast does not change that you're still casting a spell.

You forgot the "for me" in there, friend. You may come from that perspective but its far from universal, and its not certainly not true going by the book. Divine miracles and primal spirit invocations feel vastly different from a more academic manipulation of raw magic.

All spells are not the same.

 

[Emberashh]

No, I’ve just never seen anyone come up with an example of a magic-less ranger in fiction that justified a class. Like I said, Robin Hood? How is that a Ranger?

What is a Ranger to you? What does it need (that isn’t mystical) in order for it not to be a scout, or a dex fighter? What woodland ability does it need that isn’t covered in a high Survival or Animal Handling skill. And what do you use those skills for, if not the things that people seem to want a magic-less Ranger to do?

Ive already given you examples, as well as the overall design for a Ranger I believe makes the best core.

That you glossed over it is just a further indication of what I said; you don't like Rangers.

And Survival as a skill needs to be split up; boiling down the entire concept of wilderess skills to a single binary pass/fail is not good game design and is a big reason why people such as yourself so deeply undervalue what others want out of these things.

The game frames these things in a way that completely obscures their value to you and rather than trust in those who recognize the value despite the games shoddy implementations, you would rather ignore what we tell you the value is.

5eR Primal Magic has effectively defined nature spirits as critters from the Elemental Planes (and the Feywild, it sounds like).

If you're asking an Awakened squirrel to do something on your behalf, then generally speaking, that's a kind of spirit magic the druid and ranger use.

You're effectively arguing that, because you can ask a god or an angel to do something for you, clerics shouldn't need to use spells and shouldn't be considered magical. Just for druids and rangers instead of clerics and paladins.

You're talking past me. Go back and read what Ive said previously and then come back and actually talk to me based on what I said.

All spells are not the same.

They are mechanically, and thats what makes the difference. You can't try to take the "opinion" cop out on that fact; different mechanics do not feel the same, and that is only compounded when the fiction itself is different yet is trying to be conflated as though they aren't.

As I said in the Fighter topic, we don't need to "pretend" to be spell-less rangers. This isn't a zero sum in a video game where we only have what was programmed in.

We can just be, and its bizarre how resistant people are to just letting people be what they actually want to be instead of telling them to just go pretend.

You don't see that kind of dismissiveness going in the other direction. Speaking for myself, Im literally saying in this thread that things like Beastmasters and Monster Hunters can be their own classes; people who like those ideas should be getting their own classes that, as a result, will be deeper and far better capable of supporting those particular fantasies.

Trying to cram all of this into the Ranger robs all of them, including the Ranger itself, of their potential because there simply isn't enough design space to go around in a single class.

 

[Horwath]

Druids (and thus Rangers), Clerics and Wizards all cast magic differently. Clerics pray to the gods of the Outer Planes to send a miracle. Druids invoke Fey or Elemental "nature gods" to do stuff for them. Neither involves yelling or "flapping your hands like a drunk mime."

A whispered prayer to the local spirits fits very well as the Ranger V component. Many of the Ranger spells' material components are their weapons themselves, and the spells describe the somatic components as "you brandish the weapon used to cast the spell." Its all very natural movements that make sense for a hunter.

same spell, same components, no matter who is the caster, unless your (class)ability or feature says otherwise.

Portraying the Ranger as yelling and flapping hands is very much not accurate in any way, shape, or form.

It says that Verbal components must be said in a firm voice

also:

and this is casting pass without trace:

dont, know, sounds pretty loud to me.

 

[le Redoutable]

You speak as a mentor

 

[CreamCloud0]

No, I’ve just never seen anyone come up with an example of a magic-less ranger in fiction that justified a class. Like I said, Robin Hood? How is that a Ranger?

What is a Ranger to you? What does it need (that isn’t mystical) in order for it not to be a scout, or a dex fighter? What woodland ability does it need that isn’t covered in a high Survival or Animal Handling skill. And what do you use those skills for, if not the things that people seem to want a magic-less Ranger to do?

i don't think the highest conceptual-level ranger premise requires magic, but it does significantly encapsulate a 'survivalist' concept, and a major part of the survivalist is taking and picking up any and all potentially usefull skills because one day knowing how to make medical grade alchohol/disinfectant out of tree bark might save your life.

So when you insert that survivalist mindset into DnD worlds magic is absolutely something i feel like they would pick up because it's such a flexible and useful tool and primal magic is just the next thematic step to knowing everything about the ecosystem that they exist in, drawing on the energies of the natural world around them rather than the physical plants and creatures

the ranger is an explorer, a survivor and a hunter of the wild, they thrive not through brute strength but through knowledge, knowing how to pick their fights and the best ways to fight, knowing as many solutions as they can because if one doesn't work then they've got three backups, knowing their enemy and their weaknesses and how to take advantage of those, knowing how to take care of themselves.

 

[Reef]

Ive already given you examples, as well as the overall design for a Ranger I believe makes the best core.

That you glossed over it is just a further indication of what I said; you don't like Rangers.

And Survival as a skill needs to be split up; boiling down the entire concept of wilderess skills to a single binary pass/fail is not good game design and is a big reason why people such as yourself so deeply undervalue what others want out of these things.

The game frames these things in a way that completely obscures their value to you and rather than trust in those who recognize the value despite the games shoddy implementations, you would rather ignore what we tell you the value is.



You're talking past me. Go back and read what Ive said previously and then come back and actually talk to me based on what I said.



They are mechanically, and thats what makes the difference. You can't try to take the "opinion" cop out on that fact; different mechanics do not feel the same, and that is only compounded when the fiction itself is different yet is trying to be conflated as though they aren't.

As I said in the Fighter topic, we don't need to "pretend" to be spell-less rangers. This isn't a zero sum in a video game where we only have what was programmed in.

We can just be, and its bizarre how resistant people are to just letting people be what they actually want to be instead of telling them to just go pretend.

You don't see that kind of dismissiveness going in the other direction. Speaking for myself, Im literally saying in this thread that things like Beastmasters and Monster Hunters can be their own classes; people who like those ideas should be getting their own classes that, as a result, will be deeper and far better capable of supporting those particular fantasies.

Trying to cram all of this into the Ranger robs all of them, including the Ranger itself, of their potential because there simply isn't enough design space to go around in a single class.

I didn’t gloss over them. I just didn’t comment on each one. I just reread it, and with the exception of trap-building, it all sounds like magic to me. Summon helpful animals? Understand and speak to animals? How is that not magical? I’m beginning to think you want a magic ranger, you just don’t want it to be called spells.

You keep saying I don’t like rangers. I’m fine with D&D rangers. You’re the one who seems to have such a narrow definition what a ranger is. The D&D ranger has always been magical (other than maybe 4e, but there, everyone was magical). Why would they change it now?

I feel like it’s like you keep pointing out all these examples of great swordsmen from fiction (Zorro, D’Artagnan, etc), and complaining that there isn’t a Duelist class. Where I’m sitting here wondering how that isn’t just a Dex Battlemaster or a Rogue Swashbuckler. I don’t hate duelists, I just think that niche is already well served.

 

[Reef]

i don't think the highest conceptual-level ranger premise requires magic, but it does significantly encapsulate a 'survivalist' concept, and a major part of the survivalist is taking and picking up any and all potentially usefull skills because one day knowing how to make medical grade alchohol/disinfectant out of tree bark might save your life.

So when you insert that survivalist mindset into DnD worlds magic is absolutely something i feel like they would pick up because it's such a flexible and useful tool and primal magic is just the next thematic step to knowing everything about the ecosystem that they exist in, drawing on the energies of the natural world around them rather than the physical plants and creatures

the ranger is an explorer, a survivor and a hunter of the wild, they thrive not through brute strength but through knowledge, knowing how to pick their fights and the best ways to fight, knowing as many solutions as they can because if one doesn't work then they've got three backups, knowing their enemy and their weaknesses and how to take advantage of those, knowing how to take care of themselves.

That all makes sense. Especially the part about it being in a D&D world, where primal magic is an obvious tool for this sort of wilderness warrior to use. That’s what separates it from the highly skilled fighter or rogue (who, let’s face it, is capable of Survival skills as high as a Ranger).

If Ranger is going to be it’s own class, and not a subclass, it needs a strong enough niche other than “I know how to survive in the wilderness”. In a D&D world, access to primal magic makes sense.

To be perfectly clear, I absolutely do think Ranger should be it’s own class. I just don’t think “mundane woodsman” is a strong enough concept to base one on.