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

[Vaalingrade]

'It's primal because we say it is'

Nah, going to need something more substantial than tautology.

 

[Minigiant]

'It's primal because we say it is'

Nah, going to need something more substantial than tautology.

Primal is raw elementalism and natural magic.

The problem is WOTC are wizard fanboys and druids and rangers are down with monks on the priority list.

Many other video and TT franchises and IP do druids and rangers better due to less blatant fanboyism.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Primal is raw elementalism and natural magic.

The problem is WOTC are wizard fanboys and druids and rangers are down with monks on the priority list.

Many other video and TT franchises and IP do druids and rangers better due to less blatant fanboyism.

I mean, you're right, but druids aren't that far down.

More around Rogue where they're good mechanically by accident while still violently bungling their core concept (shapeshifting and skills).

The weird thing about ranger is unlike fighter, they keep trying like they actually care. It's just impossible to make a 'ranger' that satisfies with just one class. To get a ranger, you need a ranged and TWF fighter, Oath of Ancients Paladin, the Pet class they will NEVER give us, the wilder rogue, elf culture as class, and of course, druid but bow instead of shapeshifting.

Ranger's not a class, it's a theme. But it was a core class in 3e, so it's here forever.

 

[Minigiant]

I mean, you're right, but druids aren't that far down.

More around Rogue where they're good mechanically by accident while still violently bungling their core concept (shapeshifting and skills).

The weird thing about ranger is unlike fighter, they keep trying like they actually care. It's just impossible to make a 'ranger' that satisfies with just one class. To get a ranger, you need a ranged and TWF fighter, Oath of Ancients Paladin, the Pet class they will NEVER give us, the wilder rogue, elf culture as class, and of course, druid but bow instead of shapeshifting.

Ranger's not a class, it's a theme. But it was a core class in 3e, so it's here forever.

Nope. The point is the ranger isn't all those things.

Each of those archetypes are their own fantasies.

• The Archer is already covered by the fighter.
• The TWF warrior is already covered by the fighter.
• The melee druid is already covered by the druid
• The nature paladin is already covered by paladin
• the wild rogue is covered by the rogue.
• The beast ranger is covered by the barbarian

What isn't covered are:

• The Warrior who backs up their weaponry and nature skills with primal magic
• The Beast Pet Master
• The Monster Hunter who fights differently depending on the monster
• The Trapper
• Whoever fights monsters...

which fight with each other and sometimes the first archetypes over the mantle of ranger. Unfortunately it would take at least 2 classes to make the latter group. And at least 3 to do well.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That's what' climbing Everest' is now. and why it's no longer a benchmark for achievement.

That is a dumb argument, since you clearly understood I didn't mean it rangers would be climbing a mountain in modern heated tents and have other people setting the path.

The game cn compensate for that. It just doesn't because that's not in the current bad design philosophy.

The only way to compensate for that would be to stop using d20s.

'Mountain'.

There's a difference between navigating say White oak Mountain where they let school children travel to the peak and Kilimanjaro, which has a literal forest of knives for a foothill.

Which again, the game could handle if it wasn't for 'simple' game design.

So, under the current rules.... which was my argument.

Yeah, maybe White Oak Mountain is a DC 5. That doesn't make my argument bad that there is a range. I even willingly increased the DC to 20, which is the highest it can go before it becomes literally impossible for normal people.

The problem isn't that the ranger's are currently bad at being outdoorsmen, it is that you don't like the current system for outdoor exploration. Those are different problems.

So...

Again, if the DM favors you and does the dev's job in your favor.... yeah, it's a good class. Pity if that's not the case though.

Funny how not making things up that make the ranger worse is "favoring" them, and that you want to assume the current rules... aren't. My argument was never that the ranger is good by your homebrew navigation rules. It was that it is good BY RAW. Changing the rules can change that. Obviously.

So, in the end, you refuse to acknowledge the point because you hate the rule context. Which, again, is not an argument against my point. To make an analogy, this is like replying to "this car has good gas mileage" with "but all our cars should run on cold fusion hydrogen cores, so actually this car doesn't have good gas mileage"

 

[Chaosmancer]

We do. It's just in spell form. Usually is spells that work better rangers than druids because they have better combat stats and skill checks.

Wilderness challenges, high level beasts, strange weather effects. High level NATURE. Not a high level class. You completely misunderstood what I said.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'd take a spell-less Paladin with divine features or one that receives spells much later.

Sure, feel free to make it for you and your two friends that want it. But the majority of the community doesn't want that.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Random thoughts

1) There are very limited subsystems in 5e. Everything is either a skill check or a spell. Without some structures to interact with it's impossible to create features. For example: Paladin's Aura keys of saving throws. If saving throws weren't codified, we couldn't even have the idea of an ability that makes you better at that. So essentially spell less ranger (my preference) is just skill buffs and a few spell like wilderness themed abilities. Doesn't feel great as it's own class - unless we codify the aspects of the game they impact

2) Honestly a nature themed fighter subclass would probably suffice for mechanically implementing a true spellless ranger. Give me this and do whatever you want to with the Ranger

3) Other half casters tend to get something special they can do with their slots. They also have a strong support style feature based on their theme (Paladin auras and channel divinities, Artificer Infusions and Flash of Genius). Both of these classes feel solid. Thus, spell casting Rangers should have some features that support the party but aren't explicitly spells. They also probably need something special to do with spell slots beyond just cast spells.

Marking could be the Rangers alternate spell slot using feature. Hunter's mark becomes a class feature and then give him a few other marks as well.

At level 6 give him something that buffs the party, could be stealth, perception, survival, initiative, eliminating surprise, attack, ac or damage buff, movement speed buff, etc.

Give him improved Marking at level 10 (possibly allows allies to benefit in some way from the marks).

Keep his spell casting as is.

This, all of this

 

[Vaalingrade]

• The Warrior who backs up their weaponry and nature skills with primal magic

Which wasn't really a thing until people started pushing back against the bow wizard.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That is a dumb argument, since you clearly understood I didn't mean it rangers would be climbing a mountain in modern heated tents and have other people setting the path.

The best part of Enworld is when people jump on obvious jokes that they clearly indicate they got as a part of an argument to rail against.