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

[Rocker26a]

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?

I dunno. You can if you want I guess?

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

You are making this up whole cloth with no evidence from the text of the rules, which shows literally the exact opposite.

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.

You keep saying that they have a +2 to their check, but that doesn't seem to mean what you think it means.

Let us look at the statblock for a Spy. They actually have a lot of skills, do you consider the standard spy to be the absolute worst spy who can call themselves a spy because they only have a +2 proficiency in Deception, Insight, Persuasion, Sleight of Hand and Stealth? I will acknowledge they have expertise in Investigation and Perception, but Lying and Sleight of Hand are rather key skills for the archetype of a spy.

Or the noble with the +2 prof in Deception, Insight and Persuasion? Or the Druid with the same in Nature, MEdicine or Perception? Cult Fanatic who is the leader of a cult has a +2 prof in Deception, Persuasion and Religion.

To me it simply does not follow from the text that you MUST absolutely have a +4 proficiency from Expertise to be considered a standard skilled laborer. Because you aren't rolling, and even if you are, you can use the take 10 and take 20 rules. I mean, consider, a character with proficiency in Blacksmith's tools is part of the blacksmith's guild if they take the Guild Artisan background. You don't get to be a full member who pays dues by being a crap artisan who is barely more than an apprentice. You start paying dues after your apprenticeship is over and you are a blacksmith.

And this argument always leads to needing Super Expertise for people who are actually highly skilled experts, because people insist that they will need three or four times the bonus of a person with "mere" proficiency. Meanwhile, the game only has two levels. Proficient. Expert. That's it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I dunno. You can if you want I guess?

So wouldn't that solve your entire issue with the spellcasting, since Ranger's would have a way to silently and stealthily cast their spells without breaking their cover? You only need to prepare which spells ahead of time, which leans into that preparation and planning aspect many people like about the ranger archetype.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Innovation is risk. WotC is risk-averse.

 

[Rocker26a]

So wouldn't that solve your entire issue with the spellcasting, since Ranger's would have a way to silently and stealthily cast their spells without breaking their cover? You only need to prepare which spells ahead of time, which leans into that preparation and planning aspect many people like about the ranger archetype.

Not for me personally, no. My thinking on the issue is partly on flavour grounds, and I've already arrived at a solution I like. And I don't plan on changing my view.

 

[CreamCloud0]

So wouldn't that solve your entire issue with the spellcasting, since Ranger's would have a way to silently and stealthily cast their spells without breaking their cover? You only need to prepare which spells ahead of time, which leans into that preparation and planning aspect many people like about the ranger archetype.

This sounds like wizard play of older editions, isn’t this kind of play something that 5e tried to get away from?

 

[Minigiant]

You keep saying that they have a +2 to their check, but that doesn't seem to mean what you think it means.

Let us look at the statblock for a Spy. They actually have a lot of skills, do you consider the standard spy to be the absolute worst spy who can call themselves a spy because they only have a +2 proficiency in Deception, Insight, Persuasion, Sleight of Hand and Stealth? I will acknowledge they have expertise in Investigation and Perception, but Lying and Sleight of Hand are rather key skills for the archetype of a spy

The Spy has Expertise in Investigation and Perception. The argument could be made that they have chosen the wrong skills to focus on unless they are going for the courtier route.

As for the noble, it is missing its tool proficiency were it might have Expertise in.

But overall my point is that if the DM calls for a NPC or NPC to make a roll, a +2 with stats is not a go representation of you doing your day to day occupation tasks.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

I think this touches on a great point. People envision the ranger, or any martial class, as doing something heroic at higher levels. Trekking across a dangerous desert or exploring some ancient ruins in a forest are par for the course for our ranger - at least that is what we envision.
But when you look at the challenges at those higher levels, there are only a few that match our expectations. Many of those desert monsters (Yuan-ti, young blue dragon, efreeti, mummy, etc.) are too diverse for the ranger. That said, I think the same can be said for all the other classes too. While we envision Aragorn searching the ruins, the truth is, if a character at higher level is alone, and comes across a foe with a CR close to it, there is a good chance they lose. The only exception I can think of is if the creature specifically matches the strength of the class, ie. a barbarian fighting a yuan-ti abomination or something melee centered.
In the end, I like this design, as it helps keep the focus on the group. It helps the fighter understand their three melee attacks do nothing against four manticores raining down spikes, and the warlock happy that the fighter is there to take damage from the purple worm.

 

[Minigiant]

I think this touches on a great point. People envision the ranger, or any martial class, as doing something heroic at higher levels. Trekking across a dangerous desert or exploring some ancient ruins in a forest are par for the course for our ranger - at least that is what we envision.
But when you look at the challenges at those higher levels, there are only a few that match our expectations. Many of those desert monsters (Yuan-ti, young blue dragon, efreeti, mummy, etc.) are too diverse for the ranger. That said, I think the same can be said for all the other classes too. While we envision Aragorn searching the ruins, the truth is, if a character at higher level is alone, and comes across a foe with a CR close to it, there is a good chance they lose. The only exception I can think of is if the creature specifically matches the strength of the class, ie. a barbarian fighting a yuan-ti abomination or something melee centered.
In the end, I like this design, as it helps keep the focus on the group. It helps the fighter understand their three melee attacks do nothing against four manticores raining down spikes, and the warlock happy that the fighter is there to take damage from the purple worm.

I've keep saying it

Sharknadoes
Knifestorms
Faerie Forestfires
Bottomless Pits
Living Quicksand
Ghostwinds
Death Vines
Flying Sheep with sharp teeth
Mimic Mountains

SUPERNATURAL "NATURAL" HAZARDS AND WEATHER FOR CORE D&D!

Then give rangers spells to track, predict, and suppress them.

This justifies rangers having magic more if the Wilds are naturally chaotic and magical.

 

[Rocker26a]

This justifies rangers having magic more if the Wilds are naturally chaotic and magical.

I agree, but the wilds already are pretty naturally chaotic and magical. Though admittedly just as much is down to meddling. Hubris of Wizards, cruelty of extraplanar entities etc.
That's sorta part of how I tend to think of Rangers, they're like the counterbalance against the things plaguing the land. A monster for the land rather than in spite of it. Like the Hunters of Bloodborne, kinda.
I'd like if there was something in that vein backing the Ranger rather than solely the park ranger bit, though I do like that bit as well.