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

[Flights of Fancy]

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.

Well, I think it is fine for them come here and complain, but then yeah they should expect some others to tell them it's not likely WotC will do it--which I think at this point we all realize.

Of course, others will come here and agree with them--and maybe a few will start something and collaborate and make a 3PP product eventually. You never know what some of these dicusssions might spark.

 

[Minigiant]

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).

Sure. But that would be requiring either devoting pages to for:

A) spells
Or
B) non-spell feature

Solely to the ranger. And that's the blockade.

It's like trying to create the warlock without the invocations.

I have no idea what you mean by this statement.

Fans don't create content for ranger. Very few people make unique ranger spells. And people who say that they like spellless Rangers typically don't create unique features for Ranger, they just make alternate fighters

Then they complain it doesn't match the fantasy..

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

It's mostly a joke but there's a hint of truth in it.

Traditionally Rangers fight for new content that enforce and strengthen the Ranger fantasy whereas wizards clerics and druids are quick to get seconds.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Well, I think it is fine for them come here and complain, but then yeah they should expect some others to tell them it's not likely WotC will do it--which I think at this point we all realize.

Of course, others will come here and agree with them--and maybe a few will start something and collaborate and make a 3PP product eventually. You never know what some of these dicusssions might spark.

True enough... but then again I notice that it's been over 10 years since the release of 5E. If they haven't put together their fantasy-heartbreaker Core Four version of 5E by now and actually been playing it for at least the past few years... I personally do not believe the complaints are really about playing 5E D&D in a specific preferable way. To me, it's all about the person wanting WotC to give them the ego-boost of agreeing with them that their beliefs of the "best D&D" is the way to go (and proving it by publishing their book with the rules that the player wanted.) But any time WotC doesn't do that... when they create rules the person disagrees with... that becomes like an indictment on their beliefs of what good D&D is. And that's actually why they often complain.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

Sure. But that would be requiring either devoting pages to for:

A) spells
Or
B) non-spell feature

Solely to the ranger. And that's the blockade.

It's like trying to create the warlock without the invocations.

I don't think that's a blockade at all. Lose some artwork and you have space, or add 4 more pages. I don't see why you think there is a conspiracy to keep the ranger page count down for some reason.

Fans don't create content for ranger. Very few people make unique ranger spells. And people who say that they like spellless Rangers typically don't create unique features for Ranger, they just make alternate fighters

Then they complain it doesn't match the fantasy..

Oh, I don't know. I've seen several ranger versions with content across the net. In my experience it is more most of that stuff doesn't fit "my idea" for ranger, and that really is the bigger issue.

It's mostly a joke but there's a hint of truth in it.

Traditionally Rangers fight for new content that enforce and strengthen the Ranger fantasy whereas wizards clerics and druids are quick to get seconds.

Well, I am glad you are lighter-hearted about it than I first thought--but even as a joke it is getting a bit stale.

Of course, in my opinion there are too many spells as there are and most of them rarely, if ever, see any use. I would like to see many spells more exclusive to other classes. The saminess issues from a few years back.

True enough... but then again I notice that it's been over 10 years since the release of 5E. If they haven't put together their fantasy-heartbreaker Core Four version of 5E by now and actually been playing it for at least the past few years... I personally do not believe the complaints are really about playing 5E D&D in a specific preferable way. To me, it's all about the person wanting WotC to give them the ego-boost of agreeing with them that their beliefs of the "best D&D" is the way to go (and proving it by publishing their book with the rules that the player wanted.) But any time WotC doesn't do that... when they create rules the person disagrees with... that becomes like an indictment on their beliefs of what good D&D is. And that's actually why they often complain.

Well, I know a lot of people personally very disapointed with 2024 and WotC's move. I also know, as I said, many people have work and families and other hobbies, so even if they've played 5E for a few years or longer, it might be just once a month in some cases. And so, people settle.

But of course I agree people complain when official material comes out that they don't like. As part of @DND_Reborn and @ezo groups, I hear about it often LOL! Personally I try to be a bit more light-hearted about it, but I know they both get frustrated at times and have spent hundreds of hours working on homebrew. But it comes down to time. We either "get to play" or we "get to playTEST". We don't have time for both. Since playtesting isn't playing, we just play 90% of the time.

As far as playing in a preferable way... that also comes down to preferences. Another issue we face is on a semi-regular basis we bring in new players, and instead of forcing homebrew on them again and again, we play very close to RAW, with less than a page of house-rules.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

If you redistribute extra attacks anyway, give 3rd attack at level 10, not 9 or 11.

Extra attack at level 5,10,15 and 20.
Spell levels 1,3,5,7,10,12,15,17,20

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think that's a blockade at all. Lose some artwork and you have space, or add 4 more pages. I don't see why you think there is a conspiracy to keep the ranger page count down for some reason

It's not a conspiracy.

It's just regular caster bias.

Oh, I don't know. I've seen several ranger versions with content across the net. In my experience it is more most of that stuff doesn't fit "my idea" for ranger, and that really is the bigger issue.

That's because there are typically too small.

Creating a ranger that the plurality of the D&D community would like requires a good amount of page space.

The Ranger fantasy mostly includes aspects that require rules for each one of them and that takes space.

Most TTRPGs save space by just giving them spells from other classes that create those same effects but because they're from other classes they weren't designed for the Ranger and its progression.

Well, I am glad you are lighter-hearted about it than I first thought--but even as a joke it is getting a bit stale.

Of course, in my opinion there are too many spells as there are and most of them rarely, if ever, see any use. I would like to see many spells more exclusive to other classes. The saminess issues from a few years back.

All I keep saying is that there's a whole bunch of spells that always get included that almost nobody ever uses and that space could be used to fix Ranger.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

That's because there are typically too small.

No, for me it is because those ranger variants aren't a "ranger" for me. Plenty of content, just not appealing to me.

Creating a ranger that the plurality of the D&D community would like requires a good amount of page space.

The Ranger fantasy mostly includes aspects that require rules for each one of them and that takes space.

I think the ranger tries to be too much to too many people--which is why it doesn't work for everyone.

Most TTRPGs save space by just giving them spells from other classes that create those same effects but because they're from other classes they weren't designed for the Ranger and its progression.

I don't think that is why they do it. Saving space isn't quite the big deal it was years ago in publishing. Like I said, remove some art work.

Part of the issue with half-casters is the delay in high spell levels; so like you said its progression.

All I keep saying is that there's a whole bunch of spells that always get included that almost nobody ever uses and that space could be used to fix Ranger.

I totally agree with that! Way too many useless spells.

 

[Minigiant]

No, for me it is because those ranger variants are a "ranger" for me. Plenty of content, just not appealing to me

I mean they have to be big.

The Much beloved Laserllama Alternative Ranger is over a dozen pages. Appealing to almost everyone would be 20 pages devoted just to ranger.

I don't think that is why they do it. Saving space isn't quite the big deal it was years ago in publishing. Like I said, remove some art work

It's not but the space is still not given.

Part of the issue with half-casters is the delay in high spell levels; so like you said its progression.

Exactly. You would have to rewrite and create new Ranger spells or Ranger knacks spread across the entire 1-20 progression of the class.

No one does that. No one but me anyway.

 

[MGibster]

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.

My name is Shepherd, and this is my favorite post on the Citadel. I think you hit the nail on the head when it comes to the Ranger. Who needs them? In a game designed with niches in mind, they don't fill a particularly useful one.

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

Hardly anyone is playing at Tier 3.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

You would have to rewrite and create new Ranger spells or Ranger knacks spread across the entire 1-20 progression of the class.

No one does that. No one but me anyway.

Well, you change half-casters to get level 5 spells at 9th level just like casters. Instead of slowing down their progression, you restrict their number of spells available and spell slots. I know such revised spell progressions is something @ezo has shown here because we've used it in his games.

The other idea as I said is also to remove spells from other classes that should be exclusive to Ranger.

It is currently ludicrous to me that a wizard can cast Steel Wind Strike at 9th and a Ranger can't until 17th!

Either make it so the ranger can also cast it at 9th, remove it from the wizard so only the range gets it at 17th, or do both so only the ranger gets it at 9th. The last option is most appealing personally.

And you aren't the only one, obviously, even if it feels that way at times.