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

[Horwath]

One of the bigger problem with ranger is that his main niche isn't really that prominent in modern adventures and that other classes have better and more efficient ways to deal with same problems. One of his main shticks is that ranger is wilderness survival expert. Yet, by tier 2, food/water/shelter aren't problem any more. Casters can overcome that with few spells. Goodberry, create food/water, tiny hut.

IMHO, looking at classes in vacuum is not best idea. We should look at them in party context and what is their unique contribution or what do they do better than any other class.

most of those spells should either be removed of or reduced to that level that it helps with wilderness challenge and not simply remove the challenge.

Sieges are simply impossible to have with starving out defenders if they have few 1st level clerics and/or rangers.
one cleric and one ranger can support 20 people comfortably or 40 if you ration supplies as you will do absolutely nothing during long siege but wait.

Goodberry should just heal 1HP and with recent buff to healing spells and the fact it costs an Action to heal for 1HP, rangers should create 20 berries as 1st level with +20 berries for each level of upcasting. No nutritional value OFC

create food and water should be a 6th level spell as it is completely "economy" breaking and similar spells should follow that.

plant growth is a good balanced spell as it double food production but over a year waiting for benefits.

 

[AnotherGuy]

One of the bigger problem with ranger is that his main niche isn't really that prominent in modern adventures and that other classes have better and more efficient ways to deal with same problems. One of his main shticks is that ranger is wilderness survival expert. Yet, by tier 2, food/water/shelter aren't problem any more. Casters can overcome that with few spells. Goodberry, create food/water, tiny hut.

IMHO, looking at classes in vacuum is not best idea. We should look at them in party context and what is their unique contribution or what do they do better than any other class.

I was liking what you were saying and then I think you stopped a tad short when you mentioned party context. I really thought you were going to say setting context.
For D&D the high magic dial is turned all the way up and if that wasn't enough someone broke it. Thus the ranger and some other classes are meh.

 

[Minigiant]

this can be solved by adding those things to specific skills:

1. If you have proficiency in this skill you can do this extra
2. if you have expertise in this skill you can do this extra.

I.E:
Medicine,
if you have proficiency in Medicine and you use a charge of medicine kit you can heal the target of your 1st aid for a number of HPs equal to your passive Medicine score(take 10).
if you have expertise in Medicine you can heal as you rolled a 20 on your Medicine roll and remove one condition(Poisoned, Blinded, Deafaned)
A target must finish Long rest before benefiting from this Action again.

Animal handling:
expertise might give you a small animal companion,

Survival can give you ability to prepare traps during Long rest that you can deploy as an Action.
prof bonus number of traps(double if you have expertise)
DC: 8+2×prof bonus, for both noticing traps(Perception or Survival) and for avoiding/limiting effects of them.
damage 1d6 to d12 per prof bonus, depending on damage rider from traps.

Nature:
well there can be a limit on what can you know without proficiency or expertise, no matter the roll.

The issue isn't that it's hard.

It's that doing this that justifies its inclusion (worth investing, scales with level appropriately) is never allocated the space.

 

[Minigiant]

One of the bigger problem with ranger is that his main niche isn't really that prominent in modern adventures and that other classes have better and more efficient ways to deal with same problems. One of his main shticks is that ranger is wilderness survival expert. Yet, by tier 2, food/water/shelter aren't problem any more. Casters can overcome that with few spells. Goodberry, create food/water, tiny hut.

IMHO, looking at classes in vacuum is not best idea. We should look at them in party context and what is their unique contribution or what do they do better than any other class.

That's because in Tier 3, the base game transitions to planar play.

Wilderness survival can and should get more dangerous options as you level.

Rangers should have exclusive spells that help survive sharknados, elemental storms, and fairy illusionary charms as well as survive on demon worlds, hells, and necropolises.

But people still think pitching a makeshift tent or smearing mud on your armor are level 10 abilities.

Rangers can breathe water and turn invisible. They should also be able to resist 3-4 elements with a level 3 spell slots to run through fire and slay blue dragons.

 

[Horwath]

That's because in Tier 3, the base game transitions to planar play.

Wilderness survival can and should get more dangerous options as you level.

Rangers should have exclusive spells that help survive sharknados, elemental storms, and fairy illusionary charms as well as survive on demon worlds, hells, and necropolises.

But people still think pitching a makeshift tent or smearing mud on your armor are level 10 abilities.

Rangers can breathe water and turn invisible. They should also be able to resist 3-4 elements with a level 3 spell slots to run through fire and slay blue dragons.

that all can be or not spells or just special abilities.
one of suggestions back then was to make favored terrain/enemy more broad in effect. It would still be best at that special terrain but with bonuses to more situations.

I.E:
favored terrain

Arctic:
resistance to cold or immunity if you have resistance
normal movement over slippery terrain

Deserts:
resistance to fire or immunity if you have resistance
half normal usage of food and water

Swam:
resistance to poison damage or immunity if you have resistance
resistance on saves vs poison and disease
swim speed

Coastal:
swim speed
breathe underwater
no attack penalties underwater

Plains:
+10 move speed
Dash or Disengage as bonus action. Pick one

Underdark:
+60ft darkvision
Hide or Dash and Bonus action. Pick one

Forests:
climb speed
Hide or Disengage as Bonus action. pick one

Urban:
+3 skills
+3 languages

you get advantage on all Survival checks in your favored terrain


Favored enemy:
Global:
one language best suited for your prey

Dragons:
one energy resistance or immunity if you have resistance to energy type of a dragon. Can be taken multiple times
Advantage on Dex saves

Aberrations:
resistance to psychic damage or immunity if you have resistance
telepathy 60ft

Humanoids:
+2 skills from list: Insight, Deception, Persuation, Intimidation
+1 expertise in one of those skills
+2 languages

Undead:
resistance to necrotic damage
proficiency in Con saves

Celestial:
resistance to Radiant and Fire damage

Fiend:
resistance Necrotic and Fire damage

 

[DEFCON 1]

I suppose it's technically true the DM could restrict any class they want. From a practical point of view, how easy would it be for such a DM to find enough players for a campaign? I don't think it's unreasonable for anyone to show up to a D&D campaign with the expectation the base classes in the PHB are fair game. Paladins don't even have an alignment restriction so you don't even have to worry about Lawful Stupid characters not fitting in with a group of morally questionable adventurers.

It should be just as likely as finding players if the game only had the four classes they said the game should have. If they truly believe the game works best with only the Core Four, then there's no reason to think they shouldn't be able to convince a couple other people of the same thing to create a table.

Unless of course playing Core Four isn't as correct or as good as they want to believe it is and thus all their potential players question why they are only allowing the fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard. Ay which point they need to have their explanations in their holsters ready to draw and hope their arguments actually hold weight with those potential players.

But in truth, I personally believe going only Core Four + subclasses ISN'T appreciably better than using the additional eight classes and I would imagine most of the rest of the millions of D&D players feel the same. Different? Sure. Better? No. Which means the only way the Core Four stans would ever get to play the game they want would be if WotC forced everyone's hand to play that way by only printing the Core Four in their books. Which is why they keep posting around here that that's the way they wished the game was made... because they need WotC to do the dirty work they themselves are not capable of.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

How about this take on the Shaman from Laser Llama?

The Shaman Class by laserllama

The Shaman Class by laserllama - Created with GM Binder.

www.gmbinder.com

The Shaman: Expanded by laserllama

The Shaman: Expanded by laserllama - Created with GM Binder.

www.gmbinder.com

Shame they don't work on dnd beyond

 

[Flights of Fancy]

Unless of course playing Core Four isn't as correct or as good as they want to believe it is and thus all their potential players question why they are only allowing the fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard.

Just using the core four in the PHB doesn't work, though*. The other classes have to become part of them in some fashion. For example:

Fighter, add subclasses for Barbarian, Monk, and Ranger
Cleric, add subclasses for Druid, Paladin, Warlock
Rogue, add subclasses for Bard, Monk, and Ranger
Wizard, add subclasses for Artificer, Bard and Sorcerer

Some classes, depending on concept/role, such as spell-less Ranger vs magic Ranger vs. whatever Ranger might fall under one of the four core classes or another.

I know we've had homebrews that made Barbarian a figther subclass, Warlocks a cleric subclass, and Sorcerers a wizard subclass.

So, in short you can't just "remove the other 8 PHB classes" and still have all the concepts you'd have with the other four alone. Those other concepts/ roles need to be incorporated into the four to make it work.

*I should say it wouldn't work NOW for most groups. But considering B/X had four core classes (for humans) and it worked well then, I DOES actually work.

 

[Minigiant]

that all can be or not spells or just special abilities.
one of suggestions back then was to make favored terrain/enemy more broad in effect. It would still be best at that special terrain but with bonuses to more situations.

I.E:
favored terrain

Arctic:
resistance to cold or immunity if you have resistance
normal movement over slippery terrain

Deserts:
resistance to fire or immunity if you have resistance
half normal usage of food and water

Swam:
resistance to poison damage or immunity if you have resistance
resistance on saves vs poison and disease
swim speed

Coastal:
swim speed
breathe underwater
no attack penalties underwater

Plains:
+10 move speed
Dash or Disengage as bonus action. Pick one

Underdark:
+60ft darkvision
Hide or Dash and Bonus action. Pick one

Forests:
climb speed
Hide or Disengage as Bonus action. pick one

Urban:
+3 skills
+3 languages

you get advantage on all Survival checks in your favored terrain


Favored enemy:
Global:
one language best suited for your prey

Dragons:
one energy resistance or immunity if you have resistance to energy type of a dragon. Can be taken multiple times
Advantage on Dex saves

Aberrations:
resistance to psychic damage or immunity if you have resistance
telepathy 60ft

Humanoids:
+2 skills from list: Insight, Deception, Persuation, Intimidation
+1 expertise in one of those skills
+2 languages

Undead:
resistance to necrotic damage
proficiency in Con saves

Celestial:
resistance to Radiant and Fire damage

Fiend:
resistance Necrotic and Fire damage

The fact that you think any of that is Tier 3 is 50% the problem.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

The fact that you think any of that is Tier 3 is 50% the problem.

And the fact you think any of that isn't Tier 3 is the other 50% of the problem.

For instance, your "planar" assumption might be true for your games but aren't for all games, certainly not for the ones I've played in. Having enemies from other planes? Sure, but going to other planes or adventuring in those environments? Nope, not generally.

Now, I've played in D&D games where characters were in Hell by 3rd or 4th level, but those are the expection in my experience, not the rule.