I don’t know how you think about it but my opinion is that revisions to ranger didn’t make it better, but worse.here is why:
I like the phb ranger and the concept mostly because the books series “the ranger’s apprentice” and partially because it felt like a more dex based fighter(yes I know, it doesn’t work that way).the concept I am talking about is a ranger as a special agent in a semi-indepent group with skills from the type “wow that must be magic” “nope, just training”, that including the fighting styles depicted in the books came to full being in the hunter subclass. I use the magic as extension of the skill of the martial/scout/spy part, for example to train the three wolves my character tamed or to make more weapons/ammunition, but now the point: the revisions: tashas beastmaster is fine in action-economy, except for a few actions from lvl 7, but the beast stats lack variation.now the main ranger, the whole specialization concept and the tracking/remembering part are gone just for damage and a little alround movability(can be done by scout), I don’t know the other changes, since I only read them in guides, but if I remember well the camouflage is changed. now comes the one dnd ua, the ranger gets cantrips, for god’s sake it are half-casters, favored enemy becomes hunter’s mark, expending spellslots as normal, maybe even worse than favored foe, here is the problem: to mark enemies you must get close, that means you can use it against runaway enemies(still you lose them after an hour if you don’t find them in that time) and of course for damage, but when you want to find an enemy never seen or follow an army you can’t use it (armies can split and coming within 60 feet safely is hard), also enemies can move in a way you don’t come in range in an hour.it uses tashas things for natural explorer and camouflage and now the worst: revised hunter, hunter’s prey is colossus slayer, but no choice, hunter’s lore is from monster slayer and bad when without utilizing things, and much worse than the hunter’s defense.now the absolute worst;multiattack, first this is bad for melee, because when surrounded you don’t want a cone, second: it’s magic!!!, third: you gonna need those slots for conjure animals, pass without trace and healing.a little less bullshit is superior defense, no choice and half-half, it’s better than uncanny dodge(but uncanny dodge need multiattack defense), but it lost the synergy of stand against the tide with escape the horde, just making the enemy make miss attacks on purpose, just for damage.
now the most important two parts of what I am trying to express:1.MAGIC, you can’t play an ua ranger without important magic if you want to have power and 2.the functions are worse
If you want a non-magical "ranger", you might be thinking more about the Scout (Rogue subclass).
I also wouldn't want to see the Ranger class (nor its subclasses) be boiled down to being dictated by one particular set of stories. It starts with Aragorn, and then has been influenced by multiple stories since then. No one of those stories should be the sole dictator of what a Ranger is. The class should be moldable to anything that is half way between a Druid and a Fighter.
If you want a non-magical "ranger", you might be thinking more about the Scout (Rogue subclass).
I also wouldn't want to see the Ranger class (nor its subclasses) be boiled down to being dictated by one particular set of stories. It starts with Aragorn, and then has been influenced by multiple stories since then. No one of those stories should be the sole dictator of what a Ranger is. The class should be moldable to anything that is half way between a Druid and a Fighter.
scouts aren’t martials, and I like the little magic parts, I play more like 1/4 caster and I meaned I don’t want a 3/4 caster, also the ranger features, especially hunters, in fifth are better for it than the rest, also you need a druid, rogue, fighter combo to copy a ranger, but still there are essential holes with that why, so I am happy with phb ranger but tashas and ua are bad for this end
my whole point are the options, a phb ranger is 1/2 caster and allows players to pick many styles, especially with the newer subclasses , but tashas is much less changable and ua is 3/4 caster and changing class features for spells, still with halfcaster slots+cantrips, you just will get out of slots fast, since conjure barrage without downcasting and hunter’s mark both cost valuable spellslots, you need everything above level 3 for conjure animals, or level 5 for conjure volley or swift quiver, and when swapping between hunter’s mark and downcasted conjure barrage, both instead of normal class features, leaves little space for spells like zephyr strike, pass without trace, summon beast, cure wounds, beast bond, animal friendship and on.
the ua swaps two (sub)class features with prepared class spells, that means to reach a non caster ranger hunter, you must give up a big part of your spellslots, that means you can’t extend it to much magic AND martial, you don’t even have enough spell slots for phb 1/4 caster
I don't agree with most of your reasons but the new ranger definitely eliminated parts that made many people love rangers.
Many of my friends ,who were ranger mains, were even headed through alot of the recent controversies but left dnd as soon as they began to design ranger appeal to fighter and rogues preference over their own playstyles. Other classes might still suffer the same problems.
I don't quite understand some of the things you're complaining about...
The AU ranger isn't any 3/4 spellcaster, they're still half casters. And about the half casters having cantrip, it seems correct to me, why shouldn't they have them but the 1/3 casters? Mind you, I think both of their lowest level casters should only have 1 cantrip, not 2 like full casters.
I'm still in favor of bringing back some missing flavors (just NOT that specific.) because they were very situational and the class was very low in strength compared to the rest of the classes, and when trying to resolve this Power problem, much of this flavor/identity was lost, less special, more watered down combination of different classes.
There are things about the UA that I liked, and I don't want to return to having a class that is so dependent on specific things and outside of that it is forgettable. I want the not-so-situational upgrade in power and utility, but without losing the 2014 details that are gone or watered down.
I don't quite understand some of the things you're complaining about...
The AU ranger isn't any 3/4 spellcaster, they're still half casters. And about the half casters having cantrip, it seems correct to me, why shouldn't they have them but the 1/3 casters? Mind you, I think both of their lowest level casters should only have 1 cantrip, not 2 like full casters.
I'm still in favor of bringing back some missing flavors (just NOT that specific.) because they were very situational and the class was very low in strength compared to the rest of the classes, and when trying to resolve this Power problem, much of this flavor/identity was lost, less special, more watered down combination of different classes.
There are things about the UA that I liked, and I don't want to return to having a class that is so dependent on specific things and outside of that it is forgettable. I want the not-so-situational upgrade in power and utility, but without losing the 2014 details that are gone or watered down.
I mean: to copy a phb ranger, you need to use much more spellslots and even talking about spell levels and slots when playing the magic half, you have more magic than half a casters, spells rank from 0 to 9, and now ranger gets 0-5, so it is 6/10 in spell slots/levels, and 3/4 in terms of need
I don't agree with most of your reasons but the new ranger definitely eliminated parts that made many people love rangers.
Many of my friends ,who were ranger mains, were even headed through alot of the recent controversies but left dnd as soon as they began to design ranger appeal to fighter and rogues preference over their own playstyles. Other classes might still suffer the same problems.
That is I think one of the problems with their current design idea. They want more people to like ranger, durid etc. Sounds good, but if in doing so they take away the reason why people who mained those classes played them those players might not just switch to rogue, or something. Now, they may dip out entirely. I said this in the warlock thread but if only 10 people like warlocks out of your pool of 100 customers, you make changes and now 20 people like it but the pool of customers is now 95, was that a win for the game? Do this for Warlock, ranger, druid etc and the numbers of people who just bow out might get fairly large.
Edit to add this is what I think hurt 4e the most. If you didn't like the AEDU system you didn't have a character option. One of the strengths and weaknesses of all the other D&D systems is how differently every class could play on a mechanical level giving it a chance to land with a wider range of tastes. Homogenization has some positives, it also drives a way some people. Hopefully they will find the right balance.
and even talking about spell levels and slots when playing the magic half, you have more magic than half a casters, spells rank from 0 to 9, and now ranger gets 0-5, so it is 6/10 in spell slots/levels, and 3/4 in terms of need
Hmm, I don't think you understand correctly how you get to the term 1/3 casters, half casters, or a possible 2/3 casters or 3/4 casters.
You take the WIZARD table, and you cut it to keep the fraction of it that covers the lowest levels up to the level approximated to the fraction (1/3: 7; Half: 10; 2/3:13-14; 3/ 4: 15, this leads to a maximum spell slot level of: 1/3: 4; Half: 5; 2/3: 7, 3/4: 8, and logically everyone must have cantrips, it's the basics and of "Practice", not to exhaust yourself, before mastering more powerful and exhausting spells.)
With it you have level 20 partial caster. And you advance that fraction of the table in terms of how much of a caster it is to build the full table. (Advancing by 0.333, 0.5, 0.667, 0.75 respectively, by class level.)
In theory, cantrips should also work the same way, 1/3 casters got them, fortunately, but they had forgotten to include half casters, which in Tasha they were partially taken into account but as something optional between combat styles, while the Artificer if you acquired it within your table.
So the ranger and the paladin, both in 2014, and in the AU are still half casters, only they did justice by allowing him access to the cheats, without begging a feat, species or multiclass to have them, otherwise they should have removed the cheats from the artificer and 1/3 casters, only commonly leaving these only to full spellcasters... In this aspect it is better and fairer than in 2014.
and even talking about spell levels and slots when playing the magic half, you have more magic than half a casters, spells rank from 0 to 9, and now ranger gets 0-5, so it is 6/10 in spell slots/levels, and 3/4 in terms of need
Hmm, I don't think you understand correctly how you get to the term 1/3 casters, half casters, or a possible 2/3 casters or 3/4 casters.
You take the WIZARD table, and you cut it to keep the fraction of it that covers the lowest levels up to the level approximated to the fraction (1/3: 7; Half: 10; 2/3:13-14; 3/ 4: 15, this leads to a maximum spell slot level of: 1/3: 4; Half: 5; 2/3: 7, 3/4: 8, and logically everyone must have cantrips, it's the basics and of "Practice", not to exhaust yourself, before mastering more powerful and exhausting spells.)
With it you have level 20 partial caster. And you advance that fraction of the table in terms of how much of a caster it is to build the full table. (Advancing by 0.333, 0.5, 0.667, 0.75 respectively, by class level.)
In theory, cantrips should also work the same way, 1/3 casters got them, fortunately, but they had forgotten to include half casters, which in Tasha they were partially taken into account but as something optional between combat styles, while the Artificer if you acquired it within your table.
So the ranger and the paladin, both in 2014, and in the AU are still half casters, only they did justice by allowing him access to the cheats, without begging a feat, species or multiclass to have them, otherwise they should have removed the cheats from the artificer and 1/3 casters, only commonly leaving these only to full spellcasters... In this aspect it is better and fairer than in 2014.
cantrips have on purpose: making sure mages can’t get out of actions at low level, but may I remind you, ranger is a full martial, and has weaponry and fighting styles, and damage features, and yes I think only full-casters should have them, because; if you are 1/3 caster fighter, like eldritch knight, and you keep shooting damage cantrips,like frostbite, you don’t really play a fighter
cantrips have on purpose: making sure mages can’t get out of actions at low level, but may I remind you, ranger is a full martial, and has weaponry and fighting styles, and damage features, and yes I think only full-casters should have them, because; if you are 1/3 caster fighter, like eldritch knight, and you keep shooting damage cantrips,like frostbite, you don’t really play a fighter
Well, I completely disagree with you, to begin with the ranger (AND the paladin) IS NOT A COMPLETE MARTIAL CHARACTER, yes, he has training in weapons, fighting styles and a higher average life, but he is also a magic user, he is halfway to mastering both. In order to have some magical control he sacrificed time and effort on the martial side, without magic he would be far behind a complete combatant, this would also include when he runs out of his spell slots, wants not to use them or needs some flexibility in damage type, adopting a non-wearing but less powerful variant. He could also choose cantrips that are NOT offensive.
What I could accept is that 1/3 and half casters have fewer cantrips than full casters, I think they shouldn't have 2 cantrips from the start, but they are magic users so they should have them. (1/3: 1 to 2; half: 1 to 3, full casters: 2 to 4 + additional, and fixed, cantrips of certain classes.)
cantrips have on purpose: making sure mages can’t get out of actions at low level, but may I remind you, ranger is a full martial, and has weaponry and fighting styles, and damage features, and yes I think only full-casters should have them, because; if you are 1/3 caster fighter, like eldritch knight, and you keep shooting damage cantrips,like frostbite, you don’t really play a fighter
Well, I completely disagree with you, to begin with the ranger (AND the paladin) IS NOT A COMPLETE MARTIAL CHARACTER, yes, he has training in weapons, fighting styles and a higher average life, but he is also a magic user, he is halfway to mastering both. In order to have some magical control he sacrificed time and effort on the martial side, without magic he would be far behind a complete combatant, this would also include when he runs out of his spell slots, wants not to use them or needs some flexibility in damage type, adopting a non-wearing but less powerful variant. He could also choose cantrips that are NOT offensive.
What I could accept is that 1/3 and half casters have fewer cantrips than full casters, I think they shouldn't have 2 cantrips from the start, but they are magic users so they should have them. (1/3: 1 to 2; half: 1 to 3, full casters: 2 to 4 + additional, and fixed, cantrips of certain classes.)
rangers and paladins have weapons, so they don’t need magic every second at their hand they have enough features to keep up with other combatants, since monks rely completely on ki and have low ranger, hp and ac, barbarian has low range and ac and no offensive surge thing and fighter is the strongest of the three, with similar ac, range and hp, and a higher consistent damage, but has too weak and few surges to keep up with magic(or the hunter’s multiattack).they had enough spellslots in phb to keep up, and don’t need cantrips.also rangers are the typical scout to, so they have enough features without the ability to use spells infinitely.as you just said: they are halfway, so they don’t need cantrips!!!
The more important factor is the story/character that is being built.
Rangers in particular having a desire for almost every stat to be high. The ones you can't have features to make up for it.
Cantrips allows effective attacks(+5 starting) if you are going focus on wisdom. Sure you loose out on weapons benefits but few classes are forced to be MAD. Ranger shouldn't be either.
I like having high intelligence as a ranger this means sacrifice somewhere else and focus on wisdom really helps give the expert feel.
cantrips have on purpose: making sure mages can’t get out of actions at low level, but may I remind you, ranger is a full martial, and has weaponry and fighting styles, and damage features, and yes I think only full-casters should have them, because; if you are 1/3 caster fighter, like eldritch knight, and you keep shooting damage cantrips,like frostbite, you don’t really play a fighter
Not all cantrips are combat oriented. A lot of them are there to provide the user with simple versatility or flavor without needing to expend spell slots. Since rangers have weapons they don't really need to use their cantrip slots for damage options if they don't want to, and can instead use them for utility. A ranger could take Druidcraft to predict the weather or light a torch, or take Shape Water to help maneuver their riverboat through a swamp.
Meanwhile, an Eldritch Knight might snag Dancing Lights if they aren't a race with darkvision, or Mage Hand so they can pull some sneaky pickpocketing maneuvers.
Even assuming they do take a combat cantrip it could just be to cover a range they don't normally excel at, like a melee ranger taking Thorn Whip or Produce Flame so they have a ranged option or an archer Eldritch Knight snagging Shocking Grasp for when enemies get too close.
cantrips have on purpose: making sure mages can’t get out of actions at low level, but may I remind you, ranger is a full martial, and has weaponry and fighting styles, and damage features, and yes I think only full-casters should have them, because; if you are 1/3 caster fighter, like eldritch knight, and you keep shooting damage cantrips,like frostbite, you don’t really play a fighter
Not all cantrips are combat oriented. A lot of them are there to provide the user with simple versatility or flavor without needing to expend spell slots. Since rangers have weapons they don't really need to use their cantrip slots for damage options if they don't want to, and can instead use them for utility. A ranger could take Druidcraft to predict the weather or light a torch, or take Shape Water to help maneuver their riverboat through a swamp.
Meanwhile, an Eldritch Knight might snag Dancing Lights if they aren't a race with darkvision, or Mage Hand so they can pull some sneaky pickpocketing maneuvers.
Even assuming they do take a combat cantrip it could just be to cover a range they don't normally excel at, like a melee ranger taking Thorn Whip or Produce Flame so they have a ranged option or an archer Eldritch Knight snagging Shocking Grasp for when enemies get too close.
rangers always have both bow and melee, look in the equipment in character creator if you don’t believe me, and utilty is one of the ranger feature core, and I know it doesn’t have to be combat, but let me say it an other way:
NON FULL-CASTERS HAVE FEATURES, FULL CASTERS HAVE CANTRIPS AND HIGH LEVEL SPELLS!!!! look for example in the wizard class description and count all features that don’t just improve the magic, then look at a non-full-caster, maybe ranger since this discussion began with that, for the features that don’t just improve magic(aka all), then tell me how much times more the ranger has that features, to clarify asi doesn’t count.also if you look at a mage, look at the hitpoints(6-8), they are probably so low to compensate magic, but all others, but monk and rogue, have 10 and barbarian 12, this means a barbarian has twice the hp of a wizard, and ranger and paladin have 66% procent more. so I think you shouldn’t give them too much magic, and since they are halfcasters, half the spellslots and levels should work, so just 1-5, or if people want cantrips so desperately, 0-4, but the cool extension of the normal features spells need level 5, since that is swift quiver, steelwind strike and upcasted conjure animals, and for the ones that love half-half or even more magic conjure volley
I don't agree with most of your reasons but the new ranger definitely eliminated parts that made many people love rangers.
Many of my friends ,who were ranger mains, were even headed through alot of the recent controversies but left dnd as soon as they began to design ranger appeal to fighter and rogues preference over their own playstyles. Other classes might still suffer the same problems.
That is I think one of the problems with their current design idea. They want more people to like ranger, durid etc. Sounds good, but if in doing so they take away the reason why people who mained those classes played them those players might not just switch to rogue, or something. Now, they may dip out entirely. I said this in the warlock thread but if only 10 people like warlocks out of your pool of 100 customers, you make changes and now 20 people like it but the pool of customers is now 95, was that a win for the game? Do this for Warlock, ranger, druid etc and the numbers of people who just bow out might get fairly large.
Edit to add this is what I think hurt 4e the most. If you didn't like the AEDU system you didn't have a character option. One of the strengths and weaknesses of all the other D&D systems is how differently every class could play on a mechanical level giving it a chance to land with a wider range of tastes. Homogenization has some positives, it also drives a way some people. Hopefully they will find the right balance.
I don’t know about 4th, but I agree, but I want to add one thing, the old ten leave or go in another class, and the new 20 aren’t as intense ranger(or the other hated classes) lovers as the original group, so it also won’t be a big win for the class too
If you want to be a cast-less wilderness explorer type, be a Fighter or Barbarian or Rogue who picks up wilderness skills. Rangers in D&D have always had some degree of magical ability.
If for you it's not a ranger without Ranger levels in there, you can dip a couple of levels and never use the entry-level casting those give you.
I don’t want to play cast-less , I just want to don’t play an armed druid
I don't understand what you're after then. If bold is correct and you don't mind having a little magic, just dip a few levels of Ranger before going rogue/barb/fighter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don’t know how you think about it but my opinion is that revisions to ranger didn’t make it better, but worse.here is why:
I like the phb ranger and the concept mostly because the books series “the ranger’s apprentice” and partially because it felt like a more dex based fighter(yes I know, it doesn’t work that way).the concept I am talking about is a ranger as a special agent in a semi-indepent group with skills from the type “wow that must be magic” “nope, just training”, that including the fighting styles depicted in the books came to full being in the hunter subclass. I use the magic as extension of the skill of the martial/scout/spy part, for example to train the three wolves my character tamed or to make more weapons/ammunition, but now the point: the revisions: tashas beastmaster is fine in action-economy, except for a few actions from lvl 7, but the beast stats lack variation.now the main ranger, the whole specialization concept and the tracking/remembering part are gone just for damage and a little alround movability(can be done by scout), I don’t know the other changes, since I only read them in guides, but if I remember well the camouflage is changed. now comes the one dnd ua, the ranger gets cantrips, for god’s sake it are half-casters, favored enemy becomes hunter’s mark, expending spellslots as normal, maybe even worse than favored foe, here is the problem: to mark enemies you must get close, that means you can use it against runaway enemies(still you lose them after an hour if you don’t find them in that time) and of course for damage, but when you want to find an enemy never seen or follow an army you can’t use it (armies can split and coming within 60 feet safely is hard), also enemies can move in a way you don’t come in range in an hour.it uses tashas things for natural explorer and camouflage and now the worst: revised hunter, hunter’s prey is colossus slayer, but no choice, hunter’s lore is from monster slayer and bad when without utilizing things, and much worse than the hunter’s defense.now the absolute worst;multiattack, first this is bad for melee, because when surrounded you don’t want a cone, second: it’s magic!!!, third: you gonna need those slots for conjure animals, pass without trace and healing.a little less bullshit is superior defense, no choice and half-half, it’s better than uncanny dodge(but uncanny dodge need multiattack defense), but it lost the synergy of stand against the tide with escape the horde, just making the enemy make miss attacks on purpose, just for damage.
now the most important two parts of what I am trying to express:1.MAGIC, you can’t play an ua ranger without important magic if you want to have power and 2.the functions are worse
If you want a non-magical "ranger", you might be thinking more about the Scout (Rogue subclass).
I also wouldn't want to see the Ranger class (nor its subclasses) be boiled down to being dictated by one particular set of stories. It starts with Aragorn, and then has been influenced by multiple stories since then. No one of those stories should be the sole dictator of what a Ranger is. The class should be moldable to anything that is half way between a Druid and a Fighter.
scouts aren’t martials, and I like the little magic parts, I play more like 1/4 caster and I meaned I don’t want a 3/4 caster, also the ranger features, especially hunters, in fifth are better for it than the rest, also you need a druid, rogue, fighter combo to copy a ranger, but still there are essential holes with that why, so I am happy with phb ranger but tashas and ua are bad for this end
my whole point are the options, a phb ranger is 1/2 caster and allows players to pick many styles, especially with the newer subclasses , but tashas is much less changable and ua is 3/4 caster and changing class features for spells, still with halfcaster slots+cantrips, you just will get out of slots fast, since conjure barrage without downcasting and hunter’s mark both cost valuable spellslots, you need everything above level 3 for conjure animals, or level 5 for conjure volley or swift quiver, and when swapping between hunter’s mark and downcasted conjure barrage, both instead of normal class features, leaves little space for spells like zephyr strike, pass without trace, summon beast, cure wounds, beast bond, animal friendship and on.
the ua swaps two (sub)class features with prepared class spells, that means to reach a non caster ranger hunter, you must give up a big part of your spellslots, that means you can’t extend it to much magic AND martial, you don’t even have enough spell slots for phb 1/4 caster
I don't agree with most of your reasons but the new ranger definitely eliminated parts that made many people love rangers.
Many of my friends ,who were ranger mains, were even headed through alot of the recent controversies but left dnd as soon as they began to design ranger appeal to fighter and rogues preference over their own playstyles. Other classes might still suffer the same problems.
I don't quite understand some of the things you're complaining about...
The AU ranger isn't any 3/4 spellcaster, they're still half casters. And about the half casters having cantrip, it seems correct to me, why shouldn't they have them but the 1/3 casters? Mind you, I think both of their lowest level casters should only have 1 cantrip, not 2 like full casters.
I'm still in favor of bringing back some missing flavors (just NOT that specific.) because they were very situational and the class was very low in strength compared to the rest of the classes, and when trying to resolve this Power problem, much of this flavor/identity was lost, less special, more watered down combination of different classes.
There are things about the UA that I liked, and I don't want to return to having a class that is so dependent on specific things and outside of that it is forgettable. I want the not-so-situational upgrade in power and utility, but without losing the 2014 details that are gone or watered down.
I mean: to copy a phb ranger, you need to use much more spellslots and even talking about spell levels and slots when playing the magic half, you have more magic than half a casters, spells rank from 0 to 9, and now ranger gets 0-5, so it is 6/10 in spell slots/levels, and 3/4 in terms of need
That is I think one of the problems with their current design idea. They want more people to like ranger, durid etc. Sounds good, but if in doing so they take away the reason why people who mained those classes played them those players might not just switch to rogue, or something. Now, they may dip out entirely. I said this in the warlock thread but if only 10 people like warlocks out of your pool of 100 customers, you make changes and now 20 people like it but the pool of customers is now 95, was that a win for the game? Do this for Warlock, ranger, druid etc and the numbers of people who just bow out might get fairly large.
Edit to add this is what I think hurt 4e the most. If you didn't like the AEDU system you didn't have a character option. One of the strengths and weaknesses of all the other D&D systems is how differently every class could play on a mechanical level giving it a chance to land with a wider range of tastes. Homogenization has some positives, it also drives a way some people. Hopefully they will find the right balance.
Hmm, I don't think you understand correctly how you get to the term 1/3 casters, half casters, or a possible 2/3 casters or 3/4 casters.
You take the WIZARD table, and you cut it to keep the fraction of it that covers the lowest levels up to the level approximated to the fraction (1/3: 7; Half: 10; 2/3:13-14; 3/ 4: 15, this leads to a maximum spell slot level of: 1/3: 4; Half: 5; 2/3: 7, 3/4: 8, and logically everyone must have cantrips, it's the basics and of "Practice", not to exhaust yourself, before mastering more powerful and exhausting spells.)
With it you have level 20 partial caster. And you advance that fraction of the table in terms of how much of a caster it is to build the full table. (Advancing by 0.333, 0.5, 0.667, 0.75 respectively, by class level.)
In theory, cantrips should also work the same way, 1/3 casters got them, fortunately, but they had forgotten to include half casters, which in Tasha they were partially taken into account but as something optional between combat styles, while the Artificer if you acquired it within your table.
So the ranger and the paladin, both in 2014, and in the AU are still half casters, only they did justice by allowing him access to the cheats, without begging a feat, species or multiclass to have them, otherwise they should have removed the cheats from the artificer and 1/3 casters, only commonly leaving these only to full spellcasters... In this aspect it is better and fairer than in 2014.
cantrips have on purpose: making sure mages can’t get out of actions at low level, but may I remind you, ranger is a full martial, and has weaponry and fighting styles, and damage features, and yes I think only full-casters should have them, because; if you are 1/3 caster fighter, like eldritch knight, and you keep shooting damage cantrips,like frostbite, you don’t really play a fighter
Well, I completely disagree with you, to begin with the ranger (AND the paladin) IS NOT A COMPLETE MARTIAL CHARACTER, yes, he has training in weapons, fighting styles and a higher average life, but he is also a magic user, he is halfway to mastering both. In order to have some magical control he sacrificed time and effort on the martial side, without magic he would be far behind a complete combatant, this would also include when he runs out of his spell slots, wants not to use them or needs some flexibility in damage type, adopting a non-wearing but less powerful variant. He could also choose cantrips that are NOT offensive.
What I could accept is that 1/3 and half casters have fewer cantrips than full casters, I think they shouldn't have 2 cantrips from the start, but they are magic users so they should have them. (1/3: 1 to 2; half: 1 to 3, full casters: 2 to 4 + additional, and fixed, cantrips of certain classes.)
rangers and paladins have weapons, so they don’t need magic every second at their hand they have enough features to keep up with other combatants, since monks rely completely on ki and have low ranger, hp and ac, barbarian has low range and ac and no offensive surge thing and fighter is the strongest of the three, with similar ac, range and hp, and a higher consistent damage, but has too weak and few surges to keep up with magic(or the hunter’s multiattack).they had enough spellslots in phb to keep up, and don’t need cantrips.also rangers are the typical scout to, so they have enough features without the ability to use spells infinitely.as you just said: they are halfway, so they don’t need cantrips!!!
The more important factor is the story/character that is being built.
Rangers in particular having a desire for almost every stat to be high. The ones you can't have features to make up for it.
Cantrips allows effective attacks(+5 starting) if you are going focus on wisdom. Sure you loose out on weapons benefits but few classes are forced to be MAD. Ranger shouldn't be either.
I like having high intelligence as a ranger this means sacrifice somewhere else and focus on wisdom really helps give the expert feel.
Not all cantrips are combat oriented. A lot of them are there to provide the user with simple versatility or flavor without needing to expend spell slots. Since rangers have weapons they don't really need to use their cantrip slots for damage options if they don't want to, and can instead use them for utility. A ranger could take Druidcraft to predict the weather or light a torch, or take Shape Water to help maneuver their riverboat through a swamp.
Meanwhile, an Eldritch Knight might snag Dancing Lights if they aren't a race with darkvision, or Mage Hand so they can pull some sneaky pickpocketing maneuvers.
Even assuming they do take a combat cantrip it could just be to cover a range they don't normally excel at, like a melee ranger taking Thorn Whip or Produce Flame so they have a ranged option or an archer Eldritch Knight snagging Shocking Grasp for when enemies get too close.
rangers always have both bow and melee, look in the equipment in character creator if you don’t believe me, and utilty is one of the ranger feature core, and I know it doesn’t have to be combat, but let me say it an other way:
NON FULL-CASTERS HAVE FEATURES, FULL CASTERS HAVE CANTRIPS AND HIGH LEVEL SPELLS!!!!
look for example in the wizard class description and count all features that don’t just improve the magic, then look at a non-full-caster, maybe ranger since this discussion began with that, for the features that don’t just improve magic(aka all), then tell me how much times more the ranger has that features, to clarify asi doesn’t count.also if you look at a mage, look at the hitpoints(6-8), they are probably so low to compensate magic, but all others, but monk and rogue, have 10 and barbarian 12, this means a barbarian has twice the hp of a wizard, and ranger and paladin have 66% procent more. so I think you shouldn’t give them too much magic, and since they are halfcasters, half the spellslots and levels should work, so just 1-5, or if people want cantrips so desperately, 0-4, but the cool extension of the normal features spells need level 5, since that is swift quiver, steelwind strike and upcasted conjure animals, and for the ones that love half-half or even more magic conjure volley
I don’t know about 4th, but I agree, but I want to add one thing, the old ten leave or go in another class, and the new 20 aren’t as intense ranger(or the other hated classes) lovers as the original group, so it also won’t be a big win for the class too
In other games, including MERP, the Ranger is also a half-caster.
yes?, your point
If you want to be a cast-less wilderness explorer type, be a Fighter or Barbarian or Rogue who picks up wilderness skills. Rangers in D&D have always had some degree of magical ability.
If for you it's not a ranger without Ranger levels in there, you can dip a couple of levels and never use the entry-level casting those give you.
I don’t want to play cast-less , I just want to don’t play an armed druid
I don't understand what you're after then. If bold is correct and you don't mind having a little magic, just dip a few levels of Ranger before going rogue/barb/fighter.