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

[Not a Decepticon]

So, does the fact that Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Rangers, and Bladesingers, College of Valor Bards, and others who all have Extra Attack make them feel "samey". Boy, I certainly hope not.

Wow, what a pretty false equivalence of classes that have 20 levels of features to diffirentiate each other and races, something that barely has features to begin with and all of them are overshadowed by a stupid number added to core defining thing that determines what class your character is good at.

I remember 3.5 as well, and not only did I play several characters against type very successfully, but other did so as well. The difference between a 16 and an 18 is +1, and that really didn't matter much with the stat books and stat items, and stat increases while leveling. You're very much overexaggerating the impact of the -2 stat penalty.

Anegdotical evidence doesn't change the fact that the game mechanically fights you on every step of the way and you require far, faaar more optimization to perform at the same level as someone who selected "correct" race and class combination. And on top of that, you effectively have your sheet to obiectively prove no matter what, your Halfling is not as strong as a human and your Orc is not as smart as one. You can build two characters exactly the same, except for having ne of them be "suboptimal" race for the class, and that character will never be able to catch up to the other, the way 3.5 is set up.

No. Any pidgeonholing is 100% voluntary and doesn't actually exist in practice. The extra +1 is a minor help, but if you view it as necessary to play a class that uses the +2 as the main stat, that's a misperception on your part.

If we're talkin 5e, stat bonuses are fairly irrelevant. My above response was for 3.5, but also applies to 5e. A +1 extra to hit, with an average combat of 4 rounds, means that you will hit one extra time every 20 swings or 5 combats. With the randomness of rolling, you won't ever notice when you get that extra hit. And with 5e monsters being massive bags of hit points, that extra hit along with the +1 per hit in damage aren't noticeable, either. Even +2 difference isn't somethin you will notice. One extra hit every 2.5 combats.

Once you get to your extra attack, that drops to 2.5 combats and 1.25 combats for +1 and +2 difference. You might sometimes, maybe notice the extra hit every 1.25 combats, but it won't make a big difference when fighting the bigger bags of hit points higher level monsters are.

And yet every character building guide in existence would classify race's compability with a class based on ASIs alone, up until an option to shuffle them aorund was included and far more interesting features became actually relevant.

Yes. Homogenization and blandness are superior.

Nothing speaks "homogenized and bland" more than ASIs.

 

[Guest 7037866]

People know what they're doing no matter how much they try and justify.

And what, precisely, are they supposed to be doing, that you know them better than themselves?

Wow, what a pretty false equivalence of classes that have 20 levels of features to diffirentiate each other and races, something that barely has features to begin with and all of them are overshadowed by a stupid number added to core defining thing that determines what class your character is good at.

Not really. 20 levels of features which few make it past 10th? Half the features never even come into play to differentiate the classes.

Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers also share fighting styles. Depending on your build many warriors share the more optimal feats. There are lots of things that can make one PC feel samey to a second PC.

But the racial ASIs like +2 Strength is low on the list IMO and IME.

Races typically have 4-6 traits (depending on just what you want to count...), if one of those match on one ASI, it is hardly making them the same.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Not really. 20 levels of features which few make it past 10th? Half the features never even come into play to differentiate the classes.

Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers also share fighting styles. Depending on your build many warriors share the more optimal feats. There are lots of things that can make one PC feel samey to a second PC.

But the racial ASIs like +2 Strength is low on the list IMO and IME.

Races typically have 4-6 traits (depending on just what you want to count...), if one of those match on one ASI, it is hardly making them the same.

The fact most games do not go to the intended maximum is not relevant to the intended design. Some people do play 1-20 games, btw, it's insulting to claim the design doesn't matter due to popular belief "majority" doesn't. Or what about people STARTING at level 10 and going to 20? This is a really bad argument that boils down to "I don't use it, so it doesn't matter".

And again, ASI is the only racial feature that interacts strongly and directly with Ability Scores, which define how good your character is at doing specific class thing. Some other racial features MAY predispose to being a specific class, but usually they do it indirectly, as a side-effect of being good in general. Like Hill Dwarf's +1 HP per level, which is good no matter if you're playing a fighter or a wizard.

And you choose fighting style, meaning you are allwoed to opt out of playing "samey" decision and it i fact it allwos you to customize the character to feel different. Fighter with TWF will feel different than one with Blind-Fighting and a smoke grenade.

 

[Maxperson]

Anegdotical evidence doesn't change the fact that the game mechanically fights you on every step of the way and you require far, faaar more optimization to perform at the same level as someone who selected "correct" race and class combination. And on top of that, you effectively have your sheet to obiectively prove no matter what, your Halfling is not as strong as a human and your Orc is not as smart as one. You can build two characters exactly the same, except for having ne of them be "suboptimal" race for the class, and that character will never be able to catch up to the other, the way 3.5 is set up.

You're "facts" are hinky. +1 didn't require any optimization to compensate for. It was +1!!! That's it. That's the entirety of the difference between starting with a 16 or 18. Now if you were to argue that you needed system mastery to pick class, skills, subclass and feats correctly in order to avoid being ineffective, you'd have a point. But arguing that not having +1 involves the game "fighting you every step of the way" and "optimization" to overcome is just bupkis.

And yet every character building guide in existence would classify race's compability with a class based on ASIs alone, up until an option to shuffle them aorund was included and far more interesting features became actually relevant.

That's because of human nature, not the game. Human nature causes people to feel(incorrectly) that they need every +1 just to pass muster. They don't.

Nothing speaks "homogenized and bland" more than ASIs.

And floating ASI's are far worse than specific ones for being "homogenized and bland."

 

[ECMO3]

The fact most games do not go to the intended maximum is not relevant to the intended design. Some people do play 1-20 games, btw, it's insulting to claim the design doesn't matter due to popular belief "majority" doesn't.

I could not agree more. In the first 6 years of 5E I never went above 16th level and rarely above 12th level. Since 2022 though I have played 5 1-20 campaigns and am playing another one right now.

Every campaign I played so far started at level 1 (one at level 3), but we are going to play Vecna which is 10-20.

 

[Guest 7037866]

The fact most games do not go to the intended maximum is not relevant to the intended design. Some people do play 1-20 games, btw, it's insulting to claim the design doesn't matter due to popular belief "majority" doesn't. Or what about people STARTING at level 10 and going to 20? This is a really bad argument that boils down to "I don't use it, so it doesn't matter".

It isn't insulting at all. It is about what the majority of people experience in the game and thus what WotC and others will dedicate more time to thoughtful design.

However, the point isn't about game design, but is about perception of being samey between two PCs for whatever reasons. A fighter and paladin, both wearing plate, shield, and with longswords, will feel samey in many ways. As would a ranger or rogue in leather, with longbows, stealthing and scouting, etc.

My point is one feature or trait out of many doesn't necessarily have to make two PCs feel samey, and the same is true of a +2 ASI...

And again, ASI is the only racial feature that interacts strongly and directly with Ability Scores, which define how good your character is at doing specific class thing. Some other racial features MAY predispose to being a specific class, but usually they do it indirectly, as a side-effect of being good in general. Like Hill Dwarf's +1 HP per level, which is good no matter if you're playing a fighter or a wizard.

LOL of course thet interact "strongly and directly with Ability Scores", that is what they do!

Ability Scores, more importantly ability modifiers, partially define how good your character is at doing a specific thing, but proficiency bonus plays just as much a role.

Frankly, what does it matter if an ASI or some other racial trat predisposes a race to a specific class? That doesn't mean you have to go that direction. If a person is tall, that might predispose them to playing a particular sport or game, such as basketball, but there are many people who play it (and do it well!) who are "short" by comparison. But a tall athlete can do a different sport if they choose-they don't have to play basketball. Such an athlete might not excel as well at something like gymnastics, but they can still do it. Training, practice, dedication, and experience ultimately are much more important to long-term success.

If you allow racial ASIs to pigeon-hole your concepts of what that race/class can be, that's soley on you. There's nothing wrong with racial ASIs and frankly make races more distinct, even if several races share the same ASI, such as the number of races which all share DEX +2.

 

[Maxperson]

I could not agree more. In the first 6 years of 5E I never went above 16th level and rarely above 12th level. Since 2002 though I have played 5 1-20 campaigns and am playing another one right now.

Every campaign I played so far started at level 1 (one at level 3), but we are going to play Vecna which is 10-20.

Level 3 IS level 1, which is why my group almost always starts there. Even though the first 2 levels go quickly, I wish they would have just kept level 1 with all the abilities. I understand that they spread it out to combat multiclass cheese, but it's still really annoying.

 

[CreamCloud0]

And floating ASI's are far worse than specific ones for being "homogenized and bland."

honestly the number of species being used on average probably went down with the addition of floating ASI, now you can use the same handful of broken species for whatever class you want to.

 

[Maxperson]

honestly the number of species being used on average probably went down with the addition of floating ASI, now you can use the same handful of broken species for whatever class you want to.

That doesn't change what I said, but it does bring up an unintended consequence.

 

[CreamCloud0]

That doesn't change what I said, but it does bring up an unintended consequence.

oh i wasn't disagreeing with you, i was remarking that it was also blandifying species selection in it's own way