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

[Senior_WotC_Janitor]

No

 

[Yaarel]

Maybe it would be better to put the different ranger concepts into different subclasses. Scout as the rogue part, the 'Aragorn' ranger as a fighter subclass, maybe a pet subclass somewhere.

But I'd still want a primal half caster class. Maybe one with that primal magic emphasis built in as a core assumption alongside weapon wielding.

WoW Shaman is a perfect example of this, and maybe DnD needs a class inspired by this one.

I think making the different concepts be subclasses in different classes is a good idea. The concepts are too different from each other. It would be like the base class would have to be nonmagical, and only some of the subclasses are spellcasters. But then this amount of design space wouldnt be enough magic for certain high magic concepts. It needs to be different classes.

Relatedly, the theme and tropes of 'wilderness' work best as a 'prestige class' that any class can take for its subclass. There can be Fighter Rangers, Rogue Rangers, Druid Rangers, Wizard Rangers, and so on.

 

[Corinnguard]

Relatedly, the theme and tropes of 'wilderness' work best as a 'prestige class' that any class can take for its subclass. There can be Fighter Rangers, Rogue Rangers, Druid Rangers, Wizard Rangers, and so on.

More like the Multiclass archetypes from PF2.

 

[jayoungr]

1 - Robin Hood is not the paragon of the Ranger. The Rangers of Dunedin and Aragorn are.

I've always felt that Robin Hood was at least a part of the Ranger archetype, especially the bowmanship.

 

[Yaarel]

Well the Bard didn't start as a full caster.

Bard and Warlock became full casters because WOTC and 3PPs suck at balancing not full casters.

Bard became a full caster because the mythologically accurate bard is a reallife cultural heritage, and is highly magical. For example, Merlin is a bard (not a wizard). The slot 9 Shapechange spell is a Celtic bard spell, borrowed from a tradition about dueling magic.

Warlock means a kind of 'witch'. How could this not be a full caster?

But I'll say it again The ranger exists and is a half caster because you need distinct rules for many rangery things.

You cannot heal with the Medicine skill.
You cannot charm an animal with Animal handling skill.
You cannot cover yourself with natural armor of bark or stones with Nature skill.
You cannot make special tracking tools with Survival skill.

Animal handling, Medicine, Nature and Survival are traditionally Ranger skills along with Stealth.

But we all agree for the most part at most tables...

Animal Handling, Medicine, Nature and Survival don't "do anything".​

The ranger class exist to introduce those prepackaged effects associated with wilderness survival and hunting along with high skill rolls in order to add them to the game.

The major issue with 5E is that for the most part WOTC and most 3PPs forgot ranger is a skills class and rangers either had exclusive access to some skill uses or had spells that removed limitations/restrictions on defined skill uses.

I agree with you here.

In a magical setting, some skills can be applied magically.

Medicine should heal or poison.
Animal Handling should deal with a pet.
Nature should do alchemy, metallurgy, elemental magic, physics, math.
Survival should do botany, zoology, ecosystems, environmentalism.

I would add, Persuasion should inflict Charmed, and Intimidation Frightened. Investigation do Divination.

I feel any character needs to be able to attempt to perform a magical Ritual by reading instruction, following a mentor, or more dangerously experimenting. The success of any Ritual should depend on a skill check. Typically, a Ritual should require a Short Rest. Rituals never need slots, because they are not personal magic. They tap into the magical properties of the elements, or other ingredients, or a magical community, or so on. However, a mage can spend a personal spell slot to guarantee a successful outcome.


Every Ritual, by definition, should list what happens when the skill check fails and the spell goes wrong.

d20 Result: Ritual Effect
5 above DC: astonishingly abundant success
DC: success
5 below DC: failure
less than 5 below: something goes horribly wrong

When a mage spends a spell slot to guarantee a successful Ritual Effect, the astonishingly abundant success is not possible.

A Ritual can be anything with any requirement, often symbolic ingredients, behaviors, or timings. Most Rituals require Concentration, a few might be done accidentally. But any character can at least attempt to perform any ritual.

 

[cbwjm]

I've always felt that Robin Hood was at least a part of the Ranger archetype, especially the bowmanship.

I always thought Jack the giant slayer was at least part of the inspiration for the 1e ranger given that they had that damage bonus that let them deal to giants.

I have this image of rangers being archers but I don't think bows were actually a major part of the base ranger until 3.5 when the class changed to allow either 2 weapon fighting or various ranged feats as their bonus feats. Dexterity wasn't even a requirement for the class which would make them better archers in earlier editions. I feel like we think of Robin Hood as a ranger and he was good with a bow so we, almost collectively, assumed that bows were a major part of a ranger.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

My first 1E ranger was more like a roman legionaire (?). Spear and shield.

 

[GreyLord]

I always thought Jack the giant slayer was at least part of the inspiration for the 1e ranger given that they had that damage bonus that let them deal to giants.

I have this image of rangers being archers but I don't think bows were actually a major part of the base ranger until 3.5 when the class changed to allow either 2 weapon fighting or various ranged feats as their bonus feats. Dexterity wasn't even a requirement for the class which would make them better archers in earlier editions. I feel like we think of Robin Hood as a ranger and he was good with a bow so we, almost collectively, assumed that bows were a major part of a ranger.

I believe that part of the inspiration was Jack the Giant Slayer as well, and that is where the bonus damage to giant class enemies came from.

The role of Ranger as an archetype evolved as time passed. Originally, I think it was based on Aragorn and the Rangers from the LotR, which in turn were based on real life Rangers.

These Rangers are normally part of Law enforcement in woods or wilderness areas. They date back to when the King or other nobility had lands, such as forests. They would patrol these areas and enforce laws (such as limit who could hunt there or what could be hunted, who could be gathering firewood and other such activities). As such, tracking was a vital skill for Rangers, as well as other skills that were useful in a wilderness setting.

We can see this reflected in Aragorn's Rangers as well (they are protecting the "King's" lands, if one look at it in a particular way, and stopping those that are illegally trespassing).

We see Rangers today as well. It's not an unknown thing. Go to any National Park in the United States for a visit (I just went to Yellowstone for example) and they have Park Rangers there that not only patrol for law enforcement, but patrol for other things in the park (protecting guests, helping scientists, keeping tabs on the wildlife, etc).

I think they started to focus more on this role at the beginning of 2e, and some of the Kits also reflect this idea, but somehow they lost it when WotC took over and 3e came to be. It had remnants, but the entire idea of the traditional ranger was lost.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I always thought Jack the giant slayer was at least part of the inspiration for the 1e ranger given that they had that damage bonus that let them deal to giants.

I have this image of rangers being archers but I don't think bows were actually a major part of the base ranger until 3.5 when the class changed to allow either 2 weapon fighting or various ranged feats as their bonus feats. Dexterity wasn't even a requirement for the class which would make them better archers in earlier editions. I feel like we think of Robin Hood as a ranger and he was good with a bow so we, almost collectively, assumed that bows were a major part of a ranger.

i'm not sure bows are derived specifically from robin hood as such, i mean, they're a tree in the forest of the concept of the forest of the hunter-tracker identity, no pun intended, hunters have used bows and similar ranged weapons all throughout history, they offer the advantage and stealth of distance letting them attack their prey with less chance of alerting them that they're there.

separately, while the ranger is a viable class concept i have to disagree with people that it's THE dedicated pet class, the pet class needs to be it's own thing to fully develop it's legs and to branch out into the various different concepts it encompasses,

 

[Horwath]

separately, while the ranger is a viable class concept i have to disagree with people that it's THE dedicated pet class, the pet class needs to be it's own thing to fully develop it's legs and to branch out into the various different concepts it encompasses,

with losing the universal subclass levels, we lost opportunity to get universal pet class for any class that wants a pet/companion/dragon/mount