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

[ECMO3]

Rangers didn't even have magic in early D&D until they went down the road a while.

They had spells for 3 levels by the time they became an actual Ranger. As a Scout, Strider etc they did not have spells.

 

[stonehead]

I think the point is less "how do make a class whose specialty is Wilderness Survival come up all the time"

And more "Our world has Rangers. What does a Ranger bring to the table".

Like a Ranger talks to animals. And they might push the animals to do things. Fight for them. Send messages. Act as spies. And the same for plants. And rocks.

Druids have too much respect of nature to exploit it.

I mostly agree, I must not have made my point clear. Although I don't know if Speak With Animals is the best example because it's a 1st level spell that even Bards have access to.

The point was that the Ranger class, as implemented in DnD, devotes a good number of its class abilities to wilderness survival, overland movement, and tracking. These things rarely come up in most campaigns.

My larger point was that the Ranger doesn't justify itself purely through its mechanics, but that its value instead was in sparking ideas for characters. I didn't outright say it, but if the class was designed differently, then it could fill the flavor niche it fills while also having useful mehcanical abilities.

If we just assume "DnD has Rangers, how do we implement them?" that's literally begging the question in a thread asking if we should have Rangers or not

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I mostly agree, I must not have made my point clear. Although I don't know if Speak With Animals is the best example because it's a 1st level spell that even Bards have access to.

The point was that the Ranger class, as implemented in DnD, devotes a good number of its class abilities to wilderness survival, overland movement, and tracking. These things rarely come up in most campaigns.

My larger point was that the Ranger doesn't justify itself purely through its mechanics, but that its value instead was in sparking ideas for characters. I didn't outright say it, but if the class was designed differently, then it could fill the flavor niche it fills while also having useful mehcanical abilities.

If we just assume "DnD has Rangers, how do we implement them?" that's literally begging the question in a thread asking if we should have Rangers or not

I mean eventually “yes we should” is going to turn into “so how do we do it right?”

 

[Micah Sweet]

They had spells for 3 levels by the time they became an actual Ranger. As a Scout, Strider etc they did not have spells.

Ok, if level names are how you want to frame this, sure. I barely ever saw an actual Ranger in my many 1e games. I have, however, see many, many Scouts, Striders, etc.

Technically correct as you requested.

 

[Minigiant]

mostly agree, I must not have made my point clear. Although I don't know if Speak With Animals is the best example because it's a 1st level spell that even Bards have access to

Well bard do not have summoned beast to conjure an animal of nor beast sense to see through these senses.

And to me, combining skill with low level druid and wizard spells and rituals feels like the D&D ranger. Using wizard divination spells for tracking, wizard transmutation spells for supernatural adaptation, and druid animal and plant spells for healing and recon.

The point was that the Ranger class, as implemented in DnD, devotes a good number of its class abilities to wilderness survival, overland movement, and tracking. These things rarely come up in most campaigns.

My larger point was that the Ranger doesn't justify itself purely through its mechanics, but that its value instead was in sparking ideas for characters. I didn't outright say it, but if the class was designed differently, then it could fill the flavor niche it fills while also having useful mehcanical abilities

The ranger devoted too much to a type of play that was no longer popular.

It's like if the bard were designed around languages at a time where language is handwaved by anyone important speaking Common.

If we just assume "DnD has Rangers, how do we implement them?" that's literally begging the question in a thread asking if we should have Rangers or not

It's circular.

Because Rangers tend to be the... for lack of a better word... a dumping ground for Hunting, Survival, Traveling, Exotics, Zoology, Botany, and other Wild skills. Removing ranger would make people not want Rangery stuff.

The ranger is a class because using the base rule to do rangery stuff was a crapshoot at best or impossible for some classes at worst. So some John made the ranger to make sure his PC was good at it.

 

[Corinnguard]

To which I would again say "the ranger ought not to be a class." I would much prefer exploration/travel/tracking/etc expert to be open to any class, not pigeonholed to a specific class. Why can't your band of merry men, featuring a cleric, warrior, and say a druid (the very class of nature personified!) not all be able to understand and thrive in the wilderness, tracking their foes and covering great distances?

Having it where each class has a feature or two in the exploration pillar would work better.

Yes, that would mean developing a separate overlay for characters than class -- let's call it a Profession. So each character would chose a Class and a Profession

Isn't that what a Background is for?

 

[Rocker26a]

Isn't that what a Background is for?

Yeah seriously, I was just about to say "that's just the background Outlander, you're describing Outlander".
(A popular choice of background for both committed Rangers, and those intending to add a bit of Ranger-ness to their non-standard Ranger characters, it should be noted!)

 

[Corinnguard]

Each class in Level Up: A5e has features that cover each of the three pillars of gameplay. Combat, Exploration and Social Interaction. How they cover these three pillars differs between each class. An A5e Cleric goes out into the wider world to spread their message to the public. An A5e Bard otoh does it to find a friendly audience who is eager to hear their inspiring stories, to be entertained by their art and to learn more about the world beyond the borders of their village. And so forth.

 

[Kannik]

Having it where each class has a feature or two in the exploration pillar would work better.

-shrug- I feel it better separated out and consolidated as a package. And it's not like each profession (or whatever) couldn't have their own features to aid in various pillars, be it exploration, investigation, diplomacy, and the like.

Isn't that what a Background is for?

If Backgrounds were more like 5e14, providing unique and interesting riders rather than something more limited and rote as it is in 5e24, and if the Outlander provides all you want for a ranger-like character to have for the exploration pillar, then partial-sure*. I would even say it could go further still: increased movement over terrain, bonuses to survival, pathfinding, tracking, herbal lore, read the land/nature, that kind of thing.

* I say partial-sure, as I prefer background to be youth/upbringing rather than later training and current profession. But for the purposes of discussion of keeping the 5e framework, if Backgrounds had more oomph than they do in 5e24 and if they provide all you want for the wilderness ranger type when it comes to exploration and survival and travel and lore and ambush pillar(s), then sure.