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

[Scribe]

we have not established if less works just that the game could function, is such a state.

Less absolutely can work. The core 4 can be "enough".

More can also work, but that doesn't mean less is not perfectly valid.

 

[Horwath]

one class can also be enough.

classes are just a laundry list of preselected feats.

 

[Mind of tempest]

LOL I wouldn't dare! My definition is different from yours, and the next definition would be different as well, and the next, and so on.

But ok I'll give it a go anyway. In the concept of the Fight-Skill-Cast framework, for me monk would just be Fight, but I can see an argument for Fight-Skill or even Fight-Cast (using "cast" aka magic as ki). Fight alone works fine for me because I have no issue with Fighters and Barbarians and such (also Fight-group) as having "superhuman" abilities, especially at high levels without falling into the Fight-Cast group (which is more "gish"-related as I see it).

Many of the Fight maneuvers (for lack of a better term) cover what monks do in 5E, such as stunning, knocking prone, flurry attacks, movement. While Monks in 5E have movement that scales with level, the Barbarian also has Fast Movement, and the Fighter can use Action Surge to move again for "free". So, concepts under the Fight-group would include enhanced movement at some point, perhaps even Rogue Cunning Action dash can fall into this concept.


If it functions, it works, doesn't it? I mean, I don't have an entire design team at my disposal to flesh this out, but the concept seems sound to me.

there is a grand difference between something functioning and being well designed.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

there is a grand difference between something functioning and being well designed.

Sure, but the problem with that is functional is more or less "yes or no", as where "being well designed" is entirely subjective.

So, as I said, if it fuctions, it works.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Why more when less works?

just because something 'works' does not mean it is better

or i could equally say, why less when more works?

Nothing limits their creativity other than their own minds.

oh and mechanics, you forgot mechanics, those certainly play a part actually, the ability to express creativity is definitely limited when you don't have the proper tools to create.

i'm reminded of the many 'martials don't need mechanics to be effective outside of combat, you just need to use your imagination and creativity, yeah cool, casters can also use their imagination and creativity AND have spells with hard coded tangible effects' discussions.

 

[cbwjm]

No idea what I said when I first responded to this thread, but I'm really thinking that both paladin and ranger aren't necessary as their own classes. For 5e, if subclasses were more robust and classes gained subclass levels at the same time, then I'd have made both subclasses. A ranger could then be a fighter acting as a warden for the local baron, a rogue acting as a scout, a priest of a nature-based religion, or a wizard with a love of the woods and the natural world.

Maybe with the evolution of the game there is more reason to have these separate classes, but I think they can still be done without, ranger especially. For a nonspellcaster ranger I just had an outlander background fighter, it worked well and perfectly fit my idea of a ranger (which might ne different from other's idea of a ranger).

 

[Corinnguard]

No idea what I said when I first responded to this thread, but I'm really thinking that both paladin and ranger aren't necessary as their own classes.

3e's Unearthed Arcana did present both the Ranger and the Paladin as 15 level prestige classes.

As for them being subclasses of the Fighter in 5e, the Fighter gains subclass features at 3rd, 7th, 10th, 15th and 18th. Is that enough subclass levels to make a Fighter (Ranger) and Fighter (Paladin) workable? If it is workable, which Ranger feature and which Paladin feature gets to be in their respective Fighter subclass?

 

[Flights of Fancy]

just because something 'works' does not mean it is better

I never said it was 'better'. I just said it works, and as I replied in my other post, 'better' is also subjective. Now in that light, yes it is better.

or i could equally say, why less when more works?

Because less is more effecient

oh and mechanics, you forgot mechanics, those certainly play a part actually, the ability to express creativity is definitely limited when you don't have the proper tools to create.

i'm reminded of the many 'martials don't need mechanics to be effective outside of combat, you just need to use your imagination and creativity, yeah cool, casters can also use their imagination and creativity AND have spells with hard coded tangible effects' discussions.

Mechanics come with subclasses, specialties, feats, etc., and yes, imagination helps a lot.

 

[Scott Christian]

one class can also be enough.

classes are just a laundry list of preselected feats.

I might add to the bolded statement that they also have nostalgia (for some), and more importantly, boatloads of lore attached to them. While mechanically, they may be "just preselected feats," they are so much more to the player that visually imagines their character.

 

[Corinnguard]

Because less is more effecient

Not always, it depends on who designed the class, subclass, etc. and how long they have been at it.