D&D (2024) Ranger 2024 is a bigger joke than Ranger 2014:

[Rocker26a]

A big issue is that the ranger has much of the same problem as the classic thief. Much of their utility lies in overcoming particular challenges: wilderness stuff for rangers and locks & traps for thieves. But for those things to be relevant, you need to have those things in your adventure. And then what do you do if you don't have a ranger/thief around? So those things can't be showstoppers, but that reduces the perceived utility of a ranger/thief. And to compensate, you need to load them up with other things. Rogues these days have generally found a nice spot being sneak attack machines with some nice mobility options, but rangers are still trying to find their niche.

Do sorta agree, but I still reckon those are solveable issues.
I like what BG3 did for the Thief subclass specifically, just gave them an additional bonus action. Universally useful, nominally relevant for specific Thief/Rogue things.

 

[Minigiant]

And a 1st level adventurer isn't a commoner.

Never said it was.

Just said simple Proficiency isn't equal to occupational competency.

A commoner lacks Proficiency and Expertise in any skills as they are not considered skilled enough to do any of them as a job.

Proficiency in a skill or tool only puts you at Modest.

Skilled professionals are a Comfortable.

Meaning simply only being Proficient in a skill or a tool means you frankly suck at your job and can only pull off half the quality or quantity of a work.

At first level adventurer with proficiency with woodworking tools is probably one of the worst woodworkers who can arguably call themselves a woodworker in town. They can probably only do the very most basic stuff and would have to refer customers to better craftsman if they have to deal with anything complicated.

Do you see anywhere where it says that working a 40 hr week or crafting an item takes a d20 roll? Because I don't

No. But what does it say when you have to deal with something difficult and have to actually roll.
You only have a +2 to that check.

I know how to cut thread groove and bevel pipe. But I suck at it I take longer than people who do it for a living. But I don't do it for a living I just know the procedure in order to do it for the emergency and to understand the process because it's my job to sell these things. An actual plumber, metalworker, blacksmith,, whitesmith, pipefitter, or welder would have more than the +2 that I do.

I'm beginning to argue that adventurers should be able to trade 2 or 3 Proficiencies for one Expertise.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Do sorta agree, but I still reckon those are solveable issues.
I like what BG3 did for the Thief subclass specifically, just gave them an additional bonus action. Universally useful, nominally relevant for specific Thief/Rogue things.

i think more martials ought to mess with their standard action economy in ways like this.

 

[Rocker26a]

i think more martials ought to mess with their standard action economy in ways like this.

That's the sorta thing I might like for Ranger. I was messing with something in that vein for my homebrew; I wanted them to have more means of capitalizing on their bonus damage mechanic. I figured they probably can't get more Extra Attacks because that's Fighter's bag, so I gave them a later level ability that lets them retaliate for free when they're missed by a melee attack. And then they get a reaction for when they get hit, that buffs their AC for the attacker's turn. Potentially resulting in more free retaliations. Sorta similar to that Parry ability some NPCs have, Hobgoblin Warlords n' that. (Might be too strong, may need some tinkering, but. I like the idea anyway.)

 

[CreamCloud0]

That's the sorta thing I might like for Ranger. I was messing with something in that vein for my homebrew; I wanted them to have more means of capitalizing on their bonus damage mechanic. I figured they probably can't get more Extra Attacks because that's Fighter's bag, so I gave them a later level ability that lets them retaliate for free when they're missed by a melee attack. And then they get a reaction for when they get hit, that buffs their AC for the attacker's turn. Potentially resulting in more free retaliations. Sorta similar to that Parry ability some NPCs have, Hobgoblin Warlords n' that. (Might be too strong, may need some tinkering, but. I like the idea anyway.)

i mean, if the design went full in on doing that sort of thing you might end up with fighter not having extra attack x3 being their 'thing', maybe getting another attack action rather than extra attack, then the ranger specialises in offhand and opportunity attacks or something.

 

[Rocker26a]

i mean, if the design went full in on doing that sort of thing you might end up with fighter not having extra attack x3 being their 'thing', maybe getting another attack action rather than extra attack, then the ranger specialises in offhand and opportunity attacks or something.

I mean technically Fighter has additional (attack) actions as their thing too, sorta. Somewhat double-dipping in that respect.
But yeah possibly. I don't necessarily have huge problems with 5E's designs for the other classes like some folks. Not in "you should try another system" territory yet. Only relatively light homebrewing here and there.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I mean technically Fighter has additional (attack) actions as their thing too, sorta. Somewhat double-dipping in that respect.
But yeah possibly. I don't necessarily have huge problems with 5E's designs for the other classes like some folks. Not in "you should try another system" territory yet. Only relatively light homebrewing here and there.

That’s fair, i know it’s probably one of those ‘simplicity above all else’ things of 5e but i think the rigid adherence to the single action, bonus action and move action formula in 99% of cases hindered design potential more than the benefits not messing with it provided.

 

[Rocker26a]

That’s fair, i know it’s probably one of those ‘simplicity above all else’ things of 5e but i think the rigid adherence to the single action, bonus action and move action formula in 99% of cases hindered potential more than any benefits not messing with it provided.

Oh yeah for sure. Like I get them being reluctant to mess with that sorta stuff for the main chunk of 5E's lifespan, but. Bit of a shame they never did.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes, I think that's accurate.

I don't really care about this discussion. You got anything else?

So if you don't need a verbal component to cast spells from a scroll... why not use the new scroll crafting rules in the PHB to have the 2024 Ranger cast their spells silently and without being detected?

 

[Chaosmancer]

A big issue is that the ranger has much of the same problem as the classic thief. Much of their utility lies in overcoming particular challenges: wilderness stuff for rangers and locks & traps for thieves. But for those things to be relevant, you need to have those things in your adventure. And then what do you do if you don't have a ranger/thief around? So those things can't be showstoppers, but that reduces the perceived utility of a ranger/thief. And to compensate, you need to load them up with other things. Rogues these days have generally found a nice spot being sneak attack machines with some nice mobility options, but rangers are still trying to find their niche.

Agreed, and I keep bringing it up, but for good reason.

You need threats for high-level Rangers to deal with. A 15th level ranger should not be thought of as a character you send trekking across the desert to fulfill their niche. They need fantastical threats and challenges to overcome. I believe a big part missing from the Ranger niche is the Ranger's foes and challenges. People want to focus on level 1 to 4 stuff like food and water, and not the level 13 to 18 stuff that is more unique and would naturally showcase a path for the ranger, like Liches, Vampires and Fiends do for Paladins.