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

[steeldragons]

A long time ago a Ranger was a guy with 2d8 starting hit dice, could use two weapons, had a favored enemy and if you stuck with him long enough, got a few spells. I have a 'ranger-y' fighter who's proficient in athletics, stealth, nature, survival and perception as well as the Outlander ability to not get lost and find food. Having any deeper bond with nature sounds like taking some sort of druid MC to me.

Or grab the Magic Initiate feat to just get a few simple/useful druid spells.

PS/EDIT: Oh! And the answer to the question, "Why does every class have to have its own shtick?" is "Because if it didn't it wouldn't be a class." It's that simple.

People want it as a class. It has been a class in D&D from the crack of the dawn of the game. It gets/needs its own shtick to maintain a class.

Getting druid/naturey spells from level 2 is not that shtick. Never was. Getting an animal is not that shtick...until 3.x/PF. That's a video game trope adopted by WotC as a continuation/adaptation/interpretation of the ranger's tradition of "attracting FOLLOWERS" [which included a few possible animal options on the random die roll!] ability (so you could do Aragorn, with his friends in tow wherever he went. Also useful in game "mechanic-ing" in modelling a Robin Hood with [devoted] Merry Men...except naturey creatures).

So, yeah. They need a shtick..."Everyone else gets one! Why can't I?!" <ranger stamps foot petulantly>...to be a "full"/their own class.

 

[Minigiant]

Sorcerer, Nale is a fighter/rogue/sorcerer, not wizard.

Same difference

That's the 3e Nale build.
In 5e, the wizard is better as it uses the same stat as the EK.

 

[Minigiant]

A long time ago a Ranger was a guy with 2d8 starting hit dice, could use two weapons, had a favored enemy and if you stuck with him long enough, got a few spells. I have a 'ranger-y' fighter who's proficient in athletics, stealth, nature, survival and perception as well as the Outlander ability to not get lost and find food. Having any deeper bond with nature sounds like taking some sort of druid MC to me.

Sure

If you want combat master with a few nature tricks, that works.

But if you want a master survivalist and tracker, that build is pretty bad. D&D pretty much locks all of that behind spells and magic item. And without some form of class based skill bonus or action economy fixer.

Once quarries start flying and teleporting, you need hunters mark, beast sense, and/or conjure X to find them.

The "magic, exceptions, or bust" aspect of D&D never went away. Until that does, mages, druids, rangers, fey, beholders, and dragons will escape and ambush you all day.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Personally, I think the biggest issue is not the class(es) itself... but all the players out here who just staunchly refuse to consider their character's class as "real" unless it says right there at the top of the sub-chapter the name of their class.

A heavy armor, greatweapon fighter with the outlander background isn't a ranger, because the sub-chapter heading says "Fighter." EVEN IF that particular build of the character covers everything you want your mythical ranger ideal to have. Nope. Doesn't have the word "Ranger" tacked onto the top, so it doesn't count. Instead, we have to take the class that says "Ranger" and twist the damn thing up into a pretzel seven ways to Sunday so that it ends up being something like the ranger ideal that seventy-five different player types have in their head. Because unless it SAYS "Ranger" in the sub-chapter, then it isn't actually a Ranger.

Ugh. Drives me batty.

 

[Ketser]

Minigiant rises a good point that some supernatural ability might be necessary for rangers, as part of their identity as "wilderness experts." Why? The wilderness in most D&D settings is full of supernatural threats in several different forms and having some knowledge/understanding/ability to deal with such threats fits the ranger. Should this ability be spells or being a half-caster is another question.

Personally i think that Ranger should have combat and stealth abilities, with some magical supernatural capacity and pick a subclass at 2nd level, with hunter being focused on combat maneuvers, beast master on animal companions and "spell ranger" on having the 5e half caster approach.

 

[Jessica]

I wonder if the problem is that the Fighter class itself is so broad and general that it, when combined with a background, engulfs any but the most strongly divergent martial concepts.

 

[Sacrosanct]

With the way 5e is built, you can pretty much recreate the classic ranger without actually having a ranger class. That's a good thing, IMO, because it offers a lot of class customization. As others have mentioned, the problem is that a lot of people want their own separate ranger class, so something must be done to make it unique to justify it.

Those are knowns, so we'll just have to accept it. The big question is what to do to make it unique? The historically fighting+survival/tracking+minor magic unique features can all be covered by skills and feats. The obvious answer seems to be a pet. But that seems to bring much consternation as well. I really don't think anyone will agree, and nothing WoTC will do will please people. There are ranger fans whose ideal ranger is all across the board.

 

[Minigiant]

With the way 5e is built, you can pretty much recreate the classic ranger without actually having a ranger class. That's a good thing, IMO, because it offers a lot of class customization. As others have mentioned, the problem is that a lot of people want their own separate ranger class, so something must be done to make it unique to justify it.

Those are knowns, so we'll just have to accept it. The big question is what to do to make it unique? The historically fighting+survival/tracking+minor magic unique features can all be covered by skills and feats. The obvious answer seems to be a pet. But that seems to bring much consternation as well. I really don't think anyone will agree, and nothing WoTC will do will please people. There are ranger fans whose ideal ranger is all across the board.

Sadly most of this is false.

If you want to make a "woodsy fighter who doesn't autofail stealth", Fighters and barbarians are primarily murderous death machines.

If you want to make a Traditonal D&D ranger, the best option is the ranger class.

The ranger has a unique shtick (mostly, a bard can halfway do it at very high levels).

The problem is many D&D fans refuse to acknowledge it or want to give it a new shtick.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Sadly most of this is false.

If you want to make a "woodsy fighter who doesn't autofail stealth", Fighters and barbarians are primarily murderous death machines.

If you want to make a Traditonal D&D ranger, the best option is the ranger class.

The ranger has a unique shtick (mostly, a bard can halfway do it at very high levels).

The problem is many D&D fans refuse to acknowledge it or want to give it a new shtick.

How is it false? A dex based fighter with an outlander background and magic initiate feat pretty much replicates what the ranger's theme has been for decades.

 

[S'mon]

The ranger has a unique shtick (mostly, a bard can halfway do it at very high levels).

The problem is many D&D fans refuse to acknowledge it or want to give it a new shtick.

What do you think the Ranger's schtick is? From what I recall, in 1e it was/is definitely Tracking, much moreso even than "Kills Giant Class. Dead." This was ok because he was also a tough fighter. In subsequent editions it seems not to be considered enough.