Does anyone else want Rangers that have more skills and fewer or no spells? IMHO I think that too many classes have spells and now with some Feats anyone can have them. I'd be willing to trade most of my spells for being better at Ranger stuff.
Does anyone else want Rangers that have more skills and fewer or no spells? IMHO I think that too many classes have spells and now with some Feats anyone can have them. I'd be willing to trade most of my spells for being better at Ranger stuff.
I feel like spells are part of the class and always have been, even when they tried to take away its magic in 4E later supplements started bringing the magic back into the class (think they labeled it Primal powers). In Pathfinder 2E where they went with a spell less Ranger they brought in ways for them to have spells eventually. I would say in the current 5E your best bet would be to start off with a background that offers Skilled (so you can pick up Animal Handling, Nature and Survival) as a origin feat and take Rogue as your class. With 6 levels of Fighter sprinkled in there somewhere, that would make a good example of a Ranger without spells.
The Rogue Scout feature Survivalist that gives them proficiency with Survival and Nature should be a Ranger thing IMHO. The Roving trait from the 2024 version should be a Lvl 1 trait because moving about in the wilderness is what Rangers are supposed to be doing. If the 2024 version is going to lean into Hunter's Mark so heavily, then make it a feature limited to PB number of times per day instead of a spell that you can lose Concentration on.
I feel like magic if used correctly enhances the ranger, using spells that enhance the direct connection to nature, which is the most primal power. I tend to only take spells that seem like they come from the primal forces of nature. Speak with animal, beastrail sense, entangle, spike growth good berry etc...
It's easy to imagine a higher power or the earth itself providing powers used to defend nature being granted to an individual whose soul perpose is to keep the balance of nature and society.
TBH, I can see Rangers having access to two cantrips: Druidcraft and Elementism. If they're going to be dealing with nature, give them some tools to deal with nature. Druidcraft, in particular, would be very handy.
Rangers in 5e having spells seems right. Generally 5e is used for a pervasive magic setting but as such ranger magic has its own tone. Even barbarians are magical in 5e.(note imo 2014 was a little better with tone before rewrites) sometimes you just need certain mecanical pieces locked in place to build overall fuction around.
I'm one of the people that think spell-less Rangers are perfectly fine as fighter or scout rogue builds.
I pick a class for its mechanics/gameplay interaction not flavor. Too many people treat Rangers like a abusive relationship. I love you but I wish you'd learn cook the way I like. Or my ex-class never treated me this way. Or you constantly need plastic surgery to be valued.(ok..ok.. those are extreme examples)
The better approach is to look at the tools your given and see how they tell each character's story mechanically. Half casting IMO really reinforces the border between the natural, magical and human worlds.
Rangers in 5e having spells seems right. Generally 5e is used for a pervasive magic setting but as such ranger magic has its own tone. Even barbarians are magical in 5e.(note imo 2014 was a little better with tone before rewrites) sometimes you just need certain mecanical pieces locked in place to build overall fuction around.
I'm one of the people that think spell-less Rangers are perfectly fine as fighter or scout rogue builds.
I pick a class for its mechanics/gameplay interaction not flavor. Too many people treat Rangers like a abusive relationship. I love you but I wish you'd learn cook the way I like. Or my ex-class never treated me this way. Or you constantly need plastic surgery to be valued.(ok..ok.. those are extreme examples)
The better approach is to look at the tools your given and see how they tell each character's story mechanically. Half casting IMO really reinforces the border between the natural, magical and human worlds.
Does anyone else want Rangers that have more skills and fewer or no spells? IMHO I think that too many classes have spells and now with some Feats anyone can have them. I'd be willing to trade most of my spells for being better at Ranger stuff.
How does everyone else feel about this?
I agree completely. It is almost as if they are on a quest to turn every class into a partial caster.
Once upon a time, Rangers were the only class that could track, and if you wanted to dual wield, Ranger was your clear choice. If you wanted a tracker in the group, you needed a Ranger. Now there is nothing that a Ranger can do, that other classes can't do better (with Gloomstalker as the only exception).
Dual Wield? Battlemaster or Rogue is better. Archer? Battlemaster or Arcane Archer are better. Tracking? Literally anyone can do it just as well as the Ranger.
Beast Master - has always been better in a novel than at the gaming table, and if you really want an animal companion, go Druid. Fey Wanderer - (not even sure why this subclass exists, there's rogues and bards that can do these better) Hunter - ok, we're getting close, but again - just play an outdoorsy flavored battlemaster Gloomstalker - now this is a bit OP, and only because of its "invisible to darkvision" ability, which quite frankly is insanely powerful. Combine that with archery, and the PC becomes untouchable when underground, exploring ruins, or at night. Combine it with a race that can fly, and it becomes god-like. The only drawback is that if the group is also relying on Darkvision, they never know where the Gloomstalker is which means getting caught in friendly spells or not being able to find them to heal them when they're dying without wasting time creating light.
Seriously, that portion of the Umbral Sight ability needs to go away.
I haven't seen a single non-Gloomstalker Ranger since it was introduced, and never a single-classed Gloomstalker. It's always take Gloomstalker until 3rd level, then abandon the class and go with what they really wanted now that they are invisible to everything that doesn't use a light source (most monsters, all animals, almost all undead, and that's the short list). Most adventures take place in most campaigns in areas of poor lighting. Even travelling cross country during broad daylight, the most dangerous portion is camping at night (invisible). Unless you're doing nothing but dungeoncrawls in tight quarters standing next to a human, the Gloomstalker quickly becomes nigh unstopable.
I once threw the PCs against an evil assassin that was a Wraith with levels in Gloomstalker. The group contained 2 Paladins, a Priest, War Mage, Rogue-type... and they didn't even think to try using a lightsource in that dark fleabag Inn in the middle of the night until one party member was already dead and turned into a Spectre, because they all had darkvision. In another campaign one of my players was an Aarakokra Gloomstalker Archer the only time he was even remotely challenged was against a dragon or when he got knocked out by a friendly spell because the caster couldn't see him.
Rangers always had spell since their debut and first interactions back in the 70s and 80s, when they were just the “Aragorn” class.
Flavor is free and you can always bring this mundane vibe to your Ranger spells to a one that can be deployed as equipments, techniques or something like that.
I’m not for a spellless ranger. However, I recognize that some folks like them. The easy way to get one is to go Fighter 1 with a dex Based fighter taking TWF and shortsword + scimitar. Then go rogue 3 taking scout rogue. Scout rogue doesn’t just give proficiency with nature and survival it gives expertise - something I have hated since it came out as it makes the scout rogue out ranger the ranger where the ranger should be supreme. Then go back and go to fighter 5 for the second attack. With a final form of rogue 9/fighter 11 for the speed boost from scout rogue and the third attack from fighter as the “capstone” . Pick up herbalism along the way and you have a very credible magicless “Aragorn” style ranger. Frankly giving the normal ranger a third attack as a capstone would have been far better than changing the HM damage to a D10.
I’m not for a spellless ranger. However, I recognize that some folks like them. The easy way to get one is to go Fighter 1 with a dex Based fighter taking TWF and shortsword + scimitar. Then go rogue 3 taking scout rogue. Scout rogue doesn’t just give proficiency with nature and survival it gives expertise - something I have hated since it came out as it makes the scout rogue out ranger the ranger where the ranger should be supreme. Then go back and go to fighter 5 for the second attack. With a final form of rogue 9/fighter 11 for the speed boost from scout rogue and the third attack from fighter as the “capstone” . Pick up herbalism along the way and you have a very credible magicless “Aragorn” style ranger. Frankly giving the normal ranger a third attack as a capstone would have been far better than changing the HM damage to a D10.
The scout rogue only out rangers the ranger if you relegate the concept of such mechanics to just skill checks. Which is 100% false in 2014 but only partially false in 2024.
Only rangers in their terrain get the defined benefits of exact numbers and time frame. A scout rogue should never get that same information. Similarly a 2014 has functional expertise in way more skills they just don't get to use them all the time. Having more options however means there's more creative places to use it I often find it actually makes the situational aspects worse by only having one expertise option.(until 9)
So a spell-less ranger represented by scout is fine especially for people who don't like the regular investment or variability of the ranger frame. Giving people different ways to feel their concept out is good. Forcing other preferd concepts on people who want something different should be avoided. Which is what often happens with ranger. Being told I'm a bad player for liking favored terrain is no different than saying a ranger concept without spells is a bad player. As long as the tools fit the game their use should be individually applied because each character should be unique to the player.
Hrmmm let’s see the 2014 ranger gets advantage on survival checks to track their favored enemies and advantage on intelligence rolls to remember information about them. So we are still dealing with checks - typically a survival or nature check. Advantage is around a +4 equivalent so they get +2+4=+6 to their roll at level 1 vs expertise which doubles the proficiency bonus of +2 so a +4 to their roll at roll. 2014 is better at L1. At L20 the ‘14 ranger gets +4+6=+10 while the expertise gets +12 so advantage expertise. With a cross over at L9 and the ‘14 ranger ahead L1-8 but the xpertise ranger ahead L13-20. However, the expertise gets those bonuses not just on favored foes but on all foes for both tracking and remembering stuff. That is a large plus for the xpertise ranger. Overall I would say advantage to the expertise. Then the explorer ribbons: 1) Difficult Terrain doesn’t slow your groups travel. True there is nothing like this for the expertise ranger. Except that a natural roll to avoid difficult terrain can do the same thing. Still advantage to 2014 - you can also fail the expertise roll or run into areas where you can’t avoid difficult terrain. 2) Your group can’t become lost by non magical means. Nothing like this either - at best an expertise nature roll to not get lost. Advantage 2014. However, personally I hate this ribbon - it is a big piece of why wilderness exploration never happens. Even rangers should always have a chance of getting lost (nonmagically). My opinion. This should be the expertise version but ymmv. 3) the ranger is always alert for danger, even if also doing something else. Expertise doesn’t really have anything explicit for this but it does provide double expertise for your passive perception checks which are what should be being used here. And expertise applies in all terrains not just the 1-3 favored terrains of 2014. Call it a draw. 4) Traveling alone you can move stealthily at a normal pace . Because the rules say you can’t do this normally xpertise is useless here - definite advantage 2014, even if it’s only in 1-3 terrains. This is a ribbon that really should have been carried forward. On the other hand how often are you really moving by yourself when with a party? Still … 5) forage for 2X normal. But only in 1-3 terrains.still xpertise doesn’t do this without some serious homebrewing so advantage 2014. But, how often do you actually need that double dose of foraging? For most parties that are or less does it matter? 6) when tracking you learn exact number, sizes and time since they passed. IF your in your terrain(s). Realistically these are all things a skilled tracker should be able to do in any terrain so expertise helps a ton and is far broader in use than the ribbon so advantage expertise.
overall the 2014 ranger has some advantages - if they are in their terrains ( which they should normally be) but only after an hour of time has passed. So you do the lost? Checks in that first hour and the 2014 ranger is no better than any other. As I see it ribbon 2 shouldn’t exist , ribbon 3 is a draw, ribbons 4&5 are very situational at best and may never come into play. That leaves numbers 1 and 6 and they split. Should rangers have some ribbon abilities? Definitely but they shouldn’t be tied to specific terrains. Ribbons 1, 3 & 4 shouldn’t exist go back to a revised ranger. I would tie a revised 5 to proficiency ( you find forage for PB more folks than normal)
Hrmmm let’s see the 2014 ranger gets advantage on survival checks to track their favored enemies and advantage on intelligence rolls to remember information about them. So we are still dealing with checks - typically a survival or nature check. Advantage is around a +4 equivalent so they get +2+4=+6 to their roll at level 1 vs expertise which doubles the proficiency bonus of +2 so a +4 to their roll at roll. 2014 is better at L1. At L20 the ‘14 ranger gets +4+6=+10 while the expertise gets +12 so advantage expertise. With a cross over at L9 and the ‘14 ranger ahead L1-8 but the xpertise ranger ahead L13-20. However, the expertise gets those bonuses not just on favored foes but on all foes for both tracking and remembering stuff. That is a large plus for the xpertise ranger. Overall I would say advantage to the expertise. Then the explorer ribbons: 1) Difficult Terrain doesn’t slow your groups travel. True there is nothing like this for the expertise ranger. Except that a natural roll to avoid difficult terrain can do the same thing. Still advantage to 2014 - you can also fail the expertise roll or run into areas where you can’t avoid difficult terrain. 2) Your group can’t become lost by non magical means. Nothing like this either - at best an expertise nature roll to not get lost. Advantage 2014. However, personally I hate this ribbon - it is a big piece of why wilderness exploration never happens. Even rangers should always have a chance of getting lost (nonmagically). My opinion. This should be the expertise version but ymmv. 3) the ranger is always alert for danger, even if also doing something else. Expertise doesn’t really have anything explicit for this but it does provide double expertise for your passive perception checks which are what should be being used here. And expertise applies in all terrains not just the 1-3 favored terrains of 2014. Call it a draw. 4) Traveling alone you can move stealthily at a normal pace . Because the rules say you can’t do this normally xpertise is useless here - definite advantage 2014, even if it’s only in 1-3 terrains. This is a ribbon that really should have been carried forward. On the other hand how often are you really moving by yourself when with a party? Still … 5) forage for 2X normal. But only in 1-3 terrains.still xpertise doesn’t do this without some serious homebrewing so advantage 2014. But, how often do you actually need that double dose of foraging? For most parties that are or less does it matter? 6) when tracking you learn exact number, sizes and time since they passed. IF your in your terrain(s). Realistically these are all things a skilled tracker should be able to do in any terrain so expertise helps a ton and is far broader in use than the ribbon so advantage expertise.
overall the 2014 ranger has some advantages - if they are in their terrains ( which they should normally be) but only after an hour of time has passed. So you do the lost? Checks in that first hour and the 2014 ranger is no better than any other. As I see it ribbon 2 shouldn’t exist , ribbon 3 is a draw, ribbons 4&5 are very situational at best and may never come into play. That leaves numbers 1 and 6 and they split. Should rangers have some ribbon abilities? Definitely but they shouldn’t be tied to specific terrains. Ribbons 1, 3 & 4 shouldn’t exist go back to a revised ranger. I would tie a revised 5 to proficiency ( you find forage for PB more folks than normal)
I thought really hard about how to respond to this. (as the timeline will show a delay) We could go over where I think there are injected assumptions about the practicality of each analysis but I think its stretching the goal of the thread and circling back to old topics.
So, Instead I will say the old version needed changes to stabilize the play experience. However rangers having good mechanical support alongside spells is ok design for rangers and I appreciated this attempt in 2014. wotc taking spells away make the mechanical issues worse because the framework features are not solid enough for solid play.
2014's measurable success is player and table dependent and the memes make it almost impossible to accurately track. I know alot of ranger players that specifically are drawn to such ribbon features but anecdotes don't show probability or causality only possibility. Its possible to make it work because I've seen it repeated and many differing experiences seem to have comorbidity issues alongside ranger bait.
IN a different timeline/universe Dnd having a solid ranger mechanics with out spells could work as long as its mechanically distinct from other options such as scout. Several other rpgs actually do this but dnd is too tied to spells as mechanical staples for ease of use and rules minimalization.
I’m not really arguing that there shouldn’t be ribbon abilities, just that as they stand they could use a good overhaul. I would love to see both 2 expertises at L2 and something like favored enemy and terrain. But the should get more enemies Ndebele more terrains - at least 5 of each. I would love that, but at this point I’ve given up hope of WotC ever doing something like that. In another thread - in the ranger group I believe, I posted ribbons I would love to see with a 2 expertise base . Your right we have been over a lot of this territory many times as we both love rangers and want them to be all they could be.
I'd certainly prefer to have spells to not having spells. I would not want to trade my spells for 'rangery' features. I want more magic, not less.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I would agree in more focus on spells If there were better spells tailored to half casting as a ranger.
.Hunter's mark fails at pre-tracking. The disease prevention spells are hard to use/justify as part of the character. Find x are often short range or too costly or overlap intended skill check features.
Raise beasts should have been in the game long before now as a less costly way to care for pets, mounts or adventure npcs.
I still think killing the poison aspects of 2024 ranger is bad enough to makeme dislike it alone via swift quiver changes and new harvesting rules.
For the record, I never said Rangers were at one time spell-less; they always had spells - but that was not their focus. They were made unique by their abilities that no other class had access to, and got a few helpful spells on the side.
Where D&D went wrong with Rangers, was when they started handing out those abilities to others (like making a Scout Rogue), and eventually everyone - then thinking they could 'fix' Rangers by giving them more magic.
If you truly want to "fix" Rangers, they need core abilities that no one else can do, and stop relying on magic. If you want more magic, add in levels of a spellcaster. But IMHO, D&D is on a quest to turn every class into a half or full caster.
I believe that to be a mistake. If someone wants more spellcasting ability, nothing is stopping them from multi-classing with spellcasting levels. But if someone does not want to play a caster, the options are becoming more and more limited with each new edition of the game.
For the record, I never said Rangers were at one time spell-less; they always had spells - but that was not their focus. They were made unique by their abilities that no other class had access to, and got a few helpful spells on the side.
Where D&D went wrong with Rangers, was when they started handing out those abilities to others (like making a Scout Rogue), and eventually everyone - then thinking they could 'fix' Rangers by giving them more magic.
If you truly want to "fix" Rangers, they need core abilities that no one else can do, and stop relying on magic. If you want more magic, add in levels of a spellcaster. But IMHO, D&D is on a quest to turn every class into a half or full caster.
I believe that to be a mistake. If someone wants more spellcasting ability, nothing is stopping them from multi-classing with spellcasting levels. But if someone does not want to play a caster, the options are becoming more and more limited with each new edition of the game.
Well said.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Does anyone else want Rangers that have more skills and fewer or no spells? IMHO I think that too many classes have spells and now with some Feats anyone can have them. I'd be willing to trade most of my spells for being better at Ranger stuff.
How does everyone else feel about this?
So what sort of Ranger stuff do you have in mind?
I feel like spells are part of the class and always have been, even when they tried to take away its magic in 4E later supplements started bringing the magic back into the class (think they labeled it Primal powers). In Pathfinder 2E where they went with a spell less Ranger they brought in ways for them to have spells eventually. I would say in the current 5E your best bet would be to start off with a background that offers Skilled (so you can pick up Animal Handling, Nature and Survival) as a origin feat and take Rogue as your class. With 6 levels of Fighter sprinkled in there somewhere, that would make a good example of a Ranger without spells.
The Rogue Scout feature Survivalist that gives them proficiency with Survival and Nature should be a Ranger thing IMHO. The Roving trait from the 2024 version should be a Lvl 1 trait because moving about in the wilderness is what Rangers are supposed to be doing. If the 2024 version is going to lean into Hunter's Mark so heavily, then make it a feature limited to PB number of times per day instead of a spell that you can lose Concentration on.
I feel like magic if used correctly enhances the ranger, using spells that enhance the direct connection to nature, which is the most primal power. I tend to only take spells that seem like they come from the primal forces of nature. Speak with animal, beastrail sense, entangle, spike growth good berry etc...
It's easy to imagine a higher power or the earth itself providing powers used to defend nature being granted to an individual whose soul perpose is to keep the balance of nature and society.
Just my two cents.
TBH, I can see Rangers having access to two cantrips: Druidcraft and Elementism. If they're going to be dealing with nature, give them some tools to deal with nature. Druidcraft, in particular, would be very handy.
Rangers in 5e having spells seems right. Generally 5e is used for a pervasive magic setting but as such ranger magic has its own tone. Even barbarians are magical in 5e.(note imo 2014 was a little better with tone before rewrites) sometimes you just need certain mecanical pieces locked in place to build overall fuction around.
I'm one of the people that think spell-less Rangers are perfectly fine as fighter or scout rogue builds.
I pick a class for its mechanics/gameplay interaction not flavor. Too many people treat Rangers like a abusive relationship. I love you but I wish you'd learn cook the way I like. Or my ex-class never treated me this way. Or you constantly need plastic surgery to be valued.(ok..ok.. those are extreme examples)
The better approach is to look at the tools your given and see how they tell each character's story mechanically. Half casting IMO really reinforces the border between the natural, magical and human worlds.
Hilarious but also very true.
I agree completely. It is almost as if they are on a quest to turn every class into a partial caster.
Once upon a time, Rangers were the only class that could track, and if you wanted to dual wield, Ranger was your clear choice. If you wanted a tracker in the group, you needed a Ranger. Now there is nothing that a Ranger can do, that other classes can't do better (with Gloomstalker as the only exception).
Dual Wield? Battlemaster or Rogue is better.
Archer? Battlemaster or Arcane Archer are better.
Tracking? Literally anyone can do it just as well as the Ranger.
Beast Master - has always been better in a novel than at the gaming table, and if you really want an animal companion, go Druid.
Fey Wanderer - (not even sure why this subclass exists, there's rogues and bards that can do these better)
Hunter - ok, we're getting close, but again - just play an outdoorsy flavored battlemaster
Gloomstalker - now this is a bit OP, and only because of its "invisible to darkvision" ability, which quite frankly is insanely powerful. Combine that with archery, and the PC becomes untouchable when underground, exploring ruins, or at night. Combine it with a race that can fly, and it becomes god-like. The only drawback is that if the group is also relying on Darkvision, they never know where the Gloomstalker is which means getting caught in friendly spells or not being able to find them to heal them when they're dying without wasting time creating light.
Seriously, that portion of the Umbral Sight ability needs to go away.
I haven't seen a single non-Gloomstalker Ranger since it was introduced, and never a single-classed Gloomstalker. It's always take Gloomstalker until 3rd level, then abandon the class and go with what they really wanted now that they are invisible to everything that doesn't use a light source (most monsters, all animals, almost all undead, and that's the short list). Most adventures take place in most campaigns in areas of poor lighting. Even travelling cross country during broad daylight, the most dangerous portion is camping at night (invisible). Unless you're doing nothing but dungeoncrawls in tight quarters standing next to a human, the Gloomstalker quickly becomes nigh unstopable.
I once threw the PCs against an evil assassin that was a Wraith with levels in Gloomstalker. The group contained 2 Paladins, a Priest, War Mage, Rogue-type... and they didn't even think to try using a lightsource in that dark fleabag Inn in the middle of the night until one party member was already dead and turned into a Spectre, because they all had darkvision. In another campaign one of my players was an Aarakokra Gloomstalker Archer the only time he was even remotely challenged was against a dragon or when he got knocked out by a friendly spell because the caster couldn't see him.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
Rangers always had spell since their debut and first interactions back in the 70s and 80s, when they were just the “Aragorn” class.
Flavor is free and you can always bring this mundane vibe to your Ranger spells to a one that can be deployed as equipments, techniques or something like that.
I’m not for a spellless ranger. However, I recognize that some folks like them. The easy way to get one is to go Fighter 1 with a dex Based fighter taking TWF and shortsword + scimitar. Then go rogue 3 taking scout rogue. Scout rogue doesn’t just give proficiency with nature and survival it gives expertise - something I have hated since it came out as it makes the scout rogue out ranger the ranger where the ranger should be supreme. Then go back and go to fighter 5 for the second attack. With a final form of rogue 9/fighter 11 for the speed boost from scout rogue and the third attack from fighter as the “capstone” . Pick up herbalism along the way and you have a very credible magicless “Aragorn” style ranger. Frankly giving the normal ranger a third attack as a capstone would have been far better than changing the HM damage to a D10.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The scout rogue only out rangers the ranger if you relegate the concept of such mechanics to just skill checks. Which is 100% false in 2014 but only partially false in 2024.
Only rangers in their terrain get the defined benefits of exact numbers and time frame. A scout rogue should never get that same information. Similarly a 2014 has functional expertise in way more skills they just don't get to use them all the time. Having more options however means there's more creative places to use it I often find it actually makes the situational aspects worse by only having one expertise option.(until 9)
So a spell-less ranger represented by scout is fine especially for people who don't like the regular investment or variability of the ranger frame. Giving people different ways to feel their concept out is good. Forcing other preferd concepts on people who want something different should be avoided. Which is what often happens with ranger. Being told I'm a bad player for liking favored terrain is no different than saying a ranger concept without spells is a bad player. As long as the tools fit the game their use should be individually applied because each character should be unique to the player.
Hrmmm let’s see
the 2014 ranger gets advantage on survival checks to track their favored enemies and advantage on intelligence rolls to remember information about them. So we are still dealing with checks - typically a survival or nature check. Advantage is around a +4 equivalent so they get +2+4=+6 to their roll at level 1 vs expertise which doubles the proficiency bonus of +2 so a +4 to their roll at roll. 2014 is better at L1. At L20 the ‘14 ranger gets +4+6=+10 while the expertise gets +12 so advantage expertise. With a cross over at L9 and the ‘14 ranger ahead L1-8 but the xpertise ranger ahead L13-20. However, the expertise gets those bonuses not just on favored foes but on all foes for both tracking and remembering stuff. That is a large plus for the xpertise ranger. Overall I would say advantage to the expertise.
Then the explorer ribbons:
1) Difficult Terrain doesn’t slow your groups travel. True there is nothing like this for the expertise ranger. Except that a natural roll to avoid difficult terrain can do the same thing. Still advantage to 2014 - you can also fail the expertise roll or run into areas where you can’t avoid difficult terrain.
2) Your group can’t become lost by non magical means. Nothing like this either - at best an expertise nature roll to not get lost. Advantage 2014. However, personally I hate this ribbon - it is a big piece of why wilderness exploration never happens. Even rangers should always have a chance of getting lost (nonmagically). My opinion. This should be the expertise version but ymmv.
3) the ranger is always alert for danger, even if also doing something else. Expertise doesn’t really have anything explicit for this but it does provide double expertise for your passive perception checks which are what should be being used here. And expertise applies in all terrains not just the 1-3 favored terrains of 2014. Call it a draw.
4) Traveling alone you can move stealthily at a normal pace . Because the rules say you can’t do this normally xpertise is useless here - definite advantage 2014, even if it’s only in 1-3 terrains. This is a ribbon that really should have been carried forward. On the other hand how often are you really moving by yourself when with a party? Still …
5) forage for 2X normal. But only in 1-3 terrains.still xpertise doesn’t do this without some serious homebrewing so advantage 2014. But, how often do you actually need that double dose of foraging? For most parties that are or less does it matter?
6) when tracking you learn exact number, sizes and time since they passed. IF your in your terrain(s). Realistically these are all things a skilled tracker should be able to do in any terrain so expertise helps a ton and is far broader in use than the ribbon so advantage expertise.
overall the 2014 ranger has some advantages - if they are in their terrains ( which they should normally be) but only after an hour of time has passed. So you do the lost? Checks in that first hour and the 2014 ranger is no better than any other. As I see it ribbon 2 shouldn’t exist , ribbon 3 is a draw, ribbons 4&5 are very situational at best and may never come into play. That leaves numbers 1 and 6 and they split. Should rangers have some ribbon abilities? Definitely but they shouldn’t be tied to specific terrains. Ribbons 1, 3 & 4 shouldn’t exist go back to a revised ranger. I would tie a revised 5 to proficiency ( you find forage for PB more folks than normal)
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I thought really hard about how to respond to this. (as the timeline will show a delay) We could go over where I think there are injected assumptions about the practicality of each analysis but I think its stretching the goal of the thread and circling back to old topics.
So, Instead I will say the old version needed changes to stabilize the play experience. However rangers having good mechanical support alongside spells is ok design for rangers and I appreciated this attempt in 2014. wotc taking spells away make the mechanical issues worse because the framework features are not solid enough for solid play.
2014's measurable success is player and table dependent and the memes make it almost impossible to accurately track. I know alot of ranger players that specifically are drawn to such ribbon features but anecdotes don't show probability or causality only possibility. Its possible to make it work because I've seen it repeated and many differing experiences seem to have comorbidity issues alongside ranger bait.
IN a different timeline/universe Dnd having a solid ranger mechanics with out spells could work as long as its mechanically distinct from other options such as scout. Several other rpgs actually do this but dnd is too tied to spells as mechanical staples for ease of use and rules minimalization.
I’m not really arguing that there shouldn’t be ribbon abilities, just that as they stand they could use a good overhaul. I would love to see both 2 expertises at L2 and something like favored enemy and terrain. But the should get more enemies Ndebele more terrains - at least 5 of each. I would love that, but at this point I’ve given up hope of WotC ever doing something like that. In another thread - in the ranger group I believe, I posted ribbons I would love to see with a 2 expertise base . Your right we have been over a lot of this territory many times as we both love rangers and want them to be all they could be.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I'd certainly prefer to have spells to not having spells. I would not want to trade my spells for 'rangery' features. I want more magic, not less.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
With you there
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I would agree in more focus on spells If there were better spells tailored to half casting as a ranger.
.Hunter's mark fails at pre-tracking. The disease prevention spells are hard to use/justify as part of the character. Find x are often short range or too costly or overlap intended skill check features.
Raise beasts should have been in the game long before now as a less costly way to care for pets, mounts or adventure npcs.
I still think killing the poison aspects of 2024 ranger is bad enough to makeme dislike it alone via swift quiver changes and new harvesting rules.
For the record, I never said Rangers were at one time spell-less; they always had spells - but that was not their focus. They were made unique by their abilities that no other class had access to, and got a few helpful spells on the side.
Where D&D went wrong with Rangers, was when they started handing out those abilities to others (like making a Scout Rogue), and eventually everyone - then thinking they could 'fix' Rangers by giving them more magic.
If you truly want to "fix" Rangers, they need core abilities that no one else can do, and stop relying on magic. If you want more magic, add in levels of a spellcaster. But IMHO, D&D is on a quest to turn every class into a half or full caster.
I believe that to be a mistake. If someone wants more spellcasting ability, nothing is stopping them from multi-classing with spellcasting levels. But if someone does not want to play a caster, the options are becoming more and more limited with each new edition of the game.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
Well said.