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

[Chaosmancer]

Having just read through this entire thread, I find something darkly amusing.

Who here wants a spell-less Druid?

Because, people want Rangers to speak with animals, but not as a spell. Why can't Druids do that?
People want Rangers to make healing or poisonous poultices out of plants. Why can't Druids do that?
People want Rangers to have devoted animal companions. Why can't Druids do that?
People want Rangers to be able to track people through the jungle. Why can't Druids do that?
People want Rangers to find plenty of food and water in the wilderness. Why can't Druids do that?

The "fantasy" of a ranger is being able to go into the woods and come out three months later perfectly fine. But a Druid goes into the woods... and never comes back out because THEY LIVE THERE. So, every time we are stating "the Ranger is really in-tune with the natural world so they should be able to do X, Y or Z without spells." then we have to ask... why can't a Druid do that without spells?

And then, largely, we need to ask... do we want spell-less Druids? Really? Now, I do agree that Speak With Animals becoming at-will is a great thing for Druids. But how many druid spells should druids be able to cast at-will?

 

[Incenjucar]

Having just read through this entire thread, I find something darkly amusing.

Who here wants a spell-less Druid?

Because, people want Rangers to speak with animals, but not as a spell. Why can't Druids do that?
People want Rangers to make healing or poisonous poultices out of plants. Why can't Druids do that?
People want Rangers to have devoted animal companions. Why can't Druids do that?
People want Rangers to be able to track people through the jungle. Why can't Druids do that?
People want Rangers to find plenty of food and water in the wilderness. Why can't Druids do that?

The "fantasy" of a ranger is being able to go into the woods and come out three months later perfectly fine. But a Druid goes into the woods... and never comes back out because THEY LIVE THERE. So, every time we are stating "the Ranger is really in-tune with the natural world so they should be able to do X, Y or Z without spells." then we have to ask... why can't a Druid do that without spells?

And then, largely, we need to ask... do we want spell-less Druids? Really? Now, I do agree that Speak With Animals becoming at-will is a great thing for Druids. But how many druid spells should druids be able to cast at-will?

Druids turn into animals and call lightning and control the weather.

 

[Chaosmancer]

that isn't what i said at all, i think antimagic has it's place and should be used (if lightly) because spellcasting is so OP, the issue is everything being magic.

i think anti-magic would be better served if it was more often used in more...tangible forms, rather than room blanketing fields, like, antimagic-water that prevents casting if you get wet, in pools on the floor that casters need carefully position themselves to avoid like bottomless pits else they loose casting for X turns, a sheet of dripping water that dispells everything that passes through it, barrels that can be thrown or burst to create an AoE...

But the exact problem with Anti-magic is "what is magical".

"If you get wet with this water you can't use magic"
"Great, so if we splash it on the Beholder it will fall out of the sky and be unable to use its abilities right?"

"You can't use magic through this water"
"Okay, but my paladin aura still works right? Because that isn't magical."

"Okay, I rush through the water, then rage and catch on fire so- Wait, what do you mean I can't use my Rage ability? That isn't a spell, so it should work"

And on and on and on and on. Counter-spell is more palatable, but anti-magic just causes so many headaches. It isn't worth it

 

[Chaosmancer]

Druids turn into animals and call lightning and control the weather.

Okay.

Does that mean that the Ranger is more in-tune with nature and more able to use their skills with plant lore to make poultices that the Druid can't match?

Does that mean that the Druid can't track people through a swamp by listening to the land?

 

[Incenjucar]

Okay.

Does that mean that the Ranger is more in-tune with nature and more able to use their skills with plant lore to make poultices that the Druid can't match?

Does that mean that the Druid can't track people through a swamp by listening to the land?

Often, yes.

Why would a druid have a ranger's skillset?

 

[Minigiant]

that isn't what i said at all, i think antimagic has it's place and should be used (if lightly) because spellcasting is so OP, the issue is everything being magic.

i think anti-magic would be better served if it was more often used in more...tangible forms, rather than room blanketing fields, like, antimagic-water that prevents casting if you get wet, in pools on the floor that casters need carefully position themselves to avoid like bottomless pits else they loose casting for X turns, a sheet of dripping water that dispells everything that passes through it, barrels that can be thrown or burst to create an AoE...

I prefer anti-spell than anti-magic.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Often, yes.

Why would a druid have a ranger's skillset?

Why is a Ranger more in-tune with the natural world than someone who is literally connected to it on a soul-deep level?

I mean, we don't expect Paladins to be better with the Divine than clerics, do we?

 

[Chaosmancer]

I prefer anti-spell than anti-magic.

That would fix a LOT of issues. Or instead of "spells don't work" make it wild magic, or that you need to roll a skill check.

 

[Incenjucar]

Why is a Ranger more in-tune with the natural world than someone who is literally connected to it on a soul-deep level?

I mean, we don't expect Paladins to be better with the Divine than clerics, do we?

Do you think that there is exactly one body of natural knowledge and that a ranger is supposed to be a multi-class druid rather than someone involved in the natural world in a different way?

This seems like being surprised that a human is better at surviving in Alaska than a lion is. Lions are more in-tune with nature but that doesn't mean they're experts at everything.

 

[Minigiant]

Why is a Ranger more in-tune with the natural world than someone who is literally connected to it on a soul-deep level?

I mean, we don't expect Paladins to be better with the Divine than clerics, do we?

Druids are one with nature.
Rangers tame, use, and dominate nature.

Different relationship.