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

GrimCo said:

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.

Click to expand...

It was one of my favorites too. And no amount of power will make me like the 5e version. I despise it.

GrimCo said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ranger was my other favorite 3.5 class. I wish they had used it and the 4e Essentials Ranger classes (NOT the PHB Ranger) as the blueprints for 5e, but moved it further into expert territory with, as I said, JoAT and/or “add Wis mod to XYZ checks” feature.

doctorbadwolf said:

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.

Click to expand...

It's because the Rangery fantasy elements require distinct rules.

Like Ranger Animal companions requires creating Beast Companion stat blocks and the rules to use them.

You can't just Roll Animal Handing and have an Animal Companion

Same with Medicine, Religion, or Nature. You can't roll a skill to heal or find a healing herb.

Copying Wizard and Druid spells is WOTC borrowing spell rules rather than rewriting new rules.

Ideally I think if each Skill was given its own Subsystems, then you could have each Expert class specialize in 2 skills to get access to 2 Subsystems

Minigiant said:

It's because the Rangery fantasy elements require distinct rules.

Like Ranger Animal companions requires creating Beast Companion stat blocks and the rules to use them.

You can't just Roll Animal Handing and have an Animal Companion

Click to expand...

You definitely could, but even if not you can just give them a buff to Animal Handling and Summon Beast as a free spell.

Minigiant said:

Same with Medicine, Religion, or Nature. You can't roll a skill to heal or find a healing herb.

Click to expand...

Sure you can. That would be a perfectly good class feature.

Minigiant said:

Copying Wizard and Druid spells is WOTC borrowing spell rules rather than rewriting new rules.

Click to expand...

so don’t give those spells to wizards.
It’s fine with Druids and rangers share spells.

doctorbadwolf said:

It was one of my favorites too. And no amount of power will make me like the 5e version. I despise it.

Click to expand...

5E could really use 2/3rd caster types.
honestly, only wizards and clerics should be full casters.
druids, bards, warlocks, artificers, sorcerers are all good candidates for 2/3 casters.
add features to compensate slower spell progression.

doctorbadwolf said:

Ranger was my other favorite 3.5 class. I wish they had used it and the 4e Essentials Ranger classes (NOT the PHB Ranger) as the blueprints for 5e, but moved it further into expert territory with, as I said, JoAT and/or “add Wis mod to XYZ checks” feature.

Click to expand...

agree, especially like the ACF where you can get rid of, honestly, pitiful spellcasting ranger had in 3.5e.
maybe Scout was the best that both ranger and rogue could provide in 3.5e

also, I would avoid "+wis" to anything mechanics.
I would rather have +X fixed that try to balance around what could and could not be certain ability score in certain build.
outside attack/damage/AC/DC and skill(ability) checks.

Minigiant said:

You can't just Roll Animal Handing and have an Animal Companion

Same with Medicine, Religion, or Nature. You can't roll a skill to heal or find a healing herb.

Copying Wizard and Druid spells is WOTC borrowing spell rules rather than rewriting new rules.

Ideally I think if each Skill was given its own Subsystems, then you could have each Expert class specialize in 2 skills to get access to 2 Subsystems

Click to expand...

sure you could, if it's added to the game:

IE:
proficiency in Animal handling:
Tiny animal:
2+2×level HPs
1d4+1 damage
+various abilities depending on type

expertise in Animal handling:
Small animal
4+4×level HPs
1d6+3 damage
+various abilities depending on type

Minigiant said:

Click to expand...

Minigiant said:

It's because the Rangery fantasy elements require distinct rules.

Like Ranger Animal companions requires creating Beast Companion stat blocks and the rules to use them.

You can't just Roll Animal Handing and have an Animal Companion

Same with Medicine, Religion, or Nature. You can't roll a skill to heal or find a healing herb.

Copying Wizard and Druid spells is WOTC borrowing spell rules rather than rewriting new rules.

Ideally I think if each Skill was given its own Subsystems, then you could have each Expert class specialize in 2 skills to get access to 2 Subsystems

Skill	Subsystem	Classes
Athletics	Strength Maneuvers	Rangers,
Acrobatics	Dexterity Maneuvers	Rogues
Sleight of Hand	Cunning Strikes	Rogues
Stealth	Shadowcraft	Rogues
Arcana	Arcane Magic	Bards, Rangers, Rogues
Investigation	Intelligence Maneuvers	Bards, Rangers, Rogues
Medicine	Potioncraft	Bards, Rangers, Rogues
Nature	Primal Magic	Bards, Rangers
Religion	Divine Magic	Bards, Rangers,
Anima Handling	Beast Companion	Rangers
Insight	Wisdom Maneuvers	Bards, Rangers,
Perception	???	Bards, Rangers, Rogues
Survival	Ranger Lore	Rangers
Intimidation	Charisma Maneuvers	Bards, Rogues
Performance	Bardic Magic	Bards

Click to expand...

Level Up uses Skill Specialties in order to represent which areas with a given skill your character is an expert at. Characters get two Skill Specialties at 1st level and additional Skill Specialty at levels 5th, 9th, 13th and 17th. When a character makes an ability check to which their skill specialty applies, they gain an expertise die for that ability check.

All of the character classes have access to Skill Specialties. A person playing a Ranger is likely to take up IMO Stealth (Camouflage) and Survival (foraging, hunting, tracking or wayfinding) as their Skill Specialties.

Corinnguard said:

Level Up uses Skill Specialties in order to represent which areas with a given skill your character is an expert at. Characters get two Skill Specialties at 1st level and additional Skill Specialty at levels 5th, 9th, 13th and 17th. When a character makes an ability check to which their skill specialty applies, they gain an expertise die for that ability check.

All of the character classes have access to Skill Specialties. A person playing a Ranger is likely to take up IMO Stealth (Camouflage) and Survival (foraging, hunting, tracking or wayfinding) as their Skill Specialties.

Click to expand...

Again my point is a bonus to most Ranger skills doesn't do anything at most tables.

+1d10 to Medicine checks doesn't do anything until you create and modify that a DC 15 Medicine check heals Xd6 hit points or stabilizes a dying creature.

Animal Handling +20
Medicine +20
Nature +20
Survival +20

Don't do "anything rangery" in the base rules because the rules for these skills don't have the endpoint effects they require nor do they have a core skill contest tied to the base gameplay loop.

Those effects exist not in the skill rules but as spells. Spells Rangers are half power at.

But

Athletics +20
Investigation +20
Perception +20
Stealth +20

Do have core rule effects and core rules contests. Athletics is in the grapple rules. Investigation finds traps and secrets. Perception and Stealth are the base skill is the hiding and ambush rules.

Rangers are necessary because the rules for Rangery things only exist in the ranger (and druid) classes.

One thing Daggerheart did well was make Rangers have full access to nature magic and skill. Rangers and Druids both share Sage at full power and Sage is a core supported aspect of the game.

Minigiant said:

Again my point is a bonus to most Ranger skills doesn't do anything at most tables.

Click to expand...

Cause, RAW, most skills suck and aren't worth paper they are printed on. While 5e did go in rulings over rules direction, that left skills vague on purpose compared to 3.5 where skills had precise dc for precise tasks, that left lot of room for house rules on how they work and what you can or can't do with them.

FE: Heal let you stabilize, treat poison (skill DC=poison save DC), speed up recovery of hp or ability damage, treat disease (skill DC= disease save DC). Medicine, on the other hand, you can try to stabilize or diagnose illness, but not cure one, and no fixed DC (up to DM), even prof with herbalist kit doesn't let you outright heal/cure. Handle animal in 3.5 had neat list of cool tricks you can teach to animal or train it for specific purpose. 5e version - calm down a domesticated animal, keep a mount from getting spooked, or intuit an animal's intentions, again, DCs are up to DM to decide.

What we need is list of fixed and specific stuff you can do with each skill.

GrimCo said:

Cause, RAW, most skills suck and aren't worth paper they are printed on. While 5e did go in rulings over rules direction, that left skills vague on purpose compared to 3.5 where skills had precise dc for precise tasks, that left lot of room for house rules on how they work and what you can or can't do with them.

FE: Heal let you stabilize, treat poison (skill DC=poison save DC), speed up recovery of hp or ability damage, treat disease (skill DC= disease save DC). Medicine, on the other hand, you can try to stabilize or diagnose illness, but not cure one, and no fixed DC (up to DM), even prof with herbalist kit doesn't let you outright heal/cure. Handle animal in 3.5 had neat list of cool tricks you can teach to animal or train it for specific purpose. 5e version - calm down a domesticated animal, keep a mount from getting spooked, or intuit an animal's intentions, again, DCs are up to DM to decide.

What we need is list of fixed and specific stuff you can do with each skill.

Click to expand...

This is why 5e should have a dedication Skills and Tools chapter.

Not as in depth or fiddly as 3e but each skill having 2-4 dedicated DCs and usages that ranged the entire spectrum of the base game.

If I were to ever make a simple dungeon crawler, I always thought that I'd just have every skill have its own page of its description and the core range of usages and the associated DCs for it. This would allow me to decrease the number of classes as you could "Create a Class" by choosing a set of skills.

Then you wouldn't "need" a ranger.

You could make a Beastmaster by creating a priest and summon your companion with Nature, tame it with Animal Handling, and heal it with Medicine or Religion.

You could make a Hunter by creating a fighter and getting your bonus damage with Survival, Maneuvers with Athletics, and sneaking with Stealth.

Minigiant said:

This would allow me to decrease the number of classes as you could "Create a Class" by choosing a set of skills.

Click to expand...

This approach could work for all of the classes, not just the Ranger class. Make every class into a package of skills.