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

Yaarel said:

I agree with you here.

In a magical setting, some skills can be applied magically.

Medicine should heal or poison.
Animal Handling should deal with a pet.
Nature should do alchemy, metallurgy, elemental magic, physics, math.
Survival should do botany, zoology, ecosystems, environmentalism.

Click to expand...

The Ranger skill list is: Animal Handling, Athletics, Insight, Investigation, Nature, Perception, Stealth, or Survival. I'd add Medicine since Rangers are known for healing. And there are 4 tiers of play.

So that's 36 different rituals, knacks, or spells I would have attributed to being a ranger.

If I were in charge of 6e, I'd still give Rangers spellcasting and spell slots but no "real" spell-list. Ranger class features and Ranger knacks (I think that is the accepted term" would give rangers access to druid spells, wizard spells, and exclusive Ranger spells.

Animal Handling 1 gives you a beast companion who you can boost by taking the Beastmaster subclass.

Medicine 1 would give proficiency with the herbalism kit and teach you Cure Wounds.
Medicine 4 would let you craft a superior healing potion every long rest and teach you Mass Cure Wounds.

Nature 1 would teach you 2 level 1 druid spells and let you prepare druid spells.
Nature 4 would teach you 2 level 5 druid spells.

Survival 1 would teach you Tracker's Mark, and Endure Elements.
Survival 4 would give you resistance to cold, fire, lightning, necrotic, poison, psychic, radiant, and thunder damage, and teach you Predator Armor.

CreamCloud0 said:

separately, while the ranger is a viable class concept i have to disagree with people that it's THE dedicated pet class, the pet class needs to be it's own thing to fully develop it's legs and to branch out into the various different concepts it encompasses,

Click to expand...

It would have to be something like PF1's Hunter class, which places more focus on the class's animal companion.

Corinnguard said:

It would have to be something like PF1's Hunter class, which places more focus on the class's animal companion.

Hunter – d20PFSRD

www.d20pfsrd.com

Click to expand...

yes,
but personally, I am more biased towards slayers as a ranger concept:

Horwath said:

with losing the universal subclass levels, we lost opportunity to get universal pet class for any class that wants a pet/companion/dragon/mount

Click to expand...

i'm not sure a universal pet subclass would work all that well even if we did have universal subclass levels, it would have to be painfully generic and probably wouldn't be able to be properly balanced at all well with all the different classes base power budgets, i do think that more classes could have pet subclasses tuned to their specific needs, flavour and abilities, but it wouldn't be a 'one-size-fits-all' thing.

CreamCloud0 said:

i'm not sure a universal pet subclass would work all that well even if we did have universal subclass levels, it would have to be painfully generic and probably wouldn't be able to be properly balanced at all well with all the different classes base power budgets, i do think that more classes could have pet subclasses tuned to their specific needs, flavour and abilities, but it wouldn't be a 'one-size-fits-all' thing.

Click to expand...

it would depend on reworking that ALL subclasses have same(or as similar as possible) power budget.
and ranger beast master is very bland and generic

Horwath said:

but personally, I am more biased towards slayers as a ranger concept:

Click to expand...

Yeah, Rangers ought to be more 'bag and tag', meaning they're good at tracking down and subduing their quarry than killing them outright.

If the Assassin subclass was an actual class, I could see the Slayer being a subclass that leans towards the Ranger class.

Corinnguard said:

Yeah, Rangers ought to be more 'bag and tag', meaning they're good at tracking down and subduing their quarry than killing them outright.

If the Assassin subclass was an actual class, I could see the Slayer being a subclass that leans towards the Ranger class.

Click to expand...

Nah

Subduing and restraining targets would be an aspect of rangers.

But rangers are traditional hunters of wild monsters, encroaching villains, or barbaric raiders. They are killing their quarries or scaring them off.

That bandit or hill giant is getting their throat slit.

doctorbadwolf said:

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.

Click to expand...

I do think that the Ranger fits the “expert” umbrella more than the “warrior” umbrella, though, in modern gaming.

Aragorn was a fierce warrior, and “thief” types weren’t, but that just isn’t a part of the Tolkien DNA that is still prominently in modern gaming, where Warriors are front liners and rogues are just as deadly while sticking to flanking tactics and the like.

So if “being deadly with weapons” isn’t a warriors only thing, what sets Aragorn and his processors and successors apart? Utility skill and odd bits of unusual proficiency, and usually magic if the world has magic (whether it’s called that or not).

I’ve said this before, but the problem the Ranger has is not identity or niche, it’s that wotc won’t just…let it be its fantasy.

The Ranger should have prepared casting or something like it, and the Jack of All Trades feature, and/or the ability to add Wisdom to all proficient checks with Survival, Nature, Investigation, Perception, Athletics, and Stealth (instead of expertise), and should be able to spend a spell slot to give the same group benefit or pass without trace to the group with any one of those skills, or give the group THP, or a bonus to Constitution Saving Throws. If +10 is too crazy for some people, making it a bonus equal to their Wisdom mod or make it scale with Ranger level.

And yes, I would take JoAT away from Bards, and give them a heavy knowledge focus and the ability to use storytelling to impart wisdom or fear rather than the heavy focus on “performance art” and inspiration, giving them both bless and bane with extra uses per day. Hell let them cast those two spells without concentration (but only one active at a time) and ditch the BI dice entirely.

As much as everyone hated the 3.5 Bard, it was the most Bard the class has been in this century. Which is also true of the Ranger. I hate 3/.5, but it got class identity.

Horwath said:

yes,
but personally, I am more biased towards slayers as a ranger concept:

Slayer – d20PFSRD

www.d20pfsrd.com

Click to expand...

I just built a 5e Slayer that takes my old 2014 Asdassin class and remakes it as a better (imo) 2024 Ranger class.

doctorbadwolf said:

As much as everyone hated the 3.5 Bard, it was the most Bard the class has been in this century. Which is also true of the Ranger. I hate 3/.5, but it got class identity.

Click to expand...

Bard was my favourite 3.5 class. And it was great second best jack of all trades class. 5e bard on the other hand is top tier class, full caster, solid fighter, solid skill monkey. Built right it can overshadow some classes in their own niches.

3.5 ranger was solid. It had more skill points and more skills than fighter, full bab, martial prof, fighting style feats for free, companion. His survival stuff was more useful, since spells were prepared differently and if you prepare tiny hut, you can't use that slot for anything other than tiny huts, so wizards (and everybody else except bards/sorcerers) didn't usually dedicate slots to that kind of spells.