Agreed! It feels like WotC are scared to do a deep dive into rangers and ranger similar subclasses as it would weaken the outside subclasses and has the potential to make the ranger OP. Things that could make the ranger be or feel stronger (IMNSHO): grant the ranger double proficiency in nature and survival at L3 remove the scout rogue’s double proficiency in in nature and survival leaving them with basic proficiency. grant the ranger additional skills/feats as they level up (herbalism, cartography, navigation, cooking, etc) grant the ranger access to more elemental-primal spells like Snilloc’s snowballs or Melf’s meteors (the biggies like fireball & lightning bolt should stay wizards only) provide more survival type spells like purify food/drink, detect/neutralize poison,
Scout Rogue was very much an intentional bone thrown to the people who wanted to play a spell-free Ranger, which, for the people who wanted it, is closer to popular figures like Aragorn and Legolas than the 1/2 caster we got in both 2014 and 2024.
I don't see how they would give Rangers spells like Snilloc's Snowball Swarm or Melf's Minute Meteors without also giving them to Druids since Druids are full casters and vast majority of Ranger spells come from the Druid list. So i think you need to first convince the devs that Druids ought to have more direct access to AoE blast spells (even if they are mostly weaker than the overtuned Wizard staples).
Neutralize Poison was a 3e spell, wasn't it? They replaced that with Lesser Restoration.
Last but not least, "navigation" and "cartography" aren't D&D skills. Could you make an argument that they should be? Maybe. However, i'm not convinced that the devs have any interest in making the Exploration pillar important enough to warrant that kind of adjustment. This being based on several people complaining about how boring the Exploration pillar was years ago and them having changed nothing in for the 2024 PHB to imply that kind of detailed worldbuilding of the outdoors, implying that they don't think there is a big enough audience for that kind of mechanical rules expansion.
Fine be pedantic, so instead of navigation and cartography they get navigator’s tools and cartographer’s tools - you got the idea. As for the scout rogue I don’t have a problem with it as the spellless ranger - if you make it the same not superior. Just take away the double proficiency granting them basic proficiency at L3 and let them use 2 of their 4 granted expertises on nature and survival if the expertise. Now the spells - rangers originally (1e) were fighters that got first Druid spells (at mid levels) and then mage spells at higher levels so there is plenty of tradition for them to get more than just Druid spells. There are a lot of low levels “arcane” spells that nature themed or “primal” that would make sense as ranger spells - fog cloud, grease, Thunderwave, witchbolt (lightning). Heck I don’t have a problem with adding many to the Druid list as well, I’ve never understood why Druids had so little in the way of “primal energy” spells anyway.
I still hold to double proficiency for survival or nature skills still puts all of the usefulness into the DMS hands. This is almost universally treated as bad (really it's more complex but for the feedback purposes)
This is where they need better defined uses. Class specific features that say do x skill get x reward are way better for 2024 style. Unique skills that scouts can't steal are better than just not allowing such rougues to exist.
Alternatively, better rules in the dm section laying out survival expectations could fix the issue. Teaching better play experience to dms could also fix the issue. Even city adventures can provide systems that reward the ranger archetypes it just takes solid mechanical world building.for example gain x resources (poison, food, woods craft tools etc ) that last until next travel or downtime.
Sorry, I'm just not seen a DM use navigator's or cartographer's tools specifically. That could just be the tables i've played at, which mostly use published modules. What's the context in which you have seen a DM other than yourself use cartographer's tools?
I’ve seen it only a few times also - mostly in grittier games where the dm (& players) had actual field experience with how easy it is get lost once you go “ off marked trail”.but maybe giving it to them would help DMs actually try to make use of the tools/skills.
Agreed! It feels like WotC are scared to do a deep dive into rangers and ranger similar subclasses as it would weaken the outside subclasses and has the potential to make the ranger OP. Things that could make the ranger be or feel stronger (IMNSHO): grant the ranger double proficiency in nature and survival at L3 remove the scout rogue’s double proficiency in in nature and survival leaving them with basic proficiency. grant the ranger additional skills/feats as they level up (herbalism, cartography, navigation, cooking, etc) grant the ranger access to more elemental-primal spells like Snilloc’s snowballs or Melf’s meteors (the biggies like fireball & lightning bolt should stay wizards only) provide more survival type spells like purify food/drink, detect/neutralize poison,
Scout Rogue was very much an intentional bone thrown to the people who wanted to play a spell-free Ranger, which, for the people who wanted it, is closer to popular figures like Aragorn and Legolas than the 1/2 caster we got in both 2014 and 2024.
I don't see how they would give Rangers spells like Snilloc's Snowball Swarm or Melf's Minute Meteors without also giving them to Druids since Druids are full casters and vast majority of Ranger spells come from the Druid list. So i think you need to first convince the devs that Druids ought to have more direct access to AoE blast spells (even if they are mostly weaker than the overtuned Wizard staples).
Neutralize Poison was a 3e spell, wasn't it? They replaced that with Lesser Restoration.
Last but not least, "navigation" and "cartography" aren't D&D skills. Could you make an argument that they should be? Maybe. However, i'm not convinced that the devs have any interest in making the Exploration pillar important enough to warrant that kind of adjustment. This being based on several people complaining about how boring the Exploration pillar was years ago and them having changed nothing in for the 2024 PHB to imply that
I agree that many people want a spell-free Ranger, I would disagree that Aragorn, as written by Tolkien, is that archetype. I think the D&D spell system, and in particular the concept of Verbal and Material components were heavily influenced by the magic Aragorn used in the LOTR novels.
I think the 1E AD&D Ranger was the closest mechanically that we have had to Aragorn and it had both Wizard (Magic-User) and Druid spells.
Me pesonally, I don't like the idea of a spell free Ranger. I think the Ranger should not be the half-caster version of Druid. I think Ranger should be more Arcane in nature than it currently is and I think it needs more separation from Druid than there currently is and more commonality with Sorcerer and Wizard.
I am not sure Scout Rogue hits the mark for a spell free Ranger either. If you want that I think Barbarian is the best platform and in D&D Barbarians were largely Rangers before Barbarian became a class. Both Minsc from Baldur's Gate and Riverwind from Dragonlance are Barbarians, but their class is Ranger.
I think Scout stands on its own and it is already a relatively weak subclass. Taking away the expertise would not work well for it.
Actually, after looking over the scout rogue again I see your point - skirmishers is really needed to help the rogue hit and run while the ranger can stand and fight with medium armors. At L9 they get the extra 10’ of movement that adds to any swimming and climbing speed you might have while the ranger gets those speeds outright along with the +10’ movement all at L6. At L17 they get the ambush feature. While advantage on initiative is certainly sweet it’s also basically neccesary four the rogue to be able to dash in, strike and (hopefully) do sneak attack damage then get back out without ( hopefully) getting an attack of opportunity. Finally at L17 they get scout rogue finally gets a second attack - as a bonus action something the ranger got way back at L5 and as part of the attack action.yes with the 2024 light weapon rules this means that they could technically get 3 light weapon attacks but then the ranger could conceivably be getting 4 attacks. My boy real complaint is survivalist where I still think it should be simple proficiency not double. Getting those two gives the scout 6 proficiencies with 4 that they can give expertise which is fine. I agree that the barbarian is a better choice for a spellless ranger base. It isn’t really an Aragon mimic (he was far too noble and “civilized” to be a barbarian) but works well with minsc and reverend fit better there as well as such earlier prototypes as Fafhard, Conan and others. I’ve always been a fan of the 1e ranger, being a fighter not a seperate class and getting limited Druidic then wizards spells made sense to me. I would love to see a more arcane oriented ranger with access to fire, cold, thunder, lightning and poison based spells (of course the Druid too should really be getting these). I suspect that WotC is nervous about doing that as it would create a near perfect Gish and I don’t think they really want that.
Agreed! It feels like WotC are scared to do a deep dive into rangers and ranger similar subclasses as it would weaken the outside subclasses and has the potential to make the ranger OP. Things that could make the ranger be or feel stronger (IMNSHO): grant the ranger double proficiency in nature and survival at L3 remove the scout rogue’s double proficiency in in nature and survival leaving them with basic proficiency. grant the ranger additional skills/feats as they level up (herbalism, cartography, navigation, cooking, etc) grant the ranger access to more elemental-primal spells like Snilloc’s snowballs or Melf’s meteors (the biggies like fireball & lightning bolt should stay wizards only) provide more survival type spells like purify food/drink, detect/neutralize poison,
Scout Rogue was very much an intentional bone thrown to the people who wanted to play a spell-free Ranger, which, for the people who wanted it, is closer to popular figures like Aragorn and Legolas than the 1/2 caster we got in both 2014 and 2024.
I don't see how they would give Rangers spells like Snilloc's Snowball Swarm or Melf's Minute Meteors without also giving them to Druids since Druids are full casters and vast majority of Ranger spells come from the Druid list. So i think you need to first convince the devs that Druids ought to have more direct access to AoE blast spells (even if they are mostly weaker than the overtuned Wizard staples).
Neutralize Poison was a 3e spell, wasn't it? They replaced that with Lesser Restoration.
Last but not least, "navigation" and "cartography" aren't D&D skills. Could you make an argument that they should be? Maybe. However, i'm not convinced that the devs have any interest in making the Exploration pillar important enough to warrant that kind of adjustment. This being based on several people complaining about how boring the Exploration pillar was years ago and them having changed nothing in for the 2024 PHB to imply that
I agree that many people want a spell-free Ranger, I would disagree that Aragorn, as written by Tolkien, is that archetype. I think the D&D spell system, and in particular the concept of Verbal and Material components were heavily influenced by the magic Aragorn used in the LOTR novels.
I think the 1E AD&D Ranger was the closest mechanically that we have had to Aragorn and it had both Wizard (Magic-User) and Druid spells.
Me pesonally, I don't like the idea of a spell free Ranger. I think the Ranger should not be the half-caster version of Druid. I think Ranger should be more Arcane in nature than it currently is and I think it needs more separation from Druid than there currently is and more commonality with Sorcerer and Wizard.
I am not sure Scout Rogue hits the mark for a spell free Ranger either. If you want that I think Barbarian is the best platform and in D&D Barbarians were largely Rangers before Barbarian became a class. Both Minsc from Baldur's Gate and Riverwind from Dragonlance are Barbarians, but their class is Ranger.
I think Scout stands on its own and it is already a relatively weak subclass. Taking away the expertise would not work well for it.
100% agree that Ranger needs it's arcane spells back from 1e. I'm just not a fan of what ranger magic brings to the table. I'd almost rather just make a tiefling ranger and use the spell slots with hellish rebuke for some extra damage than cast most of the ranger spells.
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.
Scout Rogue was very much an intentional bone thrown to the people who wanted to play a spell-free Ranger, which, for the people who wanted it, is closer to popular figures like Aragorn and Legolas than the 1/2 caster we got in both 2014 and 2024.
I don't see how they would give Rangers spells like Snilloc's Snowball Swarm or Melf's Minute Meteors without also giving them to Druids since Druids are full casters and vast majority of Ranger spells come from the Druid list. So i think you need to first convince the devs that Druids ought to have more direct access to AoE blast spells (even if they are mostly weaker than the overtuned Wizard staples).
Neutralize Poison was a 3e spell, wasn't it? They replaced that with Lesser Restoration.
Last but not least, "navigation" and "cartography" aren't D&D skills. Could you make an argument that they should be? Maybe. However, i'm not convinced that the devs have any interest in making the Exploration pillar important enough to warrant that kind of adjustment. This being based on several people complaining about how boring the Exploration pillar was years ago and them having changed nothing in for the 2024 PHB to imply that kind of detailed worldbuilding of the outdoors, implying that they don't think there is a big enough audience for that kind of mechanical rules expansion.
Fine be pedantic, so instead of navigation and cartography they get navigator’s tools and cartographer’s tools - you got the idea. As for the scout rogue I don’t have a problem with it as the spellless ranger - if you make it the same not superior. Just take away the double proficiency granting them basic proficiency at L3 and let them use 2 of their 4 granted expertises on nature and survival if the expertise. Now the spells - rangers originally (1e) were fighters that got first Druid spells (at mid levels) and then mage spells at higher levels so there is plenty of tradition for them to get more than just Druid spells. There are a lot of low levels “arcane” spells that nature themed or “primal” that would make sense as ranger spells - fog cloud, grease, Thunderwave, witchbolt (lightning). Heck I don’t have a problem with adding many to the Druid list as well, I’ve never understood why Druids had so little in the way of “primal energy” spells anyway.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I still hold to double proficiency for survival or nature skills still puts all of the usefulness into the DMS hands. This is almost universally treated as bad (really it's more complex but for the feedback purposes)
This is where they need better defined uses. Class specific features that say do x skill get x reward are way better for 2024 style. Unique skills that scouts can't steal are better than just not allowing such rougues to exist.
Alternatively, better rules in the dm section laying out survival expectations could fix the issue. Teaching better play experience to dms could also fix the issue. Even city adventures can provide systems that reward the ranger archetypes it just takes solid mechanical world building.for example gain x resources (poison, food, woods craft tools etc ) that last until next travel or downtime.
Not arguing with that just as it stands now it’s annoying.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Sorry, I'm just not seen a DM use navigator's or cartographer's tools specifically. That could just be the tables i've played at, which mostly use published modules. What's the context in which you have seen a DM other than yourself use cartographer's tools?
I’ve seen it only a few times also - mostly in grittier games where the dm (& players) had actual field experience with how easy it is get lost once you go “ off marked trail”.but maybe giving it to them would help DMs actually try to make use of the tools/skills.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I agree that many people want a spell-free Ranger, I would disagree that Aragorn, as written by Tolkien, is that archetype. I think the D&D spell system, and in particular the concept of Verbal and Material components were heavily influenced by the magic Aragorn used in the LOTR novels.
I think the 1E AD&D Ranger was the closest mechanically that we have had to Aragorn and it had both Wizard (Magic-User) and Druid spells.
Me pesonally, I don't like the idea of a spell free Ranger. I think the Ranger should not be the half-caster version of Druid. I think Ranger should be more Arcane in nature than it currently is and I think it needs more separation from Druid than there currently is and more commonality with Sorcerer and Wizard.
I am not sure Scout Rogue hits the mark for a spell free Ranger either. If you want that I think Barbarian is the best platform and in D&D Barbarians were largely Rangers before Barbarian became a class. Both Minsc from Baldur's Gate and Riverwind from Dragonlance are Barbarians, but their class is Ranger.
I think Scout stands on its own and it is already a relatively weak subclass. Taking away the expertise would not work well for it.
Actually, after looking over the scout rogue again I see your point - skirmishers is really needed to help the rogue hit and run while the ranger can stand and fight with medium armors. At L9 they get the extra 10’ of movement that adds to any swimming and climbing speed you might have while the ranger gets those speeds outright along with the +10’ movement all at L6. At L17 they get the ambush feature. While advantage on initiative is certainly sweet it’s also basically neccesary four the rogue to be able to dash in, strike and (hopefully) do sneak attack damage then get back out without ( hopefully) getting an attack of opportunity. Finally at L17 they get scout rogue finally gets a second attack - as a bonus action something the ranger got way back at L5 and as part of the attack action.yes with the 2024 light weapon rules this means that they could technically get 3 light weapon attacks but then the ranger could conceivably be getting 4 attacks. My boy real complaint is survivalist where I still think it should be simple proficiency not double. Getting those two gives the scout 6 proficiencies with 4 that they can give expertise which is fine.
I agree that the barbarian is a better choice for a spellless ranger base. It isn’t really an Aragon mimic (he was far too noble and “civilized” to be a barbarian) but works well with minsc and reverend fit better there as well as such earlier prototypes as Fafhard, Conan and others.
I’ve always been a fan of the 1e ranger, being a fighter not a seperate class and getting limited Druidic then wizards spells made sense to me. I would love to see a more arcane oriented ranger with access to fire, cold, thunder, lightning and poison based spells (of course the Druid too should really be getting these). I suspect that WotC is nervous about doing that as it would create a near perfect Gish and I don’t think they really want that.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
100% agree that Ranger needs it's arcane spells back from 1e. I'm just not a fan of what ranger magic brings to the table. I'd almost rather just make a tiefling ranger and use the spell slots with hellish rebuke for some extra damage than cast most of the ranger spells.
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
That’s kinda my point - many ranger spells could be dumped and replaced with arcane spells of the same level.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.