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

[Emberashh]

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

 

[Incenjucar]

...

Yes, giving martials spells makes them better at things that require spells. Just because you say they have three fireball bombs on their belt instead of three castings of fireball doesn't change that.

Again, everyone should be using spells to tie their shoes, swing their sword, etc. using this logic.

Spells and mundane things have different limitations and benefits. Magic has the downside of being fire and forget with very few interactions, while physical things can be part of more complicated scenarios like setting up traps or combining with other things. A wizard can cast acid arrow but they can't tied a screaming whistle to the end of their acid arrow and fire it as a distraction.

 

[ECMO3]

Fantasy should be what the game should be about. Not just the one fantasy being the only one allowed because of lazy design goals and a fan base so unwilling to accept anything but magic being reliable they accepted Bounded Accuracy that makes it absolutely certain any and all skills are markedly unreliable.

They aren't. Expertise and Reliable talent make skills markedly reliable.

There is a lot more you can do with subclasses too. I am playing a 19th level Fighter-Ranger that is rocking a +22 intimidation and doing it with a 10 Charisma, and she has lucky feat so if she rolls bad (which is a 23) she can reroll it. If I was only using only WOTC content she would still have a +16 .... again with a 10 Charisma. That is without even trying hard!

D&D Beyond Character Sheet

The World's most intelligent Dungeons and Dragons Character Sheet.

www.dndbeyond.com

For skills to be reliable, you need to build a character to have reliable skills. Playing a Variant human Soul Knife Rogue with Lore Bard 3 and Knowlege Cleric 1 dip and picking up skill expert, prodigy and lucky will give a bunch of very, very reliable skills. Proficiency in 15 skills, 8 skills with expertise, the remaining 3 half proficiency, ability to add both guidance and Psi bolstered knack to any skill check and the ability to reroll with lucky 3 times a day. This is one of many different ways available, other things to consider are Fey Wanderer Rangers and Scout Rogues depending on exactly what you want to do.

So yeah if you want to build a character with reliable skills you can, but most people purposely decide to build a character not focused on skills and then they wonder why they don't have great reliable skills.

 

[ECMO3]

Now imagine if they just had to Choose Quarry at-will and not have to deal with any of that crap.

A Ranger without spells (i.e. that crap) is not a Ranger IMO. Arcane magic was part of the class from the very begining. Being able to do this kind of thing without a spell would be awful and ruin the whole class concept IMO.

I think there is room for a non-magic wilderness martial (although I would argue the scout already does that), but that should not be the Ranger IMO. Magic should is a core class-defining part of the Ranger.

That is one thing I liked about the latter subclasses like Swarmkeeper, Fey Wanderer, Horizon Walker and to a lessor extent Gloom Stalker and Drakewarden. As well as the latter class abilities like Primal Awareness, Drudic Warrior and Natures Veil. Thematically that is lot closer to what a Ranger should be than what is in the earlier PHB version IMO.

Being able to camoflage yourself with sticks and leaves does not seem very "Ranger" to me. Being able to use a bonus action to make yourself invisible is right on point for what the class should be.

 

[Incenjucar]

Few if any people care about the word ranger, it's having a core lightly-armored wilderness warrior that doesn't have to rely on magic to do things that normal people can do in real life that anyone cares about. The legacy ranger can wear a wizard hat with viking horns that shoot lasers for all it matters.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The fantasy archtype does have multiple beasts.



Pointing out your behavior isn't an insult.



???



Irony is trying to throw this at me like an accusation when Im the one asserting you should let people speak for themselves.



And yet thats what you ended up doing. The game is not a competition, and you're not the first nor will you be the last who cannot grasp that very simple concept.



You're entirely sidestepping the point. We're in a topic speculating about how currently non-existent classes could be constructed.

Trying to assert piss-poor, god awful game design is nothing but a contrarian waste of time and energy.

Nobody is here to discuss whatever abortive nonsense WOTC would put out if they tried to deliver on these ideas, and that is all your assertions point towards. You're basically going completely off-topic and derailing the topic because you, for some reason, really don't like any of these ideas and can't just leave it alone to those of us that do.



Ie, in a discussion about making DND better we can't actually allow ourselves to explore any ideas or means to make DND better.



Do feel free to explain the logical hoops you're jumping through that takes you from "hes not quoting every single word I say" to "hes not reading every single word I say".

I quote the specific parts Im responding to first for readability, because quoting entire posts gets ridiculously obtuse in long internet arguments, and second because not everything actually needs a response in the first place.



Ill remind you how I already spoke to this issue in pointing out what others have said in regards to designing new systems to enable these speculative classes. (Which I think I may have misattributed to Minigiant when it was Micah. I admittely confuse these two)

You'll also find if you go back and read this topic that Ive been consistent from the beginning about asserting the game needs to be finished properly, and not leave so much up to homebrew rulings, especially in regards to things like Exploration.



Its almost like Im being open minded to the idea of different delivery methods to these ideas and responded accordingly to temper my position.

And Ill note for the umpteenth time when I get into these long diatribes with you that this is another instance of you not being a fair debater. Instead of granting me some benefit of the doubt when I cede ground on the argument, you'd rather use it as a cudgel to win the argument.



Do you actually expect me at some point to go "you're right Chaos Im wrong, teach me Master" of some similar vein of excrement?

Cause if thats what your goal is I can tell you that itd be best to give up now.



It wouldn't be necessary if 5e wasn't a lobotomized 4e hack.

Once again, you show yourself unwilling to entertain adding to the game. Why are you even here?

Mod Note:

One of ENWorld’s most basic rules is to keep it civil. It‘s fine to disagree with someone as long as you do so without being disagreeable.

This post fails that standard multiple times, so you’ll be taking an involuntary permanent vacation from this thread. And this isn’t the first time. Paraphrasing your own post, once again, you show yourself unwilling to be polite to your fellow ENWorlders. Why are you even here?

 

[Minigiant]

Few if any people care about the word ranger, it's having a core lightly-armored wilderness warrior that doesn't have to rely on magic to do things that normal people can do in real life that anyone cares about. The legacy ranger can wear a wizard hat with viking horns that shoot lasers for all it matters.

The point is that mostly already exist as many people describe.

It's usually:
1) a Fighter with a feat for Expertise and a feat for Hunters Mark
or
2) a Ranger who describes their spells as practiced martial training

For the people who want something else, it is usually the rewriting of the ranger spells lit as not-spells rebalanced for at-will use. However no one is willing to dedicate space in a core book for that nor in the requesting group willing to agree on a list of full scaling features if they did.

So WOTC, Paizo, and most publishers never attempt it and say "Play a Fighter and customize with feats".

 

[Horwath]

The point is that mostly already exist as many people describe.

It's usually:
1) a Fighter with a feat for Expertise and a feat for Hunters Mark
or
2) a Ranger who describes their spells as practiced martial training

For the people who want something else, it is usually the rewriting of the ranger spells lit as not-spells rebalanced for at-will use. However no one is willing to dedicate space in a core book for that nor in the requesting group willing to agree on a list of full scaling features if they did.

So WOTC, Paizo, and most publishers never attempt it and say "Play a Fighter and customize with feats".

Paizo never did?
here is PF1 ranger variants without spells:

Divine Marksman – d20PFSRD

www.d20pfsrd.com

Skirmisher – d20PFSRD

www.d20pfsrd.com

Trapper – d20PFSRD

www.d20pfsrd.com

Spell-less Ranger – d20PFSRD

www.d20pfsrd.com

Ambush Hunter – d20PFSRD

www.d20pfsrd.com

 

[Minigiant]

Paizo never did?
here is PF1 ranger variants without spells:

Divine Marksman – d20PFSRD

www.d20pfsrd.com

Skirmisher – d20PFSRD

www.d20pfsrd.com

Trapper – d20PFSRD

www.d20pfsrd.com

Spell-less Ranger – d20PFSRD

www.d20pfsrd.com

Ambush Hunter – d20PFSRD

www.d20pfsrd.com

Pf1e and 3e didn't happen the mechanical skeleton to have a Fighter with high skill as a customization option

That's is the point.

5e does. 5.5e will offer more flexibility with a 1st level feat.

And no one in this 45+ page thread who wants something more has described something that isn't just the power level of a current level 1 feat.

 

[Vaalingrade]

We keep coming back to this fallacy that nothing can be powerful without being a spell.