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

[Emberashh]

I wonder if this is just a 30+ page discussion just because Rangers don't automatically have Subtle Spell.

No, because theres still plenty of us who care about what we call these mechanics, and Magic is a no-go, period.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Nope. It isn't. Fighter is its own problem.

Nope. Another issue

Haven't seemed to be issues for... ever. I mean, sure, Fighters are mechanically bad, but no one has ever claimed they don't make sense in the world. And Rogues? Dude, Rogues in 5e are living the high life.

Rogues get reliable talent. But that's high level.
But outside that. Not much.

That's the problem.

If you bleed the fighter, rogue, ranger, druid, monk, etc into each other AND have a comprehensive feat system AND always freeform multiclassing then classes become redundant.

And no publisher will waste ink on obvious redundancy.

So unless every class interacts with their shared elements in different unique ways, there is no need for them. And the desire for a composite class in a system with comprehensive feat, multiclassing, or some other customization system will never be fulfilled by a major publisher.

If Druids are better naturalists, scouts, and survivalist than Rangers, Fighters are better warriors than Ranger, and Rogues are better sneaks than Rangers, there is no reason to have rangers both mechanically and narratively. Especially spell-less ones.

Ah yes, we have clear evidence that publishers won't publish DnD by the fact that they haven't published Fifth edition...

Oh wait.

They did publish it. And people take those story beats that rogues have, that are basically not anything a fighter couldn't theoritically do.. and they made one of the single most popular and now best designed classes out of them.

So... mechanics.... seem to be the solution. If you have good mechanics.... then it works, even with a little overlap.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Nobody, because spellcasting is part of the fantasy of the druid.

It is part of the fantasy of the Ranger too. But people still want to get rid of it.

I think they should, personally.

Great! Here's the trick. Currently, both druids and Rangers can speak to animals using a spell slot. If they both can do so at-will... why wouldn't this just be a spell at-will, like the Warlock Invocation? It doesn't make a lot of sense to make a spellcaster have one of their spells as a non-spell ability, just so a half-caster can be stripped of spells. But it also doesn't make sense to have them do the same thing, but one of them avoid mentioning the spell.

They can, actually - they have herbalism kit proficiency. More than that, Druids don’t really need, because they’re spellcasters.

Rangers are spellcasters too, and they have healing magic. They don't need to use herbal poultices either.

And, herbalism kits can, in theory, do this, but the crafting rules are terrible and I can't remember if Healing Potions are RAW allowed to be made with an herbalism kit. (The non-difference between Alchemy and Herbalism is a thorn in my side)

Because tracking has nothing to do with the fantasy of the druid.

Yes it does. How do you find the evil things despoiling your forest if you don't track them? And any "use animals" answer... is the exact same thing we just agreed rangers can do.

Druids tracking makes sense. Rangers being better at it makes sense too, but Druids should be able to track.

Similar to healing, they can to an extent - they have access to the nature and survival skills. More than that, they don’t need because they have spells that do it better.

Rangers also have spells.

So, here we are. The druid and the Ranger should share a lot of thematic elements, but the Druid doesn't need some of them because they have spells... the same spells rangers get.... that ranger's should lose for some reason?

This is exactly where the difference lies though. Rangers aren’t just mini-druids with better weapons, or at least, they shouldn’t be. They have fundamentally different relationships with the natural world. The druid is magically in-tune with nature - so much a part of it that they have mystical control over it. The ranger conquers nature. They are not native to it, but they have learned to survive within it, and to help others do so. Where the druid attunes themselves with nature, the ranger attunes nature with themselves.

No. Sure, some rangers can do that, but so can some druids. There is no class requirement that my friendly hunter must dominate and conquer nature and bend it to his will. That is something people keep adding for no reason. The ranger is not the enemy of nature, bending it to serve his whims.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Good thing that's not the argument I'm making. And it's super weird that you're ascribing it to me.

I'm talking about what is, not what should be done.

I don't think Rangers should have to be incompetent Druids at all. They can be like, actually good outdoorsmen without having to stoop to using magic as a band-aid because we're afraid to make non-magical abilities.

You are talking about what is, not what should be.... and your next point is that rangers SHOULD BE something different and not have magic... which, currently, is what is true...

So are you talking about what rangers are, which is half-casters with spells, or are you trying to assert what you think should be? Which is rangers not using spells?

Because, Rangers right now are very good outdoorsmen. Like, incredibly good. Like, actually phenomenal at level 1 without any spells. And they also have magic to be even better. So... what's your point?

 

[Chaosmancer]

So… the exact thing people are asking for…

No, people are asking to remove spellcasting mechanics, then give those mechanics back as non-spells.

I'm proposing the paladin treatment of good mechanics alongside spells.

 

[Chaosmancer]

God, wouldn't it be amazing if we could have some fantastic nature?

Like an animal that's like, I don't know a combination between and own and a bear, or a falcon and a lion? And they're actually acknowledged and mechanically treated like animals?

This I can agree with.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I strongly disagree. Rangers are scouts and survivalists. They don’t protect nature, they protect people (including themselves) from nature.

So Rangers go out and kill all wolves, because wolves hunt livestock and are bad for people, and they kill all bears, because bears are dangerous to people, and they make sure to despoil natural beauty so fey and nature spirits that would arise in those places can't?

No, actually, they don't do that. And as often, Rangers are killing Orcs, Goblins, Giants and other humanoids, or you know, PEOPLE.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The

1. Ranger who protects civilization from nature
2. Ranger who protects civilization with nature
3. Ranger who protects nature from civilization
4. Ranger who protects nature with civilization

are 4 different class fantasy, have 4 different mechanics, and need different support.

And the ranger from 0e to 5e is 1.

Just like the Paladin that makes an Oath to the Hells needs different support (Oath of Conquest? Never heard of it) and the Paladin that makes an Oath to support a king no matter what needs different support (Crowns? Huh, wonder what that could look like) and the Paladin who is all about himself and Glory needs different support (Like... an oath... of glory...)

Maybe classes are bigger than you think they are?

 

[Minigiant]

Just like the Paladin that makes an Oath to the Hells needs different support (Oath of Conquest? Never heard of it) and the Paladin that makes an Oath to support a king no matter what needs different support (Crowns? Huh, wonder what that could look like) and the Paladin who is all about himself and Glory needs different support (Like... an oath... of glory...)

Maybe classes are bigger than you think they are?

Different power sources makeups.
Different mechanics.
All those paladins are from the same source of power. Crown, Conquest, and Glory are all lorewise divine and mechanical similar,

Perfect example.
This is like having

1. A Paladin with Smites and Half caster Spell Slots
2. A Paladin with Smites and no Spell Slots
3. A Paladin with no Smites but Half caster Spell Slots
4. A Paladin with no Smites nor Spell Slots but with Maneuvers
5. A Paladin with no Smites nor Spell Slots but with some other Divine mechanic

All in one class. Different amount of Martial and Divine due to their foci in training.

That's more or less what asked for. Doable but hard. Hard to balance. And most often not stress enough, hard to get the community to agree with it and the splits. Because the "Spell-less" side of the community is way too split, is unsure of tier 3 & 4 features, and has subfaction who don't want additional subsystems. That's why WOTC gave up on it.

It's the fighter problem but worse because the fighter rogue, and barbarian exist.

It could be done. It requires community compromise and decision making.

 

[FrogReaver]

Imagine if people actually argued that Clerics should all get Divine Smite and Aura of Protection because those are obviously divine power abilities and clerics should do all the divine power stuff the best...