D&D 5E (2014) Convince me that the Ranger is a necessary Class.

You don't in individual stances.

But you will if you want to create a majority of fans.

Something built for one person is often built differently than something built for millions.
I cannot imagine caring whether the geographical, biological, zoological, context of a fantasy RPG class is accurate.

It’s a fantastical heroic warden of the places where civilization meets The Wild, with a mystical connection to Nature. It needs trope literacy, not scientific knowledge.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The question is not whether you can try something, the question is whether or not you can ever succeed at something. If you want to waste your characters time trying something that the rules will not let you do, absent the ability to do, so that is your choice. You can no more Grapple without the ability to do so than you can cast Magic Missile without the ability to do so.
Have you ever been in a real fight?
 


A ranger is more likely to have been taught as an apprentice to an older ranger or a druid on the ways of the wild than to learn in the halls of academia about nature.

IDK Baylee Arnold was trained by a Wizard in Waterdeep and he is one of relatively few Rangers written about in official D&D novels.
 

IDK Baylee Arnold was trained by a Wizard in Waterdeep and he is one of relatively few Rangers written about in official D&D novels.
That sounds rather odd to me. A Wizard training a character to be a Ranger.

Which D&D novel is this character in?
 
Last edited:

IDK Baylee Arnold was trained by a Wizard in Waterdeep and he is one of relatively few Rangers written about in official D&D novels.
You made me curious. Trying to find info about this character, but I can't find anything that seems even remotely D&D related.
 

I cannot imagine caring whether the geographical, biological, zoological, context of a fantasy RPG class is accurate.

It’s a fantastical heroic warden of the places where civilization meets The Wild, with a mystical connection to Nature. It needs trope literacy, not scientific knowledge.
People don't understand the trope because most people don't understand the wild.

Most fans dont know how hard it is to find a healing herb in a forest, calm a beast, track a dragon, evade a giant, sneak up on a band of raiders, or survive in the wild.
 


People don't understand the trope because most people don't understand the wild.

Most fans dont know how hard it is to find a healing herb in a forest, calm a beast, track a dragon, evade a giant, sneak up on a band of raiders, or survive in the wild.
I would not expect them to know how hard it is to track a dragon or evade a giant as they don't exist in our world :P
However, unless the dragon is flying, I imagine their large size would result in obvious foot prints while their body would leave signs of broken branches and damaged trees and the like in forests and other heavily vegetated areas- if they existed. And, if they were flying and visible to the characters, well, they would also be able to be tracked through vision while in visual range.
 

I would not expect them to know how hard it is to track a dragon or evade a giant as they don't exist in our world :P
However, unless the dragon is flying, I imagine their large size would result in obvious foot prints while their body would leave signs of broken branches and damaged trees and the like in forests and other heavily vegetated areas.
Yeah. But when the dragon takes flight, how you you track them?

There are ways. The average D&D fan wouldn't know how.

The player would have to lean on knowledge only the character knows.
And the DM would have to rule using knowledge they likely don't have knowledge about.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top