D&D 5E (2014) Convince me that the Ranger is a necessary Class.

[Horwath]

Excuse me? What "robust" exploration rules do you think 5.0 had? All I saw was weak tea that could nonetheless be ignored if you had a ranger in your party. Hardly robust IMO.

that was also the problem with the ranger,

either you fail the challenge if there is no ranger(mostly) or you just auto succeed with the ranger. No fun either way.
2nd or 3rd level ranger could have simply got ability that gives advantage to all Survival checks.
this still does not improve to end survival if ranger is not trained in it, but helps with low level stuff and mid level if ranger has Expertise in survival.

This OFC means nothing if there is no official made exploration challenges.
maybe some area gives 2 exhaustion levels every 24hrs, which can me mitigated to 1 exhaustion level with Survival check 15 or no exhaustion levels with Survival check 20.

Natural "traps" should require Survival to mitigate/avoid. And should be if possible represented equally as traps across the campaign.

 

[Minigiant]

What tables? Are you speaking on behalf of the entire gaming public here? Rangers didn't even have magic in early D&D until they went down the road a while. I played a ton of 1e, and can count the number of times I've seen a ranger cast a spell on less than one hand. Does that mean most tables are like my experience, or yours? Or maybe neither of us can make that claim.

@Horwath and i were talking about 5e.

In 1e and 2e, utility was a Y or N thing due to how combat worked. Spellcasters had so few slots and could easily be interrupted.

"Druids" were barely combat viable so couldn't replace MURDER MONSTERS of rangers.

 

[Minigiant]

Excuse me? What "robust" exploration rules do you think 5.0 had? All I saw was weak tea that could nonetheless be ignored if you had a ranger in your party. Hardly robust IMO.

1) if ranges could ignore the rules that means the rules existed

2) Rangers could only ignore the rules in their favor to rain when outside their favorite terrain they have to follow. the rules. Which they would typically best at.

 

[Micah Sweet]

1) if ranges could ignore the rules that means the rules existed

2) Rangers could only ignore the rules in their favor to rain when outside their favorite terrain they have to follow. the rules. Which they would typically best at.

If the ranger could ignore the rules for the party, those rules are hardly "robust" IMO.

 

[Minigiant]

If the ranger could ignore the rules for the party, those rules are hardly "robust" IMO.

Did you see Natural Terrain? There were a lot of bullet points for all the rules to ignore.

And it only worked in the favored terrain.

Step outside a ranger's FT or not have a ranger and technically officially you were supposed crack open the DMG and follow a ton of rules no one ever remembers without the DM Screen.

That was the issue.

The 2014 ranger was designed for Gygaxian Hub towns and Arnesonian Marches campaigns were you ran multiple PCs in long treks and dungeons in high magic but low power settings.

A rarity in the paying customer base today.

 

[Maxperson]

Not to mention the fact that you can't make the Ranger an essential class, to where someone "has to" be the Ranger. So even if they got bonuses to exploration, they couldn't be so good that no other option is at least competitive.

You could do it via setting specific circumstances. If the world had untamed and very dangerous wilds, such that if you wanted to go anywhere but on a well maintained road you needed a ranger who could manage the dangers in his favored terrain, they would be essential.

 

[CreamCloud0]

any design around having favored enemy/terrain is a bad design, unless that feature gives all around bonuses and little better bonuses while engaging favored enemy/terrain.

IE:
favored terrain underdark: +60 ft darkvision, can hide in darkness without cover or concealment
favored terrain plains: +10ft speed, can Dash as Bonus action
favored terrain swamp: resistance to poison and disease, resistance to poison daamage
favored terrain aquatic: swim speed and water breathing
favored terrain urban: +3 languages, +3 skills from: Insight, History, Investigation, Deception, Persuasion, Intimidation
favored terrain forest: Climb speed, Hide as Bonus action

i'm wondering what the passives might be for the 14 creature types, though i don't think i really know enough about the design throughline of monsters well enough fill this list with appropriate bonuses, i'd probably give expertise in the most appropriate of Nature, Religion or Arcana for each to start with, a resistance to a damage type or status most commonly associated with them (fear for dragons, necrotic for undead, charm for fey...) and then something to act as a direct 'counter' (fiends would provide the sacred flame cantrip and PB free uses of branding smite,)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Did you see Natural Terrain? There were a lot of bullet points for all the rules to ignore.

And it only worked in the favored terrain.

Step outside a ranger's FT or not have a ranger and technically officially you were supposed crack open the DMG and follow a ton of rules no one ever remembers without the DM Screen.

That was the issue.

The 2014 ranger was designed for Gygaxian Hub towns and Arnesonian Marches campaigns were you ran multiple PCs in long treks and dungeons in high magic but low power settings.

A rarity in the paying customer base today.

That sounds right up my alley, but fortunately for everyone else A5e made a version of the Ranger with more versatility that still lets you run the kind of game I like.

 

[Minigiant]

That sounds right up my alley, but fortunately for everyone else A5e made a version of the Ranger with more versatility that still lets you run the kind of game I like.

The point is you are the minority.

2014 was designed for a minority.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Natural "traps" should require Survival to mitigate/avoid. And should be if possible represented equally as traps across the campaign.

Sounds like something 4e woulda done