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

[Minigiant]

But it hasn't always been that way, so I'm a little confused why it's "supposed to be" this way. I get that people would like that to be the case, but it was really only true in 3e. In 1e AD&D, the Ranger didn't have skills as we know them outside of Tracking (Druids, meanwhile, possessed "the druid can identify plant type, animal type, and pure water. He can also pass through overgrown areas such as tangled thorns and briar patches at normal movement rates without leaving a trail.").

And the 1e Barbarian actually had a host of special abilities the Ranger lacked, such as climbing trees, hiding in natural surroundings...heck, I'll just copy what Unearthed Arcana has to say:

View attachment 291663
As you can see, many of the abilities one associates with the Ranger are actually Barbarian abilities, and part of that class fantasy! 3e did Barbarians a disservice by taking away their superior ability to survive in the wilds and replacing it with "grr am angry", IMHO.

In 2e, the Ranger didn't have any more proficiency slots than other Warriors, and again, only had Tracking (which anyone could do, but carefully reading the rules showed that the Ranger was vastly superior to this than anyone else, since non-Rangers took a hefty penalty to Track) as well as Hide in Shadows/Move Silently (halved when not in forest terrain).

In 4e, the Ranger had no special skills either.

Technically, even in 3e, Tracking was a Feat, so anyone could acquire it, and you could easily make a non-Ranger who could Track just as well just by taking the Feat (Druids, for example, had decent skill points and a higher emphasis on Wisdom, not to mention a +2 bonus on the checks as a class feature!).

So why this class fantasy of the Ranger being this great skills guy who is better than anyone else at tracking and outdoor survival exists is a bit odd, since historically, that has almost never been true.

Other way around.
Ranger was the official 1e class.
Barbarian was the UA 1e class.
Then the barbarian was "cut" in 2e.

The barbarian had ranger abilitiies. Stealth and tracking were ranger things.

And again the 1E ranger had magic spell slots and could use healing and mental magic items. The 1e barbarian didn't and couldn't associate with magic well.

When barbarian returned in 3e as a full official class, it lost ALL its skill strength.

 

[Minigiant]

Also one thing that many don't notice about Rangers in D&D.

Rangers get magic earlier as other Classes got skills and combat ability.
A ranger gets access to high skill buffed by magic faster as editions roll.
In 1e ad 2e, rangers get magic at level 8. But only a few classes had special skills.
In 3e, rangers get magic at level 4. Every class had skills but only some classes had class skills. Classes are stuck with their class BAB.
In 4e, rangers don'tget magic. BUT Any class can be proficient in any skills via a feat and magic is a level 1 feat..
In 5e, rangers get magic at level 2. Any class can be proficient in any skills via background and get expertise with a splatbook feat.

5.5e? Rangers are getting spells at level 1. Any class can be proficient in any skills via background and get expertise with a PHB feat. Feats are core and level 1.

As other classes bit into skills, D&D rangers dove harder into the playstyle of high level old school magic rangers.

Edit: Many people forget the the original Ranger was created because the original Fighting mas could not portray the class fantasy.

You often could not afford a high dex to make stealth checks. Although basic skill was assumed tracking, first aid, and investigation were not.

So the ranger was created. And created in a manner that if the ranger managed to reach high level they became so combo of Combat/Skill/Magic guy.

When 5e let fighters get skills, there no longer was a niche for a 2nd Combat/Skills guy class. So the high level ranger Combat/Skill/Magic guy became the base class.

If you want Combat/Skill guy to be a class again, you have to reintroduce it by designing one

 

[Vaalingrade]

I will never understand making a claim ("the warden can't be the non-magical forest person because we will only have Rangers in the game") and then refusing to back that claim.

If you don't care about convincing people, why make an argument at all?

And I will never understand needing to make everything an argument, so even stevens.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

it's amazing how differently people can look at and justify the rangers capabilities

Just because a human can perform a task without magic, does not mean that the task in question makes sense in the action economy of the game. I don't want to replace those efficient spells with out-of-combat abilities.

Let's take Cure Wounds for example. Even if there were rules for gathering materials, and taking time to prepare a non-magical poultice ahead of time, using non-magical medicine to bring someone back from 0 hp to full fighting power is not doable in 6 seconds. Even if the replacement healing ability worked only if the target had at least 1 hp, the time it takes to stow your combat gear, pull out the appropriate medicine gear, and apply the medicine that returns 1d8 hit points doesn't work in a combat environment. It makes more sense for a "leadership ability" to use inspiration to regain HP (if the target already has at least 1 hp), using only an action, than the time it takes to apply medicine.

Or Animal Friendship. Charming multiple animals does not take 1 action. It just doesn't. It takes at least some time.

The Longstrider and Jump spells do way more than is mundanely possible. To replace them with mundane abilities is to either just give a small skill bonus or effect, or to create a new system of limited resource management (like we already have for spells). And if you give rangers mundane abilities that replace those spells, do all classes with access to those spells (or even other mundane classes) have the ability to select mundane Jumping or Longstriding effects? If so, how would that even be implemented in 5E?

A mundane Searing Smite? We're talking alchemy here, at best. That requires rules for creation and implementation.

Rather than what you are suggesting, it would be better to create subsystems available for:

• Traps (alarms, snares, pits, damaging traps)
• Alchemy (acids, poisons, medicines, poultices, and combat alchemical creations like tanglefoot bags and alchemist fire)
• Companions (training/befriending animals, allies, or followers)

In closing, mundane abilities cannot replace Ranger magic in the 5E PH. It would take an entirely alternate class from a 3rd party, supported by subsystems that work for all classes (not just Rangers) that make it make sense. I'd even take a look at such rules, but they won't be implmented in the 2024 books.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

A normal person can make over a dozen of rope traps in a day.

* If they have the appropriate materials for the particular terrain they happen to be traveling in.

You can justify making a lifting snare in a forest if you have the materials and the appropriate trees that make it viable. You can even justify it taking 10 minutes to create one. But you aren't going to do it in a minute (like the spell), nor will you be able to create a mundane lifting snare in featureless terrain like a pasture or a sandy desert.

Magic lets you have reliable abilities that work quickly, reliably, and in any terrain. Rangers having access to magic via a Primal source enables them to have a hug swath of abilities to choose between, on any given day.

I think the Snare spell will be fixed if it has a casting time of 1 action so it can be used as part of a chase scene.

 

[Incenjucar]

* If they have the appropriate materials for the particular terrain they happen to be traveling in.

You can justify making a lifting snare in a forest if you have the materials and the appropriate trees that make it viable. You can even justify it taking 10 minutes to create one. But you aren't going to do it in a minute (like the spell), nor will you be able to create a mundane lifting snare in featureless terrain like a pasture or a sandy desert.

Magic lets you have reliable abilities that work quickly, reliably, and in any terrain. Rangers having access to magic via a Primal source enables them to have a hug swath of abilities to choose between, on any given day.

I think the Snare spell will be fixed if it has a casting time of 1 action so it can be used as part of a chase scene.

"I can do this all day with the right materials" and "I can do this in 6 seconds using pocket lint" are the basic tension that D&D places between non-magical and magical abilities.

A ranger might be able to do things faster than average, of course, being able to drop a bear trap onto the ground in a single round instead of using a full minute of action, if they have a bear trap on hand.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

"I can do this all day with the right materials" and "I can do this in 6 seconds using pocket lint" are the basic tension that D&D places between non-magical and magical abilities.

A ranger might be able to do things faster than average, of course, being able to drop a bear trap onto the ground in a single round instead of using a full minute of action, if they have a bear trap on hand.

But an 18-inch preloaded bear trap that just needs to be dropped on the ground is not a ranger ability. Any character can buy a bear trap, carry it around, and do that just as easily. My smart wizard could do that. Again, mundane equipment that anyone can use does not a class ability make.

I know people rrrrrrreeeeaaaallly want to codify nonmagical abilities as class features. And that is great! As long as it makes sense that those features make sense for that class, and aren't unique for uniqueness' sake, aren't just equipment or mundane skills that anyone can use.

The problem is that many mundane abilities are not exclusive to a class. They deserve subsystems that anyone can opt into. And if those subsystems aren't built into the game, then the DM is going to make a ruling.

Ranger: Hey, DM, can I buy two bear traps for the dungeon expedition? I want to have them "set" to go off, but with a "safety" on. I want to be able to toss one down, pull the safety pin, and run.
DM: Sure. Did you want to pay more for a high-quality monster trap that has the safety built in? Or do you want a simple bear trap that doesn't have a safety, but you can spend time during a rest to fashion a safety yourself?
Ranger: I'll take the cheaper one. I can make it work the way I want.
Wizard: That is a great idea, Ranger. DM, I would like to do the same.
Ranger: No, that's my idea.
Wizard: And it is a good one. Thanks! I agree that this will help the party greatly.
Rogue: I'll take one. I know all about traps. Maybe if we have time to prepare, I can make a tripwire before the bear trap, so the enemy trips and falls face-first into the bear trap. DM, if I do that right, can I get sneak attack damage with that?
Fighter: You guys are nerds. Rogue, you're just evil.

 

[James Gasik]

What the Ranger could use are narrative abilities. In Adventures in Rokugan, there's a saboteur Ninja who, if they have been in a location for at least ten minutes, can, once per day, say "oh, I cached some hidden weapons there/placed a trap" and presto, it happens. It's not actually magical, but in D&D, you couldn't do something like that without magic.

 

[Gorck]

I think a better example than dropping a preset bear trap on the ground would be improvising a snare on the spot. That seems like an ability that would be Ranger exclusive (or maybe shared with the Druid, or a specific Druid subclass).

 

[Incenjucar]

Non-magical abilities can easily be mostly "you do a thing anyone else can do but better and faster". A fighter is making normal melee attacks anyone can do at level 1, but up to 8x as fast. A ranger climbing and swimming is totally normal, except they can get climbing amd swimming speeds. A ranger setting up a trap is something anyone can do, except a ranger can make a snare that can catch a dragon out of twine, paper clips, and chewing gum.