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

[Minigiant]

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.

Again the problem seems to be that both TSR, WOTC, & the community don't get the natural wilderness threats past level 7 besides a wandering adult dragon.

 

[Horwath]

Again the problem seems to be that both TSR, WOTC, & the community don't get the natural wilderness threats past level 7 besides a wandering adult dragon.

that is why there should be more focus on that.
And rangers features following threat level.

Resistance to fire&cold at certain level turning into immunity to fire&cold
Useful for many combats and exploring elemental planes.

 

[Minigiant]

that is why there should be more focus on that.
And rangers features following threat level.

Resistance to fire&cold at certain level turning into immunity to fire&cold
Useful for many combats and exploring elemental planes.

That's lazy and silly way.

Rangers shouldn't just become immune to fire and cold. And that doesn't help the party.

This is precisely what magic is for. You predict a Walking Blizzard following a frost giant raiding party's pass. There is no time to hunt animals and sew coats for everyone. So you cast Elemental Dome and everyone within 10 feet of you are cold immune.

 

[mellored]

That's lazy and silly way.

Rangers shouldn't just become immune to fire and cold. And that doesn't help the party.

Eh. It's one of the ways I was playing with making favored enemy actually useful.

You don't get a specific bonus vs that enemy. You get a general bonus that would work against them.

I.e.
Dragon slayer gave let you knock down flying foes and Evasion.

Elemental slayer would let you change your weapon damage type and give you resistance

Or some such.

 

[Staffan]

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.

So what happens if the party doesn't have a ranger?

 

[CreamCloud0]

So what happens if the party doesn't have a ranger?

then they have to figure out how to deal with the full brunt of the supernatural natural hazards, likely without forewarning, as would be expected as standard for a group of adventurers traversing the wilderness in a magical world.

 

[Minigiant]

So what happens if the party doesn't have a ranger?

They take damage or exhaustion.

Same as if they walk into a trap without a trap clearer or a caster with no anti-magic.

I mean the point of a guide or escort is to minimize the amount of dangerous encounters you deal with and to minimize this severity if you do encounter dangerous obstacles.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

I don't have a problem with Rangers not having a permanent silent spell on. Rocker26a does. They believe that scrolls are silent cast. Instead of giving rangers a new permanent silent spell ability... they could use the rules as written to cast from scrolls and solve their problem.

It doesn't matter what older edition play was or what 5e was trying to move away or against, because 5e isn't giving them permanent silent spell either.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Why would the standard spy of the spy block, meant to be the default spy everyone uses, be designed to have the wrong skills?

What tool would the noble have that is more important than the insight skill to make sure they are not lied to or decieved by spies?

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.

Something you keep insisting, but have no evidence to back up, because you keep presuming a roll will be made when there is no roll. You have assumed your conclusion, and refuse to budge on that.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Sort of, but I think you focused on the wrong ends of the situation.

Yes, the ranger solo is going to struggle against Efreeti, Mummies and Dragons in the desert.... they are also going to struggle against Trolls, Oni or Dragons in the forest. That isn't the point.

The first point is that trekking across a desert (without monsters) is not something that is challenging for a low-level ranger. A level 3 ranger can easily make the trek across the desert, the same way they make a trek through a forest, the same way they make a trek across the tundra. And the challenges of making that trek never change, even as the ranger goes up to 15th level and should have harsher and harder challenges.

The second point is, if you are going to have a unique enemy type for the ranger and druid, like the Paladin and cleric have in the undead and fiends that they are specifically equipped to fight better... well... what is it? The strongest Beast in the game is CR 8, the strongest plant is CR 9, Strongest ooze is CR 10, Strongest fey is CR 10. About the only group that sort of works is Monstrosities, which do have a wide range of CRs, but are the catch-all category for anything that doesn't fit.

This is why, when the 2014 Nature Cleric or Druid got abilities specifically geared to counteracting beasts at level's 17 or so... people were insulted, because that is rather useless when you stopped facing beasts nine levels ago.

For the concept of a Nature Warrior to truly take off, we need to have nature be as deadly as the Hells. I don't think you can give specific anti-monstrosity abilities, since monstrosities are so varied, but if we focused Rangers in that direction of "this is what a high level ranger should be the perfect opponent for" then I think we would have a much easier time giving them a unique feeling set of abilities. And, keep in mind, the Paladin may be the perfect opponent for undead and fiends, but they aren't ineffective against a dragon or a Genie either. You need very very little to make this actually work.