D&D 5E Convince me that the Ranger is a necessary Class.

[Shades of Eternity]

Ranger and Rogue fullfill the same niche that I have had legendary game designers argue that Robin Hood is a rogue.

If the paragon of ranger is not your class, it is extraneous.

Rogue now covers the skirmisher concept so I would be okay of folding the ranger abilities into it and the stereotypes as sub classes.

Then again my favorite ranger was the 4e version, because i have always preferred the deepwoods sniper version for my rangers.

So I'm asking.

Is the Ranger a necessary Class?

 

[bedir than]

Ranger and Rogue fullfill the same niche that I have had legendary game designers argue that Robin Hood is a rogue.

If the paragon of ranger is not your class, it is extraneous.

Rogue now covers the skirmisher concept so I would be okay of folding the ranger abilities into it and the stereotypes as sub classes.

Then again my favorite ranger was the 4e version, because i have always preferred the deepwoods sniper version for my rangers.

So I'm asking.

Is the Ranger a necessary Class?

1 - Robin Hood is not the paragon of the Ranger. The Rangers of Dunedin and Aragorn are.

2 - You could definitely flex a rogue into the narrative of the Ranger, you'd be merely abandoning much of what makes the Ranger unique in story -- their connection to nature, their inherent magic (though 5e expands magic of course)

3 - Without the Ranger as a class, you abandon the narrative of the Beastmaster. That has to exist in the modern game. It's part of the stories we love and the Ranger's combat-nature orientation is the best place for it.

4 - There's no longer a single skirmisher. Monks, Rogues, Rangers, plus certain Fighters, Wizards, Warlocks and Sorcerers are skirmishers. No single class owns a specific battlefield role. This is good! It empowers broader stories.

5 - If you don't want a Ranger at your table, eliminate or not -- that's your fun. Don't take the option from those who do.

 

[mellored]

No class is "necessary".

Each one could of been mixed in with another. Clerics and Fighters could be Paladin subclass.

But I do agree Ranger probably has the least identity.

 

[CreamCloud0]

oh boy another one of these threads.

yes the ranger is necessary, a class exists for more reasons than just box-filling a battlefield role or embodying a certian literary character.

 

[Mind of tempest]

oh boy another one of these threads.

yes the ranger is necessary, a class exists for more reasons than just box-filling a battlefield role or embodying a certian literary character.

explain how it is necessary then?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ranger's niche is that they're an wilderness expert, but in current edition there really isn't much gameplay there, and the ranger abilities just let skip what little there would have been. Conceptually it makes sense as a class, but in the sort of game where wilderness exploration and survival really are not mechanically supported, it is hard to represent it.

And, yes, if ranger were to be folded to some other class, it indeed should be a rogue. A rogue subclass could easily support what little mechanics the wilderness aspects require, and it works well for a mobile and stealthy archer.

Though I would prefer if the game had more focus and rules regarding exploration, and the separate ranger class would have rules that supported that.

 

[Gorck]

1 - Robin Hood is not the paragon of the Ranger. The Rangers of Dunedin and Aragorn are.

I disagree. The paragon of Rangers would be either Henrik Lundqvist or Ivan Rodriguez.

 

[Minigiant]

No class is necessary.

Robin hood is a fighter/rogue

The Rangers class is a high fantasy high magic representation of the Rangers of Dunedin or the Nights Watch.

They fight the monsters of the wild to keep the medieval kingdoms safe from the monsters and raiders of the wilderness.

 

[MoonSong]

Ranger and Rogue fullfill the same niche that I have had legendary game designers argue that Robin Hood is a rogue.

If the paragon of ranger is not your class, it is extraneous.

Rogue now covers the skirmisher concept so I would be okay of folding the ranger abilities into it and the stereotypes as sub classes.

Then again my favorite ranger was the 4e version, because i have always preferred the deepwoods sniper version for my rangers.

So I'm asking.

Is the Ranger a necessary Class?

Rogue can't take subclass at first and the scout discourages you from picking woodsy skills before taking it.

Also, there's no budget in the rogue for an animal pal or woodsy spells. Besides, I like Rangers being a bit beefy, more than the typical Rogue. (And wasn't Strider supposed to be the archetypical Ranger?)

 

[Tonguez]

The Rogue Scout is a much better Ranger than the entirely unnecessary Ranger class

and even though people will point at Aragorn as the inspiration, the Ranger class doesnt look much like that either