D&D 5E 5th edition Ranger: Why does every class have to have it's own schtick?

Corpsetaker · Nov 19, 2015

I think one of the problems with the ranger and this edition is it seems Wizards is trying to create some sort of unique ability that only a ranger has and they keep falling short. I really think edition isn't good for a ranger class because everything that used to make up a ranger is available to almost every class.

I believe the ranger would have been best served as a subclass of the fighter but with trying to keep up with tradition, they decided to make the class separate. I think concept equals a class more than some unique ability.

Corpsetaker · Nov 19, 2015

cbwjm said:
I'm pretty sure that every class has something that is unique to it, otherwise we'd have a much smaller list of classes. I think the ranger has too much history to have been made into a subclass, even if I do think that that would have worked fine, people would expect a ranger class to exist.

But we are getting these cheesy attempts at a unique ability just to try and fill that void.

Lanefan · Nov 20, 2015

Corpsetaker said:
But we are getting these cheesy attempts at a unique ability just to try and fill that void.

Which, of course, you can always ignore if they don't fit your-as-DM view of what makes a Ranger tick.

Me, I prefer a Ranger who can be one of two things: a "light" dex-based Ranger that keys on stealth, maybe archery, and dexterity (similar to a nature-based Thief perhaps); and-or a "heavy" con-based Ranger who's as tough as nails, can tank it up in the front lines, and doesn't give a fig about stealth (similar to a Fighter with tracking and alertness but a bit less fighting skill).

Then again, I come from an edition where you needed some pretty good stats to even become a Ranger; which by default made them a bit unusual.

Lan-"of all the many character archetypes out there one of my favourites - not to mention the first I ever played - is the heavy Ranger"-efan

Mistwell · Nov 20, 2015

Corpsetaker said:
But we are getting these cheesy attempts at a unique ability just to try and fill that void.

You appear to have substituted your opinion for fact in that sentence.

AaronOfBarbaria · Nov 20, 2015

If a class doesn't have something unique to it that no other class gets, then there is no purpose for that class to exist.

WotC is in a tough position because the ranger has never really had a big uniqueness to it, being instead a combination of fighter/druid/rogue abilities, but they can't just say "No more class with the name 'ranger' because it's not unique enough" because there are a significant number of fans that can't handle their favorite class only being present in the game via multi-classing and/or reflavoring.

Celtavian · Nov 20, 2015

I like a separate ranger with a wilderness/nature focus. I feel the ranger is differentiated enough. The big mistake was providing no combat bonus for Favored Enemy making it feel unimportant and making a weak beast companion with overly complicated rules that make it weak.

Tony Vargas · Nov 20, 2015

Corpsetaker said:
I think one of the problems with the ranger and this edition is it seems Wizards is trying to create some sort of unique ability that only a ranger has

5e's form of spotlight balance prettymuch requires that of every class, yes. You need some mechanical uniqueness so the DM can drop in a problem that only you can solve, or that you can solve best in the given situation, or the most often, or whatever keeps someone else from horning in on your niche protection.

Well, 'need' is too strong, the DM can always put the spotlight on a downtrodden character /somehow/.

I really think edition isn't good for a ranger class because everything that used to make up a ranger is available to almost every class.

That's true of every class, though, really - between Magic Initiate (and Martial Adept & other feats) and Backgrounds and sub-classes you can be a 'lite' version of almost any other class regardless of your actual class.

I believe the ranger would have been best served as a subclass of the fighter but with trying to keep up with tradition, they decided to make the class separate. I think concept equals a class more than some unique ability.

Erring on the side of making a former full class a full class is a good idea. The Ranger was a sub-class in1e, a class in the warrior group in 2e, and a full class in 3e & 4e. Full class would seem to be justified, 'for tradition,' indeed. Contrast that with the Illusionist, which was a sub-class in 1e, and thereafter a Wizard school specialty.

TheCosmicKid · Nov 20, 2015

Lanefan said:
a "heavy" con-based Ranger who's as tough as nails, can tank it up in the front lines, and doesn't give a fig about stealth (similar to a Fighter with tracking and alertness but a bit less fighting skill).

Isn't that a barbarian now?

I mean, I know Minsc was a ranger, but he's from before the barbarian was a core class.

dmnqwk · Nov 20, 2015

I think the main problem with the Ranger is they forgot how to actually make it unique. Right now a Paladin and Fighter are distinguished but the Ranger really feels like a mixture of the two.

I personally would've preferred the following:

1) All Rangers to be granted an Animal Companion of CR 1/4 or less.
2) The Archetypes to be split Marksman, Hunter or Beastcaller with each revolved around how the damage is dealt.
3) Ranger Spells focusing on the mix of druidic magic and stealth abilities (I mean I think giving Ranger's Invisibility would've been a positive move) mixed with creating some trap-style spells that have conditional triggers, like if an enemy moves they are knocked prone and take piercing damage.

Hunter, for example, could focus on dual-wielding and allow them to add their ability modifier to off-hand. They could also be granted the ability to make off-hand attacks as part of an attack action instead of a bonus, or grant them a bonus to armour class when dual-wielding.

Marksman would turn all of those magical arrow spells and create X per Y abilities such as a Cone of Arrows, or a Pin Down attack that prevented a foe from moving.

Beastcaller would take the Animal Companion every Ranger had and allow it to perform special actions such as grapple, knockdown or charge, as well as allowing it to attack without requiring an action on the Ranger's part.

empireofchaos · Nov 20, 2015

Corpsetaker said:
I believe the ranger would have been best served as a subclass of the fighter but with trying to keep up with tradition, they decided to make the class separate. I think concept equals a class more than some unique ability.

Given what they say in their survey analysis, if they make the ranger a subclass of fighter again, rather than expand the beast's powers, the ranger's beast will become weaker still, and the complaints would only increase. And it's pretty clear people do like the beasts.