D&D 5E (2024) What type of ranger would your prefer for 2024?

[Indaarys]

Snip because apparently Im still getting reported and punished after already being kicked out of the thread.

 

[Indaarys]

Huh, what do you know, I just set myself a new subclass to design for my game with that Bear example. Cool!

 

[Shardstone]

I'm not really into the whole Beast Master thing for TTRPG. I don't think its bad or anything, it just isn't my taste. I much prefer the Dunedain-flavor ranger, where you can sometimes get wild creatures to help you, but you yourself are the primary focus of the action/power.

Rangers should, like Bards and Rogues, gain more expertise and similar proficiencies as they level up. They should also be able to train themselves in bonus proficiencies every long rest, letting them shuffle their saves and skills, because the ranger's whole thing is "always be prepared." You can maybe just keep it to saves, not skills, letting the rogue remain the best skill monkey, and the ranger be the class that thematically uses its wisdom to protect itself from anything. So, you could also make it so that the ranger can add their Wisdom modifier to another save X times per long rest, etc etc. Lots of ways to skin this coat.

But this is a "secondary core" feature. The real thing the Ranger needs is diversity in its new core mechanic, Hunter's Mark. Casting Hunter's Mark should have different effects depending on the subclass. Casting Hunter's Mark with a 4th or 5th level spell slot should also let you add different riders to hunter's mark. This would give the Ranger a pretty unique, engaging, and thematically cohesive core feature, where they know how to "problem solve" their enemies.

Alternatively, if the Ranger had the Hunter class baked into the core, you could have had a robust system of variant actions and reactions the ranger can take on their turn. This works better with a spelless ranger, as it lets you make a martial character with a customizable "kit" of cool martial things it can do. Maybe you load up a # equal to your PB after a long rest, things like Whirlwind Attack or passives like Giant Slayer, etc. Then subclasses could have unique ones that you're always trained to do.

Maybe at level one, a theoretical Ranger could have a choice. You either have Spellcasting or you have the Enclave Secrets (your actions, reactions, bonus actions, and passive traits). This nu-Ranger lets you engage with the fantasay of your choice. Let it choose another save during a long rest and it can add its wisdom mod + pb to that save. Give the Ranger expertise once early on and again in the 6-10 range. This, IMO, is the optimal ranger, capable of satisfying both parties, and lets you fine-tune the ranger to fit YOUR exact vision of it.

 

[Gradine]

The best Ranger class is the one that takes 600 AP to master but teaches !Rapidfire, four half-damage attacks that ignore both evasion and defense, one of the best offensive abilities in the game.

 

[Indaarys]

I much prefer the Dunedain-flavor ranger, where you can sometimes get wild creatures to help you, but you yourself are the primary focus of the action/power.

Thats why Im an advocate for a separate class. The two concepts really don't have anything to do with each other unless you squint hard enough to go cross eyed.

 

[Horwath]

Thats why Im an advocate for a separate class. The two concepts really don't have anything to do with each other unless you squint hard enough to go cross eyed.

maybe spellcasting ranger should be some 2/3rd caster class like Warden. Spell levels at class level: 1/4/7/10/13/16/19
And ranger be martial/expert/survival hybrid.

any "magical" features that ranger has should be "always" on or usable prof bonus per long rest. Leave Wis out of it as it is tertiary stat for Rangers, maybe sometimes secondary.

 

[Minigiant]

Thats why Im an advocate for a separate class. The two concepts really don't have anything to do with each other unless you squint hard enough to go cross eyed.

There are basically 3 main Ranger fantasies in popular media past and present.

And there is no real way to do all 3 in a satisfying way in one class. You can't even do it with a "Pick an Choose* subsystem like the Warlock because the Ranger fantasies diverge too much.

 

[Incenjucar]

There are basically 3 main Ranger fantasies in popular media past and present.

And there is no real way to do all 3 in a satisfying way in one class. You can't even do it with a "Pick an Choose* subsystem like the Warlock because the Ranger fantasies diverge too much.

You absolutely can, just not with the current 5E design philosophy. 2E had rangers with either more or less spellcasting to make up for different kit features. You could be a tree ranger with a third arm sprouting out of your chest for crying out loud.

 

[Minigiant]

You absolutely can, just not with the current 5E design philosophy. 2E had rangers with either more or less spellcasting to make up for different kit features. You could be a tree ranger with a third arm sprouting out of your chest for crying out loud.

And a lot of those kits were so unbalanced with each other that even people who don't care about balance said they were broken.

I mean you can physically do it. But balancing would be a pain and it would end up like a lot of the "flavor" Warlock Invocations. Blatantly taking weak options.

5e already has classes with spellcasting and overtly magical subclasses better than nonspellcasting and sublty magical ones even with 5e's weaker magic.

 

[Incenjucar]

And a lot of those kits were so unbalanced with each other that even people who don't care about balance said they were broken.

I mean you can physically do it. But balancing would be a pain and it would end up like a lot of the "flavor" Warlock Invocations. Blatantly taking weak options.

5e already has classes with spellcasting and overtly magical subclasses better than nonspellcasting and sublty magical ones even with 5e's weaker magic.

It was 2E. We've had over 30 years to get better at this. It's really not that hard, it's just not what WotC wants to do. This is 100% "won't" and 0% "can't".