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

[Scribe]

The Ranger is necessary, because the Shadowdark Ranger is a sublime creation, a design that needed to exist.

 

[jgsugden]

...At most you have a fighting class, skill class, spell class; then you add the combinations of each: fighting-skill, fighting-spell, skill-spell, and fighting-skill-spell, for a total of seven "core" classes.

Every class concept can be expressed by one of those seven once subclasses, etc. are added.

It depends upon how you define "fighting", "skill", and "spell" - but to an extent, yes. However, this is not guaranteed to be an efficient way to deliver class concept. Right now, the gish (fighting-spell) concept (where spellcasting and weapon/melee fighting are expected to be used in combat in significant amounts) exists in just the PHB as: Valor Bard, War Cleric, Moon Druid, Eldritch Knight, Warrior of the Open Hand Monk, all Paladins, all Rangers, and Blade Tome Warlocks. We'll also have Songblade Wizards and other options coming too. Is one base class the best way to deliver what each of these options delivers? Or do they benefit from more specialization? I'd say the organization of the concept works better when we divide these into separate classes.

 

[Minigiant]

Laser Llama's Ranger class looks a lot better than the 2024 Ranger IMO.

That's only because Laser LLama doesn't have to stay true to backwards compatibility.

Or when a homebrewer like Laser Llama creates a class whose concept has been talked and implemented about for years but hasn't quite satisfied that itch. I am talking about his Magus class, which is the arcane counterpart of both the Paladin and Ranger classes

I basically say D&D Goldilocks Class name is about 20.

The main classes massing are

1. Bender/Elementalist - Noncaster who has more fine control of the elements
2. Chosen/Exemplar- Warrior version of Warlock
3. Gish/Magus - Arcane Counterpart of Paladin/Ranger
4. Psion- A caster heavy focused on the mental side of magic and the mental side of the occult
5. Summoner- A caster who sacrifices his or her power/actions for their summons
6. Warlord/Marshal- The Martial warrior with Tactical, Mental, and Healing effect

Those 6 plus the Artificer.

 

[Corinnguard]

Right now, the gish (fighting-spell) concept (where spellcasting and weapon/melee fighting are expected to be used in combat in significant amounts) exists in just the PHB as: Valor Bard, War Cleric, Moon Druid, Eldritch Knight, Warrior of the Open Hand Monk, all Paladins, all Rangers, and Blade Tome Warlocks

Then there is the stuff that homebrewers like Laser Llama come up with such as the Magus and its' 12 archetypes.

 

[GrimCo]

Currently 5e has fewer classes than PF2, which currently sits at 25 classes (minus their archetypes). PF1 had 36 classes. Level up just has 15 classes.

Most of PF1 classes are subpar and niche and frankly, just bloat. In classed systems, few good classes, where each one covers specific niche and doesn't step on other classes toes is better than dozens of very niche classes with large overlaps and small differences. But it's more matter of taste. Some people like to mix and match diy, some like prebuilt stuff.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

It depends upon how you define "fighting", "skill", and "spell" - but to an extent, yes. However, this is not guaranteed to be an efficient way to deliver class concept. Right now, the gish (fighting-spell) concept (where spellcasting and weapon/melee fighting are expected to be used in combat in significant amounts) exists in just the PHB as: Valor Bard, War Cleric, Moon Druid, Eldritch Knight, Warrior of the Open Hand Monk, all Paladins, all Rangers, and Blade Tome Warlocks. We'll also have Songblade Wizards and other options coming too. Is one base class the best way to deliver what each of these options delivers? Or do they benefit from more specialization?

One class with each of these options (including Paladin and Ranger, really, and probably Artificer?) as subclasses is a great way to deliver a broad range of concepts in a single class chassis with subclasses.

Any concept that combines fighting-magic falls under this umbrella. With a unified fighting and spellcasting progression, the subclasses just dictate the details.

I'd say the organization of the concept works better when we divide these into separate classes.

It would just depend on how much detail / depth you feel (as a player) you need to make your concept a reality. Personally, I don't need much so I prefer a simpler design.

 

[Micah Sweet]

We'll never know if people instead default to more and more classes.

It is harder to balance classes because they are the "everything" picture. If you start with a common chassis, and develop a subclass or whatever to flesh out a concept, balance is far easier to acheive. So, the fewer core classes, the better. If you have too few, of course then the dynamic shifts the power-focus to the subclasses, feats, or whatever is used to create the desired concept.

I agree with the Goldilocks concept. I wouldn't want a single "adventurer" class, but I also don't think a dozen or more classes really is necessary and good design, either. How many posts talk about making this class or that class a subclass of something else??

Concerns about mechanical balance, or even more about so-called "bloat" are not my primary concern in RPG design, or even my secondary concern.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's only because Laser LLama doesn't have to stay true to backwards compatibility.



I basically say D&D Goldilocks Class name is about 20.

The main classes massing are

1. Bender/Elementalist - Noncaster who has more fine control of the elements
2. Chosen/Exemplar- Warrior version of Warlock
3. Gish/Magus - Arcane Counterpart of Paladin/Ranger
4. Psion- A caster heavy focused on the mental side of magic and the mental side of the occult
5. Summoner- A caster who sacrifices his or her power/actions for their summons
6. Warlord/Marshal- The Martial warrior with Tactical, Mental, and Healing effect

Those 6 plus the Artificer.

All of those exist in various 3pp. No need for WotC to "step up".

 

[Mind of tempest]

Which varies A LOT. Sort of my point.


Why more when less works?

then try defining what you think it is then?

we have not established if less works just that the game could function, is such a state.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

then try defining what you think it is then?

LOL I wouldn't dare! My definition is different from yours, and the next definition would be different as well, and the next, and so on.

But ok I'll give it a go anyway. In the concept of the Fight-Skill-Cast framework, for me monk would just be Fight, but I can see an argument for Fight-Skill or even Fight-Cast (using "cast" aka magic as ki). Fight alone works fine for me because I have no issue with Fighters and Barbarians and such (also Fight-group) as having "superhuman" abilities, especially at high levels without falling into the Fight-Cast group (which is more "gish"-related as I see it).

Many of the Fight maneuvers (for lack of a better term) cover what monks do in 5E, such as stunning, knocking prone, flurry attacks, movement. While Monks in 5E have movement that scales with level, the Barbarian also has Fast Movement, and the Fighter can use Action Surge to move again for "free". So, concepts under the Fight-group would include enhanced movement at some point, perhaps even Rogue Cunning Action dash can fall into this concept.

we have not established if less works just that the game could function, is such a state

If it functions, it works, doesn't it? I mean, I don't have an entire design team at my disposal to flesh this out, but the concept seems sound to me.