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

[Minigiant]

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.

The issue WOTC is having they're looking for an unique class feature.

Rangers don't have a working unique class feature. Never had one.
Rangers had an unique combination of class features. Combining swords with skill and spells was their thing.

Gold old "leaping out of the bushes you were hiding in while buffed by spells".

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The issue WOTC is having they're looking for an unique class feature.

Rangers don't have a working unique class feature. Never had one.
Rangers had an unique combination of class features. Combining swords with skill and spells was their thing.

Gold old "leaping out of the bushes you were hiding in while buffed by spells".

That was exactly my point - when you say what a ranger has been in the past, it sounds distinctly like you are describing a multi-class character.

 

[Minigiant]

That was exactly my point - when you say what a ranger has been in the past, it sounds distinctly like you are describing a multi-class character.

That's the point.

The ranger was a multiclass in one class without the pitfalls of being multiclass.

You can fight without the druid/mage and rogue class levels dragging you down.
You can casts without the rogue and fighter classes holding back you magic.
You can sneak and track without the druid/mage and fighter levels getting you spotted or lost.

And if a spell could boost weapons or skill, or a skill aid in casting or fighting, or if fighting could act as a conduit for magic or expertise...

 

[Mephista]

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.

Then take fighter subclass, and let those of us who want an animal companion and nature magic have our cake. You don't like it? Fine, play your fighter/rogue subclass. And let us have our full class. That's all there is to it.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

That's the point.

The ranger was a multiclass in one class without the pitfalls of being multiclass.

You can fight without the druid/mage and rogue class levels dragging you down.
You can casts without the rogue and fighter classes holding back you magic.
You can sneak and track without the druid/mage and fighter levels getting you spotted or lost.

And none of those things are dragged down, held back, or hindered while multi-classing in 5th edition, so there is zero reason, outside of so that a class is named ranger, to have what the ranger was be a class to itself rather than a bit of multi-classing (if even multi-classing at all, considering that many of the rangers I have seen played could be represented accurately as a fighter with the outlander background) and flavor-adjusting.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That was exactly my point - when you say what a ranger has been in the past, it sounds distinctly like you are describing a multi-class character.

Sure, but a multi-class character in one class that a human could just take.

Then being non-/demi-human no longer was required to multi-class, so you didn't /really/ need classes that were just multi-classing in a package - but you still had 'em.

Then multi-classing became lame little feats and you could've really used such classes, but you didn't have 'em... you had to wait for hybrids.

Now, in 5e, MCing is optional, so (sub-)class-as-multi-class-package is 'needed' (OK, nice to have) for campaigns w/o MCing. DM not using the MC rules? You can still play a ranger instead of a fighter/druid or an EK or Bladesinger instead of a fighter/magic-user. If MCing is available, well, yet more options...

 

[NotActuallyTim]

And none of those things are dragged down, held back, or hindered while multi-classing in 5th edition, so there is zero reason, outside of so that a class is named ranger, to have what the ranger was be a class to itself rather than a bit of multi-classing (if even multi-classing at all, considering that many of the rangers I have seen played could be represented accurately as a fighter with the outlander background) and flavor-adjusting.

That actually seems like a much better way to build a ranger right now than the current class. Given the wide variation in possible ranger archetypes (Blatant/Silent, Naturey/Martial, Friend to all living things/Loner type), I'd probably suggest to an experienced player trying to play ranger to grab some levels of Land Druid, then mix in some combination of Rogue, Fighter, Barbarian or Paladin into the character instead of using the core Ranger rules. And if they want an animal companion, then one would just be following them around, helping out.

 

[PnPgamer]

I don't believe that ranger has ever been nothing more than a mix of various classes, since first introduced in adnd 1e.

 

[Minigiant]

And none of those things are dragged down, held back, or hindered while multi-classing in 5th edition, so there is zero reason, outside of so that a class is named ranger, to have what the ranger was be a class to itself rather than a bit of multi-classing (if even multi-classing at all, considering that many of the rangers I have seen played could be represented accurately as a fighter with the outlander background) and flavor-adjusting.

Not really.

5th edition released the pressure. But it's not all there. You straight up suck at fighting until you get Extra Attack past character level 6.
A fighter2/rogue2/druid 2 is very weak. It can't do anything well. Not until it gets 5 levels into any of the classes for Extra Attack, 3rd level spells, or 3d6 sneak attack and Uncanny dodge.

But that gets into the other 2 issues.

1) Mutilclassing is optional
2) Most games don't get to the 15th level where your fighter5/druid5/rogue5 comes together as a "ranger".

So the ranger class is to only way to make a talented warrior with wilderness skill and nature magic at a decent speed.

It's like trying to do the Nale build (fighter/rogue/wizard) for bards. You could do it but theoutcomesucks.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

I agree with the premise, but not with the idea of making the Ranger a subclass.

First of all, the whole picture is more important than a "schtik". After all, other classes "schtiks" aren't necessarily as clear-cut as they might seem. We can say that Wizard's "schtik" is spells, but there is still a fair bit of overlapping with other classes, especially Sorcerer. Barbarian's Rage, Rogue's Sneak Attack and Monk's Martial Arts are more clear-cut examples. But what about Fighters? They have excellent abilities (Action Surge, Indomitable, Second Wind...) but aren't exactly "new" things to do, just abilities to do normal things better or more often. A true "schtik" is Combat Superiority & Maneuvers, but that's only the Battlemaster subclass (although there's a feat which grants a limited version of this to anybody). So is the Fighter overall really more unique than a Ranger?

Personally I think that the Ranger's base class abilities as a whole are unique enough to make the class distinct from all others. There are several spells which are unavailable to others for example.

Beyond those, the available subclasses also contribute to the uniqueness of each class, let's not forget that (which is pretty much what happens to the Fighter/Battlemaster too).