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

[Metroido]

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
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.

Bears and deer are fairly large animals too, in their own right, and the average person would have no idea how to track them.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Which is why it doesn’t matter whether or not the Ranger mechanically represents any of that accurately.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Which is why you don’t try to make those bits of knowledge part of the game, and instead just use the same skill check regardless, and maybe have some “tracking larger creators is easy, tracking flying creatures is hard. All creatures with proficiency in stealth are treated as one size smaller than they are.” Done. Doesn’t matter if it’s “accurate”, just matters if it works.

 

[Greg K]

Bears and deer are fairly large animals too, in their own right, and the average person would have no idea how to track them.

Dragons are a lot larger than a bear or deer (with the possible exception of some baby dragons and something like a faerie dragon).

 

[Greg K]

Yeah. But when the dragon takes flight, how you you track them?

It depends, if I can see them take flight or already flying they can be tracked for visually for a while, I mean I can spot passenger jets flying in the distance and follow them visually for a short time.

 

[Minigiant]

Which is why it doesn’t matter whether or not the Ranger mechanically represents any of that accurately.

Which is why you don’t try to make those bits of knowledge part of the game, and instead just use the same skill check regardless, and maybe have some “tracking larger creators is easy, tracking flying creatures is hard. All creatures with proficiency in stealth are treated as one size smaller than they are.” Done. Doesn’t matter if it’s “accurate”, just matters if it works.

When then you can never create the Ranger fantasy
Because the Ranger fantasy or doing Rangery trope requires actual written down rules.

If you handwaved it not only would you not be able to have meaningful gameplay of those Rangery tropes, you also create a situation where other classes will be able to do Rangery things better than the Ranger (see 3e and 5e).

Knowledge of Ranger tropes requires write them down and didn't sail away them out into its own class similar to how other skills class run.

Because it's not really about accuracy. It's about knowledge.
A ranger player can't do Rangery things unless the game, the DM, or their own education tell them what Ranger tropes are and how they work.

Can't track a dragon or a giant unless You know how to track a dragon or a giant or the game tell you how to how to track a dragon or a giant.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

If the Ranger is made correctly, Magic. Why? Because nature is magic and the Ranger is the nature expert. Even a spell-less Ranger, I’d want to have the ability to counter and otherwise deal with magical creatures, and learning to track magical creatures by the effect of their magic on the world would certainly be high on the list of such abilities.

 

[Minigiant]

If the Ranger is made correctly, Magic. Why? Because nature is magic and the Ranger is the nature expert. Even a spell-less Ranger, I’d want to have the ability to counter and otherwise deal with magical creatures, and learning to track magical creatures by the effect of their magic on the world would certainly be high on the list of such abilities.

Exactly

Ranger magic is the Zoology, Botany, Geography, Geology, and Environmental Science of D&D.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

When then you can never create the Ranger fantasy

Of course you can.

Because the Ranger fantasy or doing Rangery trope requires actual written down rules.

No moreso than anyone else. Not pages of rules.

If you handwaved it not only would you not be able to have meaningful gameplay of those Rangery tropes, you also create a situation where other classes will be able to do Rangery things better than the Ranger (see 3e and 5e).

I didn’t say anything about hand waving them.

Knowledge of Ranger tropes requires write them down and didn't sail away them out into its own class similar to how other skills class run.

Tropes. Not real world stuff. Being able to track anything, being able to calm beast and listen to trees/the earth, knowing the names and uses of every plant and critter, moving through the wild unimpeded, knowing how to hunt anything, etc.

None of that requires specifics. You don’t need to write down what each herb does, you just give a type of item you can craft from foraging, and make the Ranger better at checks with the skills used to do so.

Because it's not really about accuracy. It's about knowledge.
A ranger player can't do Rangery things unless the game, the DM, or their own education tell them what Ranger tropes are and how they work.

Absolutely. Ranger tropes aren’t the same thing as actual survivalist knowledge.

Can't track a dragon or a giant unless You know how to track a dragon or a giant or the game tell you how to how to track a dragon or a giant.

Nonsense, my friend. The game needs only to tell you how to resolve an attempt to track a creature. Anything else is bonus material.

I’d like the skills to give more guidance, but as we saw with 2014 backgrounds, “here’s a list of examples but they’re just examples to show what kind of things you can do” doesn’t work. Many many people to this day think that 2014 backgrounds are package deals you can’t customize or invent entirely of your own choices.

Skills always end up the same way if they are defined too specifically, no matter how many times the game prints text about how the skill descriptions aren’t exhaustive.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Exactly

Ranger magic is the Zoology, Botany, Geography, Geology, and Environmental Science of D&D.

No. No no no.

Ranger magic is magic. Nature magic. It is emphatically not science. A spell to track better doesn’t need to be written by or for people who understand actual tracking. It just needs to mechanically enhance the ability of the caster to track a creature. That’s it.