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

[Azurewraith]

I'll survive 2-4 levels if the class eventually gave me the archetype i wanted. As things are now, i literally have to MC the PC to play the melee ranger.

Why cant you play a melee ranger without multi classing? Only issue i could think of is you need to drop a OH attack every now and again to move/cast hunters mark

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Why cant you play a melee ranger without multi classing? Only issue i could think of is you need to drop a OH attack every now and again to move/cast hunters mark

No you don't. You can certainly play a melee ranger. There is one in one of the 5e games I'm playing in. Can you min-max the melee numbers by MCing? Of course. Most aspects of 5e can be min-maxed by MCing.

Read the above discussion about the 3 ranger archetypes we propose. When i say melee ranger, i mean the martial non casting class.

 

[Uchawi]

The overall problem is 5E had set in stone the amount of classes they wanted to represent, and everything else would be represented by a subclass. There is no way the developers can predict what players want so it was an unnecessary restraint. The fighter and ranger would be better represented by a couple distinct classes, and then you could also separate out other concepts like the warlord.

 

[Azurewraith]

Read the above discussion about the 3 ranger archetypes we propose. When i say melee ranger, i mean the martial non casting class.

Thought we were talking "ranger ranger" there and not "ranger" ye I tend to MC ranger rouge fighter to portray a ranger

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Thought we were talking "ranger ranger" there and not "ranger" ye I tend to MC ranger rouge fighter to portray a ranger

I didn't chose the right wording there, i should have used the "martial" ranger instead of the "melee" ranger.

EDIT: Old habits die hard, old rangers just fade away....

 

[steeldragons]

I know there are probably "numbers/min-max" concerns that I simply do not take into consideration...but if I want a "martial ranger"....I'm going to play a ranger...get a chain shirt or breastplate, a shield, a longsword, a long or short bow, a hand axe, and a spear.

My starting HP are comparable to a Fighter anyway. My Constitution, Strength, and Dexterity are all decent scores giving me some kind of boost to HP, AC, and damage no matter what/how I'm attacking.

When combat comes up, I'm going to wade right in in the smartest way possible, probably taking out the squishier guys and leaving big bruisers to the heavily armored guys (assuming there is one). I will simply ignore/not use spells (or would probably start using it at higher/8+ levels since I'm one of "those rangers" kinda guys).

Done. He's a martial ranger who's not going to shirk from a fight and is fairly well equipped to go toe to toe in battle, contribute from range (if that's the prudent move) or get off an initial volley and then close with blade(s). The rest is up to me, the player, to roleplay my "melee-martial-fightery-type ranger guy."

I can do "martial ranger" just fine straight out of the book.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Don't get me wrong, there is certainly a fun way to role play a ranger that refuses to use magic, just as easily as there is way to role play a cleric that is an atheist and/or has lost his faith so he no longer casts spells and only fights as quasi sub optimal fighter. But is the class designed around a non casting combat?

 

[steeldragons]

Is the class "designed around it"? Certainly not. None of 5e is. Everyone and their mother has "spells"...not jut magical abilities, spells. The only three "martial" classes each have a magical option and then the monk gets their magic-like "ki" powers...which, in my opinion should have been used/duplicated in reflavored form for the Paladin powers instead of actual spell-use. BUT they, apparently, wanted to set up the paladin and ranger as "half-caster" options...so, spells fer ev'rybody!

But it is playable...and it is no more "suboptimal" in combat than playing a fighter. Sure, might lag behind in this or that...no action surge. Big woo. So the fighter fights better...as it is supposed to. The ranger will be comparable to the fighter against certain foes/combat situations and better than the fighter in outdoor/exploration situations...as the ranger is supposed to.

There are choices to be made as a player. One of those, if I want a "by the book martial ranger" is to refrain from using spells...or only take/use "spells" that I can refluff into (and work out with the DM/table that they are, so we're all on the same imaginative page) non-magical ability/training/specialty. CCan I hit something for this long with enough extra training, expertise, and/or strength to deal a little more damage? Sure. Can I fire this arrow (or fire fast enough) and it turns into 20 arrows in midair and hits everyone in a 20' radius? No.

Because the book doesn't spell everything out for everyone doesn't mean/make the book "wrong" or "incomplete." Take what you have and work with it. That's something very much at the core of D&D. It doesn't "need" arcane numbers formulae to make sure my guy can do anything your guy can do. It doesn't "need" word-for-word "tell me how." It takes a little common sense and a communal agreement to the sensibilities and shared understandings at the table.

Would I, personally, have preferred a spell-less base ranger with spell-variant subclass. Yes. We didn't get that...and it would appear are not going to get that in a style I find acceptable...because it doesn't mesh with WotC's designer's preferences/specifications...SO, I wrote up my own. But I don't/didn't HAVE to to get/play a martial ranger (if that's what I wanted). Everything I would need to do that is right there in the pages.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

1.Is the class "designed around it"? Certainly not. None of 5e is. Everyone and their mother has "spells"...not jut magical abilities, spells. The only three "martial" classes each have a magical option and then the monk gets their magic-like "ki" powers...which, in my opinion should have been used/duplicated in reflavored form for the Paladin powers instead of actual spell-use. BUT they, apparently, wanted to set up the paladin and ranger as "half-caster" options...so, spells fer ev'rybody!

2. But it is playable...and it is no more "suboptimal" in combat than playing a fighter. Sure, might lag behind in this or that...no action surge. Big woo. So the fighter fights better...as it is supposed to. The ranger will be comparable to the fighter against certain foes/combat situations and better than the fighter in outdoor/exploration situations...as the ranger is supposed to.

There are choices to be made as a player. One of those, if I want a "by the book martial ranger" is to refrain from using spells...or only take/use "spells" that I can refluff into (and work out with the DM/table that they are, so we're all on the same imaginative page) non-magical ability/training/specialty. .....

3. Would I, personally, have preferred a spell-less base ranger with spell-variant subclass. Yes. We didn't get that...and it would appear are not going to get that in a style I find acceptable...because it doesn't mesh with WotC's designer's preferences/specifications...SO, I wrote up my own. But I don't/didn't HAVE to to get/play a martial ranger (if that's what I wanted). Everything I would need to do that is right there in the pages.

1. You practically read my mind here.

2. I tried something like this in 4E and it didn't work out well. But, then again 4E seamed to have been more "rigid". I mean, i survived with my PC till level 13-14 and only stopped playing because 5E came out, but still.... I always felt like an appendix to the group. I had fun role playing but my effectiveness was .... shall we say.... lacking? I know it can be hard to have both at the same time....

3. This was my original idea as well, to write our own class. But the DM said no. I think he is afraid we may screw it up and either make it too strong or too weak. And he feels more safe, running by the book, so i'm stuck with MC. 12-8 probably. I'm curious, what did you think if the UA version with the spirit animal?

 

[steeldragons]

3. This was my original idea as well, to write our own class. But the DM said no. I think he is afraid we may screw it up and either make it too strong or too weak. And he feels more safe, running by the book, so i'm stuck with MC. 12-8 probably.

Well. No. You're not "stuck with MC." Play your ranger as a fighter. Just do it. This is not 4e so "how it worked for you/you felt in 4e" is really rather irrelevant.

YOu are welcome to take/show your DM my rewrite of the ranger. He might not want to use it, of course, since it's not "official." But he can see if he finds it too OP/UP and which/if any subclasses he might allow. Worth a shot, right?

I'm curious, what did you think if the UA version with the spirit animal?

Hated it. Hated everything about it. The ambush mechanics were outrageously overpowered. The spirit animal and powers were totally the wrong flavor for what I would call/want as a "ranger."

Great (even OP'd) "shaman" class/archetype. Nothing I want to see (or would allow in play) in as a base ranger class. Hated it.