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

[Scott Christian]

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.

I agree. Your second point is spot on. Of course, if we go down that rabbit hole, then it might turn into, "What is the wizards unique enemy type? What is the sorcerer's unique enemy type?" Again, I like the thought though, just trying to play a small devil's advocate.

 

[Stalker0]

Why do you cast your spells shouting at the top of your lungs?

Maybe not at the top of your lungs, but considering a caster can identify a verbal only spell from a decent distance away with no penalty, does suggest it’s not a whisper either.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I agree. Your second point is spot on. Of course, if we go down that rabbit hole, then it might turn into, "What is the wizards unique enemy type? What is the sorcerer's unique enemy type?" Again, I like the thought though, just trying to play a small devil's advocate.

I don’t think all classes need a specific enemy type they specialise against but ranger is classically depicted as having a favoured kind of enemy, and clerics and paladins are good against undead, these are known ideas, I don’t feel like 'classes favoured enemy' is a concept that will snowball into every class having their own just because these few classes have it in their design.

 

[Rocker26a]

I don’t think all classes need a specific enemy type they specialise against but ranger is classically depicted as having a favoured kind of enemy, and clerics and paladins are good against undead, these are known ideas, I don’t feel like 'classes favoured enemy' is a concept that will snowball into every class having their own just because these few classes have it in their design.

Ranger's lack of a definitive enemy in terms of bestiary category (outside of Monstrosities debatably), like what's generally considered true for Paladins and Undead etc., is part of why I like Force damage as Ranger's "element". They become a universal threat, they can fight anything! There is a little bit of that in the game already, with Zephyr Strike and Guardian of Nature. I think it could comfortably be taken a little further.

It kinda makes me think of the Castlevania series, I'd consider that a decent fit in the Ranger sphere (some wiggle room depending on the specific iteration), and you see entire Monster Manuals in that franchise. But they all get got just the same.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Ranger's lack of a definitive enemy in terms of bestiary category (outside of Monstrosities debatably), like what's generally considered true for Paladins and Undead etc., is part of why I like Force damage as Ranger's "element". They become a universal threat, they can fight anything! There is a little bit of that in the game already, with Zephyr Strike and Guardian of Nature. I think it could comfortably be taken a little further.

It kinda makes me think of the Castlevania series, I'd consider that a decent fit in the Ranger sphere (some wiggle room depending on the specific iteration), and you see entire Monster Manuals in that franchise. But they all get got just the same.

i kind of like the idea as force as their default on their token spells but also being able to alter it to pretty much any other damage type barring radiant, being able to play up that theme of targeting their prey's weaknessess if they know them.

 

[Rocker26a]

i kind of like the idea as force as their default on their token spells but also being able to alter it to pretty much any other damage type barring radiant, being able to play up that theme of targeting their prey's weaknessess if they know them.

See ideally spells like Flame Arrows or Lightning Arrow would fill that sort of utility, but. I find you unlock them far too late, and they're pretty expensive spell slots for what you get. Lightning Arrow is at least kinda cool and effective, Flame Arrows kinda shakes out to just elemental Hunter's Mark but only for bows. Can be just what you need I guess, but...

 

[Staffan]

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.

The thing is, the only thing you need to deal with traps is the Perception skill and the Thievery skill, with some bonus gotten from having Thieves' Tools and proficiency. These days, you don't need a rogue to do so – and rightly so. The same should be true for natural hazards – Perception and likely Survival or maybe Nature should suffice. You shouldn't need a ranger to deal with the wilderness.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I agree. Your second point is spot on. Of course, if we go down that rabbit hole, then it might turn into, "What is the wizards unique enemy type? What is the sorcerer's unique enemy type?" Again, I like the thought though, just trying to play a small devil's advocate.

Agreed, but I think this is where we notice that different classes get approached differently.

For example, the Barbarian and the Monk are far more about HOW they fight than what challenges they can uniquely overcome. Wizards and Sorcerers are both users of the Arcane (which is a defined concept) and are contrasting each other (in theory) so they can be defined in those manners.

But it has often been noticed that the Druid and the Cleric overlap A LOT in conception, likely because the original druid was a cleric. Druids escaped from the problem facing rangers because "the powers of nature" are thematic enough to pull them away from "the power of the heavens" that clerics use. But ranger's can't dive fully into the powers of nature, and they are otherwise hard to push out of tier 1 themes, which is in part because there is nothing to push off against.

 

[CreamCloud0]

The thing is, the only thing you need to deal with traps is the Perception skill and the Thievery skill, with some bonus gotten from having Thieves' Tools and proficiency. These days, you don't need a rogue to do so – and rightly so. The same should be true for natural hazards – Perception and likely Survival or maybe Nature should suffice. You shouldn't need a ranger to deal with the wilderness.

no, a party doesn't NEED a rogue but a party with one will be noticably better at dealing with traps and locks, being able to have expertise in sleight of hand AND thieves tools to deal with them, very few classes (if any?) can naturally claim to have both those things, a ranger would be in the same position with exploration.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The thing is, the only thing you need to deal with traps is the Perception skill and the Thievery skill, with some bonus gotten from having Thieves' Tools and proficiency. These days, you don't need a rogue to do so – and rightly so. The same should be true for natural hazards – Perception and likely Survival or maybe Nature should suffice. You shouldn't need a ranger to deal with the wilderness.

Yes and no.

I agree with you that it is good that Rogues are not uniquely the only ones who can deal with traps. But rogues are the stealthy martial. And sure, a dex fighter in leather with stealth is also a stealthy martial... but the rogue is BETTER at it. I mean, I know we all think of Sneak attack and skills as the Rogue's primary identity... but I'd actually argue 5e made the rogue something better and more uniquely roguish with Cunning Action, which gets far less press.

Rogues are flexible in what they are the best at, but it is clear that they have a direction for their niche. The best at hiding, sneaking, slipping in or slipping away, very high skills, very high spike damage when they get the drop on someone. This all lends itself to the rogue's design direction.

For the Ranger, I would say you are currently correct, and that that is also the problem. Rangers were defined as the people to deal with natural hazards... but then natural hazards were designed in such a way that anyone can deal with them. I mean, you have a 9th level fighter go into the woods with a dagger and proficiency in survival, and they are going to make it out the other side. The single danger they might face is water, but that's it and easily accounted for. There is just nothing in find food, find water, don't get lost that stretches beyond the first five levels of play.

So, we either need to redefine the ranger as not being about survival in the wilderness, or we need to give something GREATER than finding food and water while not getting lost in the woods. And some of this may be found in world design, maybe the border regions between nature and civilization are safe enough for anyone, but the deep parts become far more deadly. Not in terms of "and here be literal dragons" but maybe the deepest parts of the jungles are so filled with spores and pollen that it is actively toxic to everyone, and will cause levels of exhaustion to anyone who spends at least four hours there, but also taking a long rest causes issues with the sheer number of insects in the deep mulch of the jungle floor. But, the 10th level ranger can get rid of a level of exhaustion with a short rest and climb trees with ease, and so they have the innate skills and abilities to deal with this environment.

And I know I'm starting to get into specifics, but the idea is what if we look to Ranger abilities to guide what exists, and increase the danger of things that exist, to guide what ranger abilities should be. If we start saying that environmental challenges should focus on causing exhaustion amongst the party, then the ranger being immune to exhaustion and able to more easily remove or prevent exhaustion suddenly becomes a viable angle of attack (noting that I prefer the One DnD exhaustion penalties)