D&D General What is the Ranger to you?

Umbran · Jul 2, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
I meant with DnD of course. Some things are too iconic.

That's what they all say. Then, after going after the game with an axe, they realize they are like Wile E. Coyote, having run off the cliff and not realized it for a bit, now hanging in midair and pulling out a little sign that says, "Yikes!"

WaterRabbit · Jul 2, 2019

Umbran said:
That's what they all say. Then, after going after the game with an axe, they realize they are like Wile E. Coyote, having run off the cliff and not realized it for a bit, now hanging in midair and pulling out a little sign that says, "Yikes!"

No they get Pathfinder!

Garthanos · Jul 2, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
Indeed, with a more robust background and skill and feat system, many of those classes could be obsolete and no longer needed.

In fact, with an even more robust skill and feat system, you really could go back to the three core classes: fighter, cleric, and magic user.

That will never happen of course.

I am going with 4 ... something something about roles on the battlefield.

Tony Vargas · Jul 2, 2019

Garthanos said:
I am going with 4 ... something something about roles on the battlefield.

I was going to say 4... something about sources of power.

Garthanos · Jul 2, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
I was going to say 4... something about sources of power.

Sometimes my friend the differences are only offset by stress level distinctions LOL

doctorbadwolf · Jul 3, 2019

Ratskinner said:
Rangers are a lost class, IMO. Historically, they are such a hodge-podge of implementations and ideas that they always seem a bit off to somebody. And much like bards, it makes it hard to a Ranger to mechanically stand out.

We have them " 'cause tradition", but really the modern concept: "Woodsyguy Notadruid" isn't enough to warrant a class, IMO. If it were my call, both Rangers and Paladins would be Fighter subclasses at best (and I'm not even sure Ranger rises to more than a Background, TBH.)

The Ranger is more distinct and interesting than the Fighter, or Cleric. The Fighter isn’t even a concept. It’s completely redundant, and the least interesting of all the things it is similar to. It’s literally “good at fighting”, which also every weapon using character option.

We only still have it because people would angrily stop buying wotc products if they put out a PHB without it.

CapnZapp said:
Yes, the proposed Ranger abilities come across as written by someone with zero clue.

I mean, when you can give an ability a casual glance and *immediately* say "that will ruin the game" something is off - professional devs are supposed to familiarize themselves with the various ways their product is played...

It didn’t ruin the game, though.

Sacrosanct said:
Indeed, with a more robust background and skill and feat system, many of those classes could be obsolete and no longer needed.

In fact, with an even more robust skill and feat system, you really could go back to the three core classes: fighter, cleric, and magic user.

That will never happen of course.

Thank the gods.

Monayuris · Jul 3, 2019

WaterRabbit said:
I see the three core class as fighter, mage, thief. With a slight tweak to the magic system, a cleric is just a mage.

But really the three core class are defined by the different pillars: combat, social, exploration. So fighter for combat, skill guy for exploration, face for social. However, in D&D the face is just a Skill Guy with a Social focus. The mage is just a class that on the fly be useful in all three pillars.

Then you mix and match to get your classes, which basically become.

Core Class + Archetype + Background
Core Class A + Core Class B + Archetype + Background

Where Archetype is how you do your class and background is how you became your class (as it were).

I like the cleric being more of a militant divine character, so I see it distinct from a mage. Priests give sermons in their temples... clerics venture forth and bash undead with martial might and divine rage. Traditionally, clerics have always been either front line combatants or a good back up for when the fighter needs to pull back.

In fact, I consider Paladins unnecessary.

WaterRabbit · Jul 3, 2019

Monayuris said:
I like the cleric being more of a militant divine character, so I see it distinct from a mage. Priests give sermons in their temples... clerics venture forth and bash undead with martial might and divine rage. Traditionally, clerics have always been either front line combatants or a good back up for when the fighter needs to pull back.

In fact, I consider Paladins unnecessary.

I can definitely see that. To me mage is just the character that uses magic to solve problems, so a cleric is just a type of fighter/mage that has some restrictions martial and spell casting restrictions. It would probably be more accurate in my formula to have a % of core class so you get something like:

Cleric = 30% Fighter + 70% Mage

and

Paladin = 70% Fighter + 30% Mage

Really the only difference between Cleric and Paladin how much "fighter" is in the class.

TheWayofPie · Jul 3, 2019

Paladins and Rangers are incredibly redundant for sure.

It all happened when my brother asked, "What are you playing."

"Cleric probably. But, one of the heavy armor ones like War or Forge."

"Isn't that a Paladin?"

"Yeah. I just get more spells though."

SkidAce · Jul 3, 2019

TheWayofPie said:
Paladins and Rangers are incredibly redundant for sure.

It all happened when my brother asked, "What are you playing."

"Cleric probably. But, one of the heavy armor ones like War or Forge."

"Isn't that a Paladin?"

"Yeah. I just get more spells though."