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

[CleverNickName]

The ranger is a confusing mashup of idioms and character concepts. Some folks think it should be more like Aragorn, others suggest it should be more like Legolas (Archery-focused, vs. Two-Weapon Fighting focus.) Others still would like it to be closer to Arwin or Geralt (with spells, or without.)

So maybe a good way to handle it would be to keep all of the things these four concepts have in common (skill proficiencies, hit dice, save throws, proficiencies, favored enemy, favored terrain, etc.) in the core class, and then move everything else into four subclasses: two for spells/not spells, and two for archery/TWF:

	With Spells	Without Spells
Archery	A nature-themed archery subclass. Like the Arcane Archer, but with druid & ranger spells.	A hunter-themed subclass (like Legolas maybe). A subclass that focuses on stealth, camouflage, and ranged attacks. The Hunter subclass as-written would be a good starting point.
Two-Weapon Fighting	"Witcher" clones. Weapon experts with a magical origin. Like an Eldritch Knight, but with druid spells. Geralt maybe.	Woodland warriors. Wardens. Protectors of the forest, monster hunters. Aragorn.

Move all of the spellcasting progression (if any) out of the core class, and into the Subclass: sort of like how the Arcane Archer and Eldritch Knight do it. For the no-spells subclass, give them fighter maneuvers and other non-combat features instead of spells.

 

[Minigiant]

Are you trying to prove my point here????

The big thing in 4E was that, out of combat, nobody needed magic to heal up, because Healing Surges existed.

But In combat.
And rangers were still not ritual casters and barred from rangery stuff until they spent a feat on it.

This discussion brings up an interesting idea. Really, a lot of spells in the game could be turned into items and equipment, and that'd do wonders for martials.

I for a long time think that rangers should have been gadgeteers.

If 6e rangers had infusions, it would make so much sense. Both magical and nonmagical rangers of fantasy were tied to their special gear. Wther it be potions, salves, traps, poisons, special clothing, or even trick arrows.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The ranger is a confusing mashup of idioms and character concepts. Some folks think it should be more like Aragorn, others suggest it should be more like Legolas (Archery-focused, vs. Two-Weapon Fighting focus.) Others still would like it to be closer to Arwin or Geralt (with spells, or without.)

So maybe a good way to handle it would be to make four subclasses: two for spells/not spells, and two for archery/TWF:

	With Spells	Without Spells
Archery	A nature-themed archery subclass. Like the Arcane Archer, but with druid & ranger spells.	A hunter-themed subclass (like Legolas maybe). A subclass that focuses on stealth, camouflage, and ranged attacks.
Two-Weapon Fighting	"Witcher" clones. Weapon experts with a magical origin. Like an Eldritch Knight, but with druid spells. Geralt maybe.	Woodland warriors. Wardens. Protectors of the forest, monster hunters. Aragorn.

Move all of the spellcasting progression (if any) out of the core class, and into the Subclass: sort of like how the Arcane Archer and Eldritch Knight do it. For the no-spells subclass, give them fighter maneuvers and other non-combat features instead of spells.

I mean, once you move the spells into being a subclass thing, pretty much real arguments with the Ranger can be quickly resolved.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

It seems like you're intentionally missing the point.

The vast majority of spells you described are stuff D&D characters do without needing magic.

Should all rangers, druids, bards, and some subclasses get Speak With Animals as a non-magical class ability rather than a spell they can opt into?

I gave specific reasonings why they ARE magic. Because they are. MANY classes get these ability options because they are spells.

But I also admit that for some of them, like traps, there can be a subsystem. A "trap" ability should not belong to only 1 class. I can see rangers, druids, rogues, and artificers using a trap subsytem. But even a subsystem that covers a mundane ability can't do things as quickly or as efficiently as a spell.

 

[CleverNickName]

I mean, once you move the spells into being a subclass thing, pretty much real arguments with the Ranger can be quickly resolved.

Agreed. That's only solving half of "The Ranger Problem," IMO...but that's drifting off-topic here.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But In combat.

Only Leaders could meaningfully heal in combat. 3.XE and earlier rangers couldn't meaningfully heal in combat.

Rangers were, depending on the version, either Controllers with a Striker secondary role, or Strikers with a Controller secondary role.

You're continuing to prove my point because apparently you have a bit of a memory hole for how 4E worked.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Should all rangers, druids, bards, and some subclasses get Speak With Animals as a non-magical class ability rather than a spell they can opt into?

Probably. 5E is lacking some of the minor customization slots that would make that easy to do, sadly.

 

[Minigiant]

Move all of the spellcasting progression (if any) out of the core class, and into the Subclass: sort of like how the Arcane Archer and Eldritch Knight do it. For the no-spells subclass, give them fighter maneuvers and other non-combat features instead of spells.

I mean, once you move the spells into being a subclass thing, pretty much real arguments with the Ranger can be quickly resolved.

Maybe I'll just say it in a blunt and simple manner.

A 1/3 Spellcaster does not have enough spells per day nor progress through the spell levels faster enough to produce the Magical Ranger Class Fantasy.

A 1/2 caster barely does.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Mabye I'll just say it in a blunt and simple manner.

A 1/3 Spellcaster does not have enough spells per day nor progress through the spell levels faster enough to produce the Magical Ranger Class Fantasy.

A 1/2 caster barely does.

It's a nonsensical and irrelevant claim, and it's obvious half of players don't even want that fantasy.

 

[Incenjucar]

Rangers could go a-la-carte like warlocks do for many features, or at least get periodic decisions that branch them into variations.

Features like "Ranger Empathy" could have mundane options, fantastic options, and strictly magical options, with magic being strongest but less available or slower.