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

[Yaarel]

It can be symbol or movement based too.

Heh, the earth element is less likely to "move".

But each element has its own personality, thus attuning the element seems a type of telepathy.

Hence, Primordial is a set of telepathic dialects.

 

[Horwath]

I'd like a spell-less start with a few options to add spellcasting via subclass. Some of the options could have a built-in minor version of Subtle Spell, so while you're mechanically casting a spell, it's easy to reflavor.
Aragorn's use of athelas would be an example: he said a few words, made a few motions, and used an object to cast something like Cure Wounds, but he wasn't wizarding it up and creating a lightshow. Many GMs would enjoy letting a ranger reflavor components like that, but then a full-time caster will want to use the same trick to stealth-Dominate or Fireball the queen while she's holding court. I'd rather have something that justifies the ability in the first case while not letting it apply to the combat and mind-control spells.

Easiest way to implement is:
Ranger ignores ALL spell components that do not have a cost while casting spells that are known/prepared from ranger class.

 

[ToddBS]

I think my favorite take on the Ranger (which is a spell-less take) is the Wanderer class from Adventures in Middle Earth (Cubicle 7), followed closely by the Warden class from The Lord of the Rings Roleplaying (Free League).

 

[Minigiant]

I think my favorite take on the Ranger (which is a spell-less take) is the Wanderer class from Adventures in Middle Earth (Cubicle 7), followed closely by the Warden class from The Lord of the Rings Roleplaying (Free League).

Those ranger like classes are very cool.

The core issue is the Ranger of LOTR operates in a setting that is lower magic and a game that has more exploration mechanics than WOTC D&D.

 

[nevin]

Mainly it’s just because D&D is the easiest to find players for. I’m not one of those folks who find it impossible to convince their players to try anything else, but I have definitely had the experience of having to do a lot of work to persuade them to give another system a try. Whereas I offer to run D&D and people are practically lining up to play.

because they want DND isn't that bait and switch......

 

[Charlaquin]

because they want DND isn't that bait and switch......

I’m having difficulty parsing this, could you rephrase?

 

[nevin]

If you gather people to play DND because they want to play DND isn't playing a horror game bait and switch? Unless of course you tell them upfront it's a horror game. Every DM i've ever had try that has started the DND game and then sucked the poor souls through into Ravenloft and then Cried when the game fell apart and we started another one with another DM.

 

[Emberashh]

I think most of the time when people fail to use DND for things other than straight Appendix N, its not so much that the game can't support it but more that they're failing to properly mix the genres.

Thats where something like Curse of Strahd actually gets it right for the most part, and it fittingly is one of the most popular adventures as a result.

You can do horror, but that has to blend with the conventions of heroic fantasy. The False Hydra, though not an official idea, is another example where you can achieve a great deal of what horror has to offer (particularly cosmic horror) while not conflicting with or getting abraised by how DND works.

Absolutely you won't be able to get the absolute most out of different genres, you still want a bespoke system if thats your goal, but you can get pretty far with due dilligence.

 

[Shardstone]

If you gather people to play DND because they want to play DND isn't playing a horror game bait and switch? Unless of course you tell them upfront it's a horror game. Every DM i've ever had try that has started the DND game and then sucked the poor souls through into Ravenloft and then Cried when the game fell apart and we started another one with another DM.

I mean yeah that's an objectively foolish way to run a game for people you don't know, but I'm not sure what impact that has on the discussion. Can you elaborate?

 

[Minigiant]

I think most of the time when people fail to use DND for things other than straight Appendix N, its not so much that the game can't support it but more that they're failing to properly mix the genres.

I think the issue the game faces is that it's founders and designers loved Appendix N but the increasing majority of players and DMs of the game do not prefer the characters, themes, game focus, and mechanics of Appendix N sources. You can swap one of them but I think if you swap out two of more aspects of Apprentix N style games, the mechanics stop matching the source.

Aragorn can't be your top ranger if your game hits liches at end game and archmages at mid game.

Not if you are an entry game or a mainstream game.