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

[Laugh-ing-Coffin]

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?

This post is a year old and I'm still sharing my opinion. No the ranger class has never been necessary, they originally belonged as a subclass for the rogues. But people wanted more combat damage potential and a survival and tracker niche which they couldn't justify with just one or two subclass so they made it its own class... Now the rogues have scout as a subclass to kinda fill that rogue gap but it's meh in my opinion compared to the original rogue ranger subclass.

 

[Clint_L]

Ranger could be a rogue subclass, barbarian a fighter subclass, Druid a cleric subclass, and sorcerer a wizard subclass and the game would be better for it IMO. But, tradition.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This post is a year old and I'm still sharing my opinion. No the ranger class has never been necessary, they originally belonged as a subclass for the rogues. But people wanted more combat damage potential and a survival and tracker niche which they couldn't justify with just one or two subclass so they made it its own class... Now the rogues have scout as a subclass to kinda fill that rogue gap but it's meh in my opinion compared to the original rogue ranger subclass.

The original D&D Ranger was a warrior, not a subclass of anything much less the thief. What are you on about?

Ranger has never been a rogue subclass that I can recall, in anything but video games.

 

[GrimCo]

By OP logic, there are decent chunk of classes that are superfluous. Paladin - martial version of cleric. Druid- nature cleric. Warlock- goth cleric (still spell beggar) . Bard - music magic version of rogue. Barbarian - rage fighter. Ranger - fighter with SERE training.

Might as well go with 4 iconic classes - Warrior, Priest, Thief, Mage and just fold others like subclasses or specializations.

 

[CreamCloud0]

uh, is something wrong with @ezo account? all their messages appear as guest and their account doesn't seem to exist when i try to access it in any way?

 

[jgsugden]

uh, is something wrong with @ezo account? all their messages appear as guest and their account doesn't seem to exist when i try to access it in any way?

Did they request their account be deleted (or did they get perma-banned)?

When looking at creating new materials for D&D PCs to play, I look at the idea I want to manifest and ask if an existing class framework supports it, or if trying to fit the concept into an existing class by making it as a subclass will not work. Does some other class already embody most of the elements of the new idea?

Historically, the five concepts that have not fit into existing classes and were crafted as new classes were: Artificer, Psion, Psychic Warrior, Warlord (which is very much a class that leads others primarily - not just a fighter with leadership skills, but a leader that enhances their allies), and Technologist (which is horribly named as it is like an Artificer, but utilizes nature sciences such as chemistry, physics, biology, etc... - less technology, more reaction).

I would not consider removing a class from D&D, but if I did I would ask whether you could build PCs that embody the archetype either using a new subclass or multiclassing.

The 2024 ranger, to me, could be implemented as a fighter subclass.

Level 3:
A.) Spellcasting like the Eldritch Knight, but with druid spells.
B.) Hunter's Mark as a class feature. It would ramp up in damage more and would allow the PC to select a subtype for the ability that made it more fey (like Dreadful Strikes from the Fey Wanderer), elemental (making the damage elemental in nature), plant based (ensnaring strike) or bestial (allowing it to gain a limited number of uses of abilities that make the hits harder, faster or otherwise like an animal strike)
C.) Add proficiency to stealth in nature. Bonus proficiency in a traditionally ranger skill.
Level 7:
A.) Choice of Companion (Animal/Fey/Elemental) or Personal Augmentation (a little buff to the PC that ties them to nature)
B.) Skill expertise in 2 skills
Level 10:
A.) Nature's Veil
B.) A combat ability chosen from a list, like [Horde Breaker from Hunter, Dread Ambusher from Gloomstalker]
Level 15:
A.) Blindsight
Level 18:
A.) Avatar of Nature - combat abilities that allow you to manifest the power of nature

I feel like that would allow players to play a 'ranger' type of character and not miss much of anything that makes a ranger feel like a ranger.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

uh, is something wrong with @ezo account? all their messages appear as guest and their account doesn't seem to exist when i try to access it in any way?

Did they request their account be deleted (or did they get perma-banned)?

He requested it be deleted.

Might as well go with 4 iconic classes - Warrior, Priest, Thief, Mage and just fold others like subclasses or specializations.

Best way to go.

 

[Mind of tempest]

He requested it be deleted.


Best way to go.

The problem with only four classes is that it becomes hell to do a concept well.
We should have as many classes as is needed to do something well, not one more and not one less.

 

[Corinnguard]

The problem with only four classes is that it becomes hell to do a concept well.
We should have as many classes as is needed to do something well, not one more and not one less.

It's more than just doing a concept well. Reducing the number of classes down to four (Priest, Wizard, Rogue, Warrior) might make the remaining four more complex than what they are now. As now the new 'subclasses' of the four will have to add in more material to help distinguish one subclass from another conceptually. This is something WoTC has been trying to veer away from in 5e. They want to D&D to be as simple to understand and play for anyone wanting to role-play in their RPG.

Having more classes allows everyone to explore more possibilities about what their character could be like.

 

[jgsugden]

...Might as well go with 4 iconic classes - Warrior, Priest, Thief, Mage and just fold others like subclasses or specializations.

...Best way to go.

Then why not take it a step further and go the old GURPS route: no classes, just a point buy method to build your PC by buying abilities?

The answer to my question is convenience. You don't have to spend time building if you've preassembled the outline in advance for commonly desired archetypes. That is why the question, to me, is whether an archetype is served by the presence of the class.