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

[Minigiant]

Well what if Survival was treated like Thieves tools?

What if Nature was treated like Arcane?

Level appropriate natural challenges from level 1 to 20.

Or does the ranger (and druid) automatically transition to planar knowledge at Tier 3 and get bonuses to Arcane, Divine, scrying, and portals?

 

[Staffan]

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)

But if you make things that harsh, you need a ranger to deal with the wilderness. And no class should be needed. All classes should bring stuff to the table, but you should be able to run a game fine with a bard, a fighter, a monk, and a rogue. If you can't, that's a failure of game design.

 

[mellored]

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...

They remove the paladin specific enemy features. Abure Foe now works equally well on anything.

They tried to remove turn undead as well, but got too much pushback on it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

But if you make things that harsh, you need a ranger to deal with the wilderness. And no class should be needed. All classes should bring stuff to the table, but you should be able to run a game fine with a bard, a fighter, a monk, and a rogue. If you can't, that's a failure of game design.

Not necessarily. After all, your Bard/Fighter/Monk/Rogue party might struggle with dealing with the saving throws and status effects caused by fiends, or a shambling horde of undead. Bard's can heal, but not as effectively as clerics and no one in the party has Turn Undead. Dealing with a horde of zombies isn't impossible for the party, or toughing out a series of encounters with a succubus, but a cleric or paladin would certainly make those things easier to handle.

Having a permanent -1 or -2 to all rolls and DCs because of some permanent exhaustion, and needing to work harder to establish a base camp doesn't make it impossible for your party to handle the Deep Wode, but it does mean that bringing a Ranger might make those things EASIER to deal with. Taking on Curse of Strahd or any other undead campaign is not impossible without a cleric or a paladin, yet every time such a campaign is proposed, people flock to those classes, because they have specific resonance in tools and themes.

We have a ranger theme... but no challenges and no tools resonating with those challenges. And the more the insistence is that there is nothing in the Prime Material that the ranger is best suited for dealing with... well, you can go to the Fey or the Elemental planes then, that can work, but then they are losing that feeling of being the ultimate guide, to me, because there is nothing in the natural world of any significant power.

 

[Chaosmancer]

They remove the paladin specific enemy features. Abure Foe now works equally well on anything.

They tried to remove turn undead as well, but got too much pushback on it.

But they never got pushback on Divine Smite dealing extra damage to fiends and undead.

The ability for a paladin to sense fiends and undead is still strong.

The ability to heal poison and disease is thematically relevant against fiends and undead.

As I said, it doesn't take much, it doesn't take a large suite of important abilities. Just a little bit goes a LONG way.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I mean, think about this for a moment.

What if Hunter's Mark dealt +proficiency mod damage to abominations and monstrosities. And at level 13 Rangers got the ability to add their wisdom modifier to charisma and intelligence saves. And returned the level 7 or 8 ability to ignore all difficult terrain.

Well, since a lot of powerful abominations cause intelligence or charisma saves, and create difficult terrain.... wouldn't you be tempted to grab a ranger if your DM said you were going to have a campaign focused on fighting abominations? Because, while it isn't much... the ranger is getting an edge.

 

[ECMO3]

The Clerics and Wizards are the iconic asters. They should get special treatment IMO.

 

[Xeviat]

Favored Enemy has always been the Ranger's unique thing. What if their subclasses were all designed around creature themes. Then, your favored Enemy becomes what your subclass is built around.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Favored Enemy has always been the Ranger's unique thing. What if their subclasses were all designed around creature themes. Then, your favored Enemy becomes what your subclass is built around.

i mean, the problem there is it means the effectiveness of your subclass is entirely dependent on how common your favored enemy is in the campaign (unless the abilities work on any creature and are just flavoured to be based on your favored enemy, i guess?)

 

[Xeviat]

i mean, the problem there is it means the effectiveness of your subclass is entirely dependent on how common your favored enemy is in the campaign (unless the abilities work on any creature and are just flavoured to be based on your favored enemy, i guess?)

Yeah. For instance, Gloom Stalkers are skilled at fighting Aberrations and the creatures of the underdark, but they're not bad at others. A Monster Slayer has features for fighting undead, werewolves, and the creatures of the night, but they're useful against everything. Giant Slayer, Dragon Slayer, Beast Master... It's a thematic thing to hang their hat on.