D&D 5E 5th edition Ranger: Why does every class have to have it's own schtick?

[Lanefan]

Extra HP. For the extra 1d8 HD of the 1e ranger.

But since it's one target only and uses a spell slot and concentration, and has a duration, you quadruple it.

Hmmm...my first thought is this might not help much; isn't concentration ended by combat? My second thought is that without concentration this could get out of hand in a hurry if the Ranger has time (and available spell slots) to cast a string of these in sequence before a battle.

Better, perhaps, to simply give Rangers a "toughness" variant at 1st level as a baked-in class feature for (3? 5? 8? 1d8? 2d6?) extra h.p. and leave it at that.

Lanefan

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Ok so from where I'm sat a ranger needs to be
Tough
Fast
Ranged
Dex
2hers
Spells
Pets
Mobility
Skills
Regen

Did I miss anything? I mean I'm just looking at mechanics here ofc but it looks like a ranger should be a God class... there is the issue to many people want to many things maybe we should put all other classes as ranger sub classes then we can all have the perfect ranger.

Personally, i find a lot of redundancy or optional properties on the list.

First of all, ranged. Nothing in ranger says mandatory ranged, just like nothing in fighter says mandatory melee. You should be going one or the other, depending on personal preference or party role. I'd even say that, historically speaking, most archers were soldiers, not rangers.

Then, Dex. I can somewhat see why would a ranger want to have high Dex from a mechanical point of view (after all they would use light armor most of the time and they want to get sneaky when scouting). However, in essence i see constitution as being a rangers defining characteristic, not dexterity. All the ranging requires quite a bit of stamina after all, no amount of acrobatics would help.

2hers? I believe you meant 2 handed fighting style? Again, i see this as optional and even highly unusual for a ranger. A gladiator or some similar arena warrior? Yeah. Exotic fighter? Sure. But a ranger? Just like other fighting styles, i'd make it entirely up to the personal pref.

Spells..... you know my opinion on them, subclass.

Pets.... just like spells, subclass.

So, that leaves us with: tough, fast, mobility (maybe in one package with fast?), skills, regeneration (if you mean 2 HD, i'd put this on the same boat as tough). Everything else should be in sub class, thus a form of specialization.

EDIT: i can even see the exceptionally tough ranger as a military oriented subclass, which would leave the baseline ranger with only fast and skillful (not as skilled as a rogue or bard).

 

[Lanefan]

Personally, i find a lot of redundancy or optional properties on the list.

First of all, ranged. Nothing in ranger says mandatory ranged, just like nothing in fighter says mandatory melee. You should be going one or the other, depending on personal preference or party role. I'd even say that, historically speaking, most archers were soldiers, not rangers.

One could argue the 'hunter' aspect points strongly toward some sort of ranged, but it doesn't have to be the character's focus.

Then, Dex. I can somewhat see why would a ranger want to have high Dex from a mechanical point of view (after all they would use light armor most of the time and they want to get sneaky when scouting). However, in essence i see constitution as being a rangers defining characteristic, not dexterity. All the ranging requires quite a bit of stamina after all, no amount of acrobatics would help.

In 1e a Ranger needed good Con, Str, Int and Wis scores. Dex and Cha were throwaways. The whole Dexy-Ranger thing is just more gawdawful Drizz't fallout; I agree Con should be the primary stat, followed by Str and one of Int or Wis.

2hers? I believe you meant 2 handed fighting style? Again, i see this as optional and even highly unusual for a ranger. A gladiator or some similar arena warrior? Yeah. Exotic fighter? Sure. But a ranger? Just like other fighting styles, i'd make it entirely up to the personal pref.

Drizz't again - bleah. To me 2-weapon fighting is a niche best left to Thieves and-or Monks and-or swashbuckling Fighters.

So: tough, hardy, skilled (quite differently from but overlapping with Thief), brainy (either smart or wise), mix of ranged and melee, any armour. Howzat?

Lanefan

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

1. One could argue the 'hunter' aspect points strongly toward some sort of ranged, but it doesn't have to be the character's focus.

2. In 1e a Ranger needed good Con, Str, Int and Wis scores. Dex and Cha were throwaways. The whole Dexy-Ranger thing is just more gawdawful Drizz't fallout; I agree Con should be the primary stat, followed by Str and one of Int or Wis.


3. So: tough, hardy, skilled (quite differently from but overlapping with Thief), brainy (either smart or wise), mix of ranged and melee, any armour. Howzat?

Lanefan

1. Agreed. Even the hunter can be a "trapper" and not a "bowman". And if we interpret the hunter as a "general purpose" hinter (i.e. hunting people as well), then we are open to all kinds of weapons, both lethal and unlethal.

2. Again, Agreed. Con, STR and (Wis/Int). I can see why they removed the stat requirements for the classes over time, but it kind of always bothered me that we got down to 2 per class (as class defining). I just really can't see a ranger as wither tough and brainy but not strong (enough), or strong and brainy but not tough (enough). If i really had to chose just for the sake of saving throw proficiency (5E rules) though, i'd rather give the ranger constitution and one from wisdom or intelligence (player choice or subclass feature), then strength.

3. Yep, you pretty much nailed it. Even the rules on stealth cover the armor rules nicely, so there should not be any reason for armor restrictions aside from purely situational matters. Tough, hardy, skilled, brainy and versatile armor and armament (as opposed to specialized).

 

[Azurewraith]

Personally, i find a lot of redundancy or optional properties on the list.

First of all, ranged. Nothing in ranger says mandatory ranged, just like nothing in fighter says mandatory melee. You should be going one or the other, depending on personal preference or party role. I'd even say that, historically speaking, most archers were soldiers, not rangers.

Yep it 2hers is the use of 2 handed weapons. Its not my list its just what i have picked up from reading the thread. I was trying to point out that even if such a small cross-section of the community can't deiced on what rangers should be doing and how then what hope do we have.

Spells..... you know my opinion on them, subclass.

Pets.... just like spells, subclass.

So, that leaves us with: tough, fast, mobility (maybe in one package with fast?), skills, regeneration (if you mean 2 HD, i'd put this on the same boat as tough). Everything else should be in sub class, thus a form of specialization.

EDIT: i can even see the exceptionally tough ranger as a military oriented subclass, which would leave the baseline ranger with only fast and skillful (not as skilled as a rogue or bard).

I think the issue is everyone wotc included just keep drastically changing mechanics when is all thats needed is a minor tweak such as maybe expand their spell list with a few druid spells?(and thats coming from a get your spells out of my class kind of guy) getting rid of this nature paladin fluff they got going on and possibly fixing up hunters mark and Bms.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

I think the issue is everyone wotc included just keep drastically changing mechanics when is all thats needed is a minor tweak such as maybe expand their spell list with a few druid spells?(and thats coming from a get your spells out of my class kind of guy) getting rid of this nature paladin fluff they got going on and possibly fixing up hunters mark and Bms.

I know what you mean. It was probably unavoidable, just because of the long lasting standing of the class, its popularity with the player base and the fact that it seams to have underwent more changes in flavor and role over time, then most of the other classes combined. Especially with 3.5E and 4E. This sort of leads to many starting concepts people have about it. Most of all, players that got into DnD in the last decade will by default have dramatically different ideas and concepts about what a ranger will be. It's my impression that the way WoTC has chosen to deal with it in the final version (the play tests were quite a bit different), was to merge the older concepts with the newer ones, while some of us would largely prefer to see the concepts "fleshed out" in archetypes or sub classes.

 

[Azurewraith]

I know what you mean. It was probably unavoidable, just because of the long lasting standing of the class, its popularity with the player base and the fact that it seams to have underwent more changes in flavor and role over time, then most of the other classes combined. Especially with 3.5E and 4E. This sort of leads to many starting concepts people have about it. Most of all, players that got into DnD in the last decade will by default have dramatically different ideas and concepts about what a ranger will be. It's my impression that the way WoTC has chosen to deal with it in the final version (the play tests were quite a bit different), was to merge the older concepts with the newer ones, while some of us would largely prefer to see the concepts "fleshed out" in archetypes or sub classes.

Ye as someone who started in 3.5 I was shocked when I heard about "tanky" rangers and no spells untilled 8th? Of 1e and even more shocked at pets being a 3ething(I'm 24 grown up with wow hunter pets and all other ranger types having pets driz had one the ranger class in pillars of eternity etc)

 

[Greg K]

If a class doesn't have something unique to it that no other class gets, then there is no purpose for that class to exist.

WotC is in a tough position because the ranger has never really had a big uniqueness to it, being instead a combination of fighter/druid/rogue abilities]
Don't forget wizard. They got received some wizard spells back in 1e

[but they can't just say "No more class with the name 'ranger' because it's not unique enough" because there are a significant number of fans that can't handle their favorite class only being present in the game via multi-classing and/or reflavoring.

Yep, as a DM and player, I don't like using multi-classing- besides hoop jumping, each class brings additional baggage that the player has to ignore.
Now, I am all for class variant, some new subclasses and even a few new classes. However, my one problem with subclasses is that not all classes receive there subclass at first level.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

I'll survive 2-4 levels if the class eventually gave me the archetype i wanted. As things are now, i literally have to MC the PC to play the melee ranger.

 

[wilcoxon]

I'll survive 2-4 levels if the class eventually gave me the archetype i wanted. As things are now, i literally have to MC the PC to play the melee ranger.

No you don't. You can certainly play a melee ranger. There is one in one of the 5e games I'm playing in. Can you min-max the melee numbers by MCing? Of course. Most aspects of 5e can be min-maxed by MCing.