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

[Deekin]

Although neat stuff like climb speed and fire resistance at low level features. Level 1 features.
Which comes to the issue with the spell-less ranger. Leveling it.
The stuff people want are low level stuff. The 3e Horizon Walker was cool and one of my favorite characters in 3e. It was also weak.

Many of the spell-less rangers you see in D&D editions like 4e or D&D adjacent games like PF or A5e are just variant fighters with low level exploration tricks and level 1stuff spread across 20 levels.

And since some of the spell-ranger fans who don't just want reskinned spells, it becomes trading half casting for always-on 1st level features.

FFS, this is why I hate discussing mechanics on these forums. The moment you start writing rules, some posters come out of the woodwork to tell you that since your initial draft Isn't perfectly balanced, and polished as a wotc book, you're a failure and your idea should be abandoned immediately and never be returned to or revisited.

Those were rough ideas, come up within 10 minutes to illustrate a proposal. The mechanic version of concept art, a way to show the shape a spellless, but still supernatural ranger could take.

It is not, in any way shape or form, intended to be a final play-tested perfectly balanced abilities designed to dropped into your game.

These abilities aren't in beta, or even alpha. This is preproduction brainstorming.


Are they too weak? OK, let's find a way to make them more powerful. Make an advanced version that upgrade when you hit a certain level, or add scaling attack riders, ot add planar terrain mastery that let them keep up with warlocks and wizards.

Nothing is perfect on the first draft; we return to an idea and revisit and reiterate on it, changing what doesn't work and noting what does.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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,

Ah yes, because there is no difference between a the power source of a Hellknight who pledged himself to Zriel, a Knight who pledged himself to the Throne of the Elven King, and a Paladin who has simply decided he is too awesome not share how awesome he is. Lorewise those power sources are nearly indistinguishable, right?

Mechanically, of course they are similar. They are all paladins. Right now? All Rangers are mechanically similar too. They are all rangers after all. And if you design a new ranger... all those rangers will be mechanically similar too. You can't design a class that isn't mechanically similar with itself.

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.

But no one actually wants that? Like, who is asking for us to make the Ranger into five new, slightly different classes? The problem is that some people hate the ranger having spells, and want it to be a full martial. But that isn't what the ranger is.

Again, you could design the paladin that way, sure, but no one actually wants it. No one actually wants a spell-less paladin, a normal paladin, a paladin with no spells but divine feature, a paladin that is basically just a cheap knock-off fighter, ect. Just like you could design a wizard that heals, or a fighter that has divine magic, or a barbarian who casts spells. You can design them, but that doesn't make doing so a good idea.

 

[Vaalingrade]

And now we're at a point where only magic can be high level.

Again, maybe we should have some zero magic anything for a bit to get people understanding magic isn't the only thing that can be powerful.

Like on the combat end, I'd love to see the ranger do Legolas stuff like being able to tag five targets with arrows on an action, not even as an AOE.

In non-combat situations, something like the old Ranger Traps stuff, only positioned as using the terrain actively, getting enemies stuck on hanging ropes, getting them to trip on loose rocks, etc.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If you believe this to be true, I can't see the point in discussing.

Would you describe someone who can climb Everest, with little fear for their life a bad explorer?

Per RAW, with a +6 (+2 wisdom, +4 expertise) as long as they take 10 while traveling normally they can't get lost. Go slow and they can get +11 on a DC 15. Basically can't fail.

Sure, the cold might be a problem, but only if they didn't bring any gear and can't fashion something because they never encounter any goat or other larger creatures, but we are talking about some of the harshest terrain around. Water is easy, food is tricky, but with a few days supplies and foraging, they are very likely to make it with no serious injury.

So, how is that bad at navigating the wilderness? Can't get lost, can easily find food and water in all but the most extreme environments, what more is there? Unless you decide to go "well, if I alter the rules to make them bad at it..." but then, well... you altered the rules to make them worse. Obviously that makes them worse.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Would you describe someone who can climb Everest, with little fear for their life a bad explorer?

That's kind of a bad example these days, considering.

Per RAW, with a +6 (+2 wisdom, +4 expertise) as long as they take 10 while traveling normally they can't get lost. Go slow and they can get +11 on a DC 15. Basically can't fail.

Except they do fail 20% of the time, actually. Once in every five journeys, they get lost.

And that's assuming that mountain covered with blinding snow, ice sheets over deep crevasses, and five feet of faux explorer's garbage is a DC 15. Which is, say it with me: Dependent on the DM.

So with a sweet and merciful mommy who lets you take 10, and makes the DC 15, yeah, they're competent. If you can't take ten, you're incompetent, and if mommy is strict, you're dangerously incompetent, softened only by the fact that everyone else is wearing underpants on their head.

 

[Minigiant]

FFS, this is why I hate discussing mechanics on these forums. The moment you start writing rules, some posters come out of the woodwork to tell you that since your initial draft Isnt perfectly balanced, and polished as a wotc book, you're a failureand your idea should be abandonedi mmediately and never be returned to or revisited

I'm not criticized that any mechanics are perfectly designed.

I've been consistently saying that the spellless ranger never happens because the community can never agree on any abilities for spellless rangers for higher level.

Few people ever design the level 9, level 14, and level 20 features for the spellless ranger. And when they do, the other fans criticize it.

Heck people criticized the spellcasting Ranger 's capstone but offer no replacement.

 

[Chaosmancer]

They want to get rid of it because it’s not part of their fantasy of the ranger.

That's because everything they want to call a ranger... isn't.

Katniss Everdeen isn't a ranger. She is a girl with a bow that knows how to hunt. Lovely story, great character, but she just has basic survival skills. Also, she doesn't live in a world with giants, dragons, and sentient psychic slimes.

Robin Hood? Other than "lives in the forest" he's just a rogue/fighter. And, heck, are all bandits rangers? Because most of them live in forests too. Also, again, non-magical world.


And these two examples highlight more of the issue that I run into when people deny magic as part of the ranger identity. Why is Robin Hood a ranger? Because he lives in the woods and uses a bow. Well, outdoorsman background fighter and use a bow... what's the difference? Robin Hood wasn't a phenomenal tracker, he didn't befriend the beasts of the forest, he didn't even know the seven secret herbs. He just hid in the forest so he wouldn't be attacked. It is JUST the bow.

Katniss? Same thing. 90% of the reason she's "a ranger" is because she uses a bow. If Katniss was a swordswoman, she wouldn't have gotten that same reputation. And again, her skill with hunting and survival? It is just the survival skill. Like, it blows my mind how people don't want proficiency in Survival to BE proficiency in surviving in the outdoors. I will guarantee there is not a single thing KAtniss Everdeen does that a trained survivalist couldn't do... and that's what proficiency MEANS. We expect people proficient in religion to have an encyclopedic knowledge of hundreds of religions, monsters and mystic rituals. We expect people proficient in history to know EVERYTHING about the history of the entire world. People proficienct in Performance can sing, dance, paint, play instruments and use puppets. But make it survival and suddenly we are shocked at the idea that tracking, finding food, and not getting lost are all just... in the skill.

Because thematically it shouldn’t be a spell. Just like how forest gnomes can talk to tiny beasts without a spell, Druids and rangers should be able to do the same regardless of size (and so should forest gnomes, frankly). It should be treated like a language.

Sure, should be. Isn't. In fact, Forest Gnomes no longer even get it as a language. Its a spell there too. Consistency of mechanics. We can demand it all get turned into a language, but even if it isn't... well, it being a spell is fine too.

That is the case currently. We are arguing about whether it ought to be the case. My position is no, it ought not to be.

Right... so why SHOULD it be the case for Druids but NOT the case for Rangers? I asked that question before, and you said Druids didn't need the poultices because they have magic... but so do rangers. So, if it isn't good for the goose, why are you stuffing it down the gander's throat?

And this isn't to say I don't think the herbalism kit can't make healing items. I think it absolutely should. But that is a function of the crafting and the materials, not because of the ranger's special not!magic.

They are RAW, and Xanathar’s guide has more detailed rules on how to do so. Though I do think rangers should be able to do so more quickly and efficiently than with those rules. They should get a class feature that lets them do so.

I mean, everyone should be able to craft better than the Xanathar's rules. That's just a fact. But I don't see why the ranger can't have spells and the herbalism kit, just like the druid.

No, it doesn’t. The druid ain’t a tracker, sorry.

I mean, any character should be able to try anything. But Druids shouldn’t have a special ability to track better than other characters. The druid is a priest, not an expert. They use spells to accomplish these things, not know-how.

So, a ranger would be better.... because of expertise? That's what being an expert means. And they currently have that. And Spells. Making them actually WAY better at tracking than the druid. So... accomplished. But the Druid should still be better at tracking things through the desert than the wizard or the cleric.

And I am arguing they should not.

Yes, because spellcasting is thematically inappropriate for the ranger. Do try and keep up.

No, it isn't. You keep claiming it is, because you cite people from non-magical worlds and settings and say "SEE! This non-magical person in a non-magical world used a bow and has survival skills, therefore the ranger shouldn't have magic!

Rangers in magical worlds, like the Primal Hunter series, tend to be... magical. Because you having a deep and abiding connection with nature is the same as having a deep and abiding connection to the gods. It comes with magic.

@Minigiant has already quoted the PHB on the matter. It’s quite clear that the ranger as-written is a native of civilization who learns to protect themselves and others within the wild, and ventures out into it to hunt down threats to civilization. They are not necessarily an enemy of nature (though they certainly can be,) but they are certainly not at home there. It is a hostile place, that they apply their expertise to be able to survive and thrive within. As opposed to the druid who reveres nature and literally transforms themselves into a part of it.

Yet both are primal casters. Have been for a long time. Even back in the ye olden days, Rangers eventually got Druidic magic. Yes, the Ranger is presented as closer to civilization than the druid, they are half-druids after all. They are the bridge between nature and civilization. But I wouldn't exactly get shocked faces of surprise if I statted wood elves protecting their forest home as rangers.

Also, the "threats" many rangers fight? Orcs. Goblins. Giants. Ogres. And WHY do they fight them... because traditionally, those people despoil nature AND are threats to the "normal" civilizations. Or they go and hunt mutated beasts that are... destroying nature and are a threat to society. A ranger almost NEVER is depicted as killing a "king of the forest" type, unless it has been driven mad, or otherwise corrupted.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And now we're at a point where only magic can be high level.

Again, maybe we should have some zero magic anything for a bit to get people understanding magic isn't the only thing that can be powerful.

Like on the combat end, I'd love to see the ranger do Legolas stuff like being able to tag five targets with arrows on an action, not even as an AOE.

In non-combat situations, something like the old Ranger Traps stuff, only positioned as using the terrain actively, getting enemies stuck on hanging ropes, getting them to trip on loose rocks, etc.

Why is it no one allows for melee rangers? Spears are such a classic weapon for a hunter character.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That's kind of a bad example these days, considering.

Considering it is mostly done by rich people, with no skills, relying on a team of poor locals who actually have the skills?

Yeah, sorry, not talking about sitting in your heated tent while someone with actual skill does the job. Talking solo here.

Except they do fail 20% of the time, actually. Once in every five journeys, they get lost.

For an hour.

And yeah, turns out when you can only work in 5% intervals, things get a bit wonky. But yes, every five journeys or so they drift off-course for an hour or two. Not exactly a death knell.

And that's assuming that mountain covered with blinding snow, ice sheets over deep crevasses, and five feet of faux explorer's garbage is a DC 15. Which is, say it with me: Dependent on the DM.

That's what the rules say. Mountain navigation is DC 15. And besides, it isn't like everything has to be done in a single roll. You can have perception checks and dex saves too (other things rangers are good at) And, again, let's say you make it DC 20. If you can take 10, and you travel at a slow pace, the ranger is getting a passive 21. So even if we raise this up to a very hard check that most people have a 95% chance of dying and a 100% chance if they take 10... the ranger succeeds.

Again... how is that BAD at exploration? We aren't talking normal things like "go through a marshy swamp" or "navigate a temperate forest" I went straight to some of the most extreme conditions on the planet.... and they can succeed by taking 10. That's incredible.

So with a sweet and merciful mommy who lets you take 10, and makes the DC 15, yeah, they're competent. If you can't take ten, you're incompetent, and if mommy is strict, you're dangerously incompetent, softened only by the fact that everyone else is wearing underpants on their head.

Passive scores exist in DnD, and if you mommy DMs for you, then you have a cool mom.

But, yeah, if you look at the rules of the game, and what they state, and don't make up things that aren't in the rules... then they succeed. And you aren't "incompetent" if you roll, you are just dealing with the bizzare curve of DnD math. I mean, its the same issue where a fighter will miss a straw dummy 5% of the time. That doesn't make any sense, but it is how the math can be interpretted.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm not criticized that any mechanics are perfectly designed.

I've been consistently saying that the spellless ranger never happens because the community can never agree on any abilities for spellless rangers for higher level.

That's because we don't have a solid conception of high-level nature. The game doesn't give it to us, and most people are stuck on "it would be really hard to live in the woods, like our ancestors did, because I've never done it and don't know how" when the survival skill is 90% of what you need to be a survivalist (the hint is in the name)