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

[Minigiant]

Okay? So what? What has that got to do with designing a ranger?

Because the Ranger class cannot be everything and work 5 different ways

• A pure martial
• A martial/spell
• A martial/tech
• A martial with a dab of spell
• A martial with a dab of tech
• A pure beastmaster
• A martial/beast
• A spell/beast

 

[TwoSix]

When it comes to classes, many people aren't reasonable.

This is the single most salient point in the whole thread.

 

[Corinnguard]

This is the single most salient point in the whole thread.

It's also in the eye of the figurative (not literal) beholder. People tend to see themselves as reasonable until proven otherwise.

 

[Quickleaf]

Ranger and Rogue fullfill the same niche that I have had legendary game designers argue that Robin Hood is a rogue.

If the paragon of ranger is not your class, it is extraneous.

Rogue now covers the skirmisher concept so I would be okay of folding the ranger abilities into it and the stereotypes as sub classes.

Then again my favorite ranger was the 4e version, because i have always preferred the deepwoods sniper version for my rangers.

So I'm asking.

Is the Ranger a necessary Class?

Easy. We all know who wears the tights in the party.

 

[Kannik]

Hmm. I'd say Ranger as archetype(s) [recognizing there are many archetypes that get labelled ranger, ie, nature-paladin vs tracker vs beastmaster vs...] are "necessary" things to be included within a D&D game.

Whether they need to be a separate class (or classes) is a whole separate matter. Some of them may well be handled just fine within another class coupled with a good background or theme add-on -- for example the bow wielding tracker could be handled by 'Fighter' plus a rich background that mechanically helps with tracking, survival, moving though wilderness, etc. So long as guidance is provided to allow people to make a character that matches their flavour of ranger archetype held in their minds, it works.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Because the fictional archetypes that inspired it don’t have magic. The same reason as all the other classes have what they have. And don’t have what they don’t have.

Aragorn was never a Ranger, he was a paladin with the outlander background.

They also don't take place in D&D-land, where magic is more common than anywhere save Harry Potter. It's the same reason D&D wizards cast spells more than 6 times total in a campaign rather than just smacking people with staves and swords.

We're at the point where most classes are spellcasters. Not casting is like having a cyberpunk character that doesn't use cybernetics or computers. IMO, it makes little sense for a solo operator in D&D to not use magic given how many problems it instantly solves and apparently how easy it is to learn.

 

[Horwath]

Because the Ranger class cannot be everything and work 5 different ways

• A pure martial
• A martial/spell
• A martial/tech
• A martial with a dab of spell
• A martial with a dab of tech
• A pure beastmaster
• A martial/beast
• A spell/beast

it can be, but it would be little trouble balancing it, but base way would be similar to warlock invocations.

call it ranger talents,
then you just pick talents in a way that it best describes your ranger.