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

[DEFCON 1]

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.

And that's why the Core Four DMs need to make these things themselves (or find 3PP versions out there to use) if they really want them that badly or think it's a better way to play the game.

But do any of them do that? Doesn't seem like it. No one seems to ever bother to make the base game into the game they want it to be. Which means one of two things-- either their desire for only using Core Four + subclasses isn't as important to them as they keep clamoring around here that it is... or they know as well as the rest of us do that no one actually thinks Core Four + subclasses is a better version of the game.

If (general) you needs Wizards of the Coast to produce the idiosyncratic version of the D&D game that you want to play in order to get players to play it... that's a pretty good indication that your idiosyncratic version of D&D probably isn't actually that good.

 

[Horwath]

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

resistance and later immunity to Fire damage means you can walk around elemental plane of fire without thinking about it.

and here is another favored terrain.

Planar:
after a Short rest pick 2 damage types except B/P/S. you have immunity to those damage types.
might come with minimal level of 9 to pick.

 

[Horwath]

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

those 4 can be merged into 2.

warrior, extra attack every 4 levels
mage, normal full casting

then you can multiclass to find your perfect martial to spell ratio.

 

[Corinnguard]

Shame they don't work on dnd beyond

Yeah. I would love to use one of Laser Llama's classes with DDB's online character sheets. The latter are much better than the fillable character sheet PDFs I've used before. I really want to try out his take on the Ranger class someday. Ditto for his Magus.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

And that's why the Core Four DMs need to make these things themselves (or find 3PP versions out there to use) if they really want them that badly or think it's a better way to play the game.

But do any of them do that? Doesn't seem like it. No one seems to ever bother to make the base game into the game they want it to be. Which means one of two things-- either their desire for only using Core Four + subclasses isn't as important to them as they keep clamoring around here that it is... or they know as well as the rest of us do that no one actually thinks Core Four + subclasses is a better version of the game.

Some people have. Like I said, I've played in homebrews where Barbarians were a Fighter subclass, and so on.

My belief is that, because 5E is "good enough", that people don't think it is that important or if they do they just have the time to devote to making an RPG on their own time. People that have greater drive and vision might make it and those become the 3PP companies we have.

Another issue is that 5E and D&D in general still has too many camps wanting different things from the same concept. We see those dicussions with Bards, Monks, and Rangers often.

If (general) you needs Wizards of the Coast to produce the idiosyncratic version of the D&D game that you want to play in order to get players to play it... that's a pretty good indication that your idiosyncratic version of D&D probably isn't actually that good.

I disagree. I think it is more of an indication of time, money and other resources, etc. I know others who have hundreds of pages of homebrew stuff, but so much needs to be playtested and polished and unless you are part of the RPG-game-making industry, odds are you (individuals) don't have the time for that.

So, instead of playing what you want, you "settle for good enough" and keep hoping someone else will eventually do it.

those 4 can be merged into 2.

warrior, extra attack every 4 levels
mage, normal full casting

then you can multiclass to find your perfect martial to spell ratio.

They could be, but it gets to a point of losing granularity. Those "2 could be merged into 1" adventurer class as well, for instance.

The point of granularity when you lose too much is subjective and for myself I would think about 7 classes ideal.

 

[Corinnguard]

Another issue is that 5E and D&D in general still has too many camps wanting different things from the same concept. We see those dicussions with Bards, Monks, and Rangers often.

Nothing wrong with that, our players live in the 5e multiverse.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

I don't think you're getting the entire gist of what I'm talking about.

Would this be flavorful for a Ranger?:

A level 1 spell that gives them a resistance to an elemental damage type

A level 3 spell that gives them and anyone near them resistance to two damage types.

A level 5 spell that gives them immunity to a damage type.

Sure

Do they have those spells?

No. Protection from poison is a level two spell and only affects poison damage and a poison the condition. Protection from energy is a level three spell.

Why?

Because the community refuses to create new Ranger content. Nobody makes new Ranger spells. Nobody makes exclusive ranger spells. Then everyone complains about how Ranger is not fulfilling the fantasy. Even though all they want to do is give them druid and Wizard spells that were designed for druid and wizard and not ranger.

Fans do not design anything for the fantasy then says the fantasy doesn't work and then say "what's the point of the fantasy? We should remove it".

But if wizard fans want a new spell that does a different damage type....

 

[Horwath]

They could be, but it gets to a point of losing granularity. Those "2 could be merged into 1" adventurer class as well, for instance.

The point of granularity when you lose too much is subjective and for myself I would think about 7 classes ideal.

I did think about 1 class only, but it's easier to have fixed "extra attack" level and fixed spellcasting levels than turning that also into feats to select and gauge their power level.

with 2 classes you can have:

w20, 5 attacks, no spells
w13m7, 4 attacks, 4th level spells
w9m11, 3 attacks, 6th level spells
w5m15, 2 attacks, 8th level spells
m20, 1 attack, 9th level spells
or whatever in-between you'd like.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

Nothing wrong with that, our players live in the 5e multiverse.

LOL, maybe yours do!

I don't think you're getting the entire gist of what I'm talking about.

Would this be flavorful for a Ranger?:

No.

A level 1 spell that gives them a resistance to an elemental damage type

A level 3 spell that gives them and anyone near them resistance to two damage types.

A level 5 spell that gives them immunity to a damage type.

Sure

I actually find these not flavorful as spells. Nothing wrong with them, just not what I would call "flavorful" personally.

Do they have those spells?

No. Protection from poison is a level two spell and only affects poison damage and a poison the condition. Protection from energy is a level three spell.

Why?

Because the community refuses to create new Ranger content. Nobody makes new Ranger spells. Nobody makes exclusive ranger spells. Then everyone complains about how Ranger is not fulfilling the fantasy. Even though all they want to do is give them druid and Wizard spells that were designed for druid and wizard and not ranger.

I think that is because (a) many people like the spell-less ranger or (b) many spells which druids and/or wizards get SHOULD only be ranger (e.g. pass without trace, steel wind strike).

Fans do not design anything for the fantasy then says the fantasy doesn't work and then say "what's the point of the fantasy? We should remove it".

I have no idea what you mean by this statement.

But if wizard fans want a new spell that does a different damage type....

LOL get off your anti-wizard kick. It was funny for a while but now it is just sad.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So, instead of playing what you want, you "settle for good enough" and keep hoping someone else will eventually do it.

And that's fine. But they then should not expect to be able to come onto boards like this and complain that WotC isn't doing it, without other people telling them why they are wrong to expect it.