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

[CreamCloud0]

outside of extra attacks, that are for I just want to sneak in nature and shoot things crowd, everything is (mostly)nature based that I have listed.

i was referring to things that could be implemented in the baseclass rather than as part of a list of optional talents

 

[Horwath]

i was referring to things that could be implemented in the baseclass rather than as part of a list of optional talents

that is THE problem with the ranger.
any feature you put in the base class, there is probably 50% of people saying, I do not want that on the Ranger.

safest way is to put as few core features in ranger class as possible, best would be none. Like 3E fighter.

 

[Garthanos]

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?

Generally speaking if you look at classless games they often include some stereotypical builds it highlights the function of classes and what they enable is easy creation of archetypes. In 4e another element approach to combat ie battlefield role was reflected as well (Gygax presenting fighters as they who defend is quite a D&Dism). I could create a solid Samurai using the Ranger or the Fighter or the Warlord. A fencing master duelist might be a Rogue or a Fighter. A Scout might be a Ranger or a Rogue. You pointed out Robinhood as the Legendary Archer probably most definitely as the Ranger (see also Warlord archery if you wanted to emphasize Robin as the Soldier back from war). But if one was adjusting classes with versatility in mind they could have made the crossbow support rogue has into a more general archery support upped the trick shots a bit more and well you get the picture. The Archetypal Warlord Odysseus was considered a rogue by the Romans (called him Ulysses but also presented him different).

I am actually fine with there being more than one route to achieve or present a style or type of character.

5e went with simpler / fewer options but use (arguably unsafe) multiclassing to increase flexibility and subclasses to make selecting a build easy, which is not a bad idea (even if the implementation I am not happy with).

TLDR classes make building to type easier and are not technically ever necessary to my thinking they do serve a solid purpose and having a variety of approaches to a role can be quite valuable.

 

[Garthanos]

that is THE problem with the ranger.
any feature you put in the base class, there is probably 50% of people saying, I do not want that on the Ranger.

safest way is to put as few core features in ranger class as possible, best would be none. Like 3E fighter.

I want several of the 5e ranger hunter functions on the fighter class too

 

[Horwath]

I want several of the 5e ranger hunter functions on the fighter class too

Feat:
Ranger training,
+1 ASI,
gain one ranger talent of your level of lower.

fighters can spare a feat or two on this.

 

[Minigiant]

that is why I said that every class should have it's "suggested build". This is the Ranger according to WotC. Rest is for your immagination.

also, there is duty on non-new players to help new players with building their characters.
and you can always make ranger as simple as possible with my suggestion.
no spells, just pile on the "passives"

It's not complexity.
It's quantity.

Jack of all Trades classes like Ranger or Bard or Alternative Play classes like Monk or Warlock have many parts in the base kit.

Ranger already gets 5 class features in the first 2 levels.

Spellcasting
Weapon mastery
Favored Enemy
Deft Explorer
Fighting style

Splitting that up, shifting down subclass, and balancing it could easily means you have to balance and teaching a noob 10 feats.

 

[Horwath]

It's not complexity.
It's quantity.

Jack of all Trades classes like Ranger or Bard or Alternative Play classes like Monk or Warlock have many parts in the base kit.

Ranger already gets 5 class features in the first 2 levels.

yes, but

Spellcasting

Ok, that is a feature to think of

Weapon mastery

passive, write once on sheet and you have it.

Favored Enemy

linked to spellcasting

Deft Explorer

passive

Fighting style

passive

Splitting that up, shifting down subclass, and balancing it could easily means you have to balance and teaching a noob 10 feats.

basically as a ranger you have spellcasting to worry about.
pick your 4 spells(HM included) and be on your merry way.

 

[Minigiant]

yes, but

Ok, that is a feature to think of

passive, write once on sheet and you have it.

linked to spellcasting

passive

passive

basically as a ranger you have spellcasting to worry about.
pick your 4 spells(HM included) and be on your merry way.

The way you're explaining it is that all of these things are separate feats.

You'll have to chop those class features up in order to balance them with spellcasting because as we see in the current system magic initiative is a top three origin feat and prolly will be for the entire existence of 5e. Teaching a new player five feats at level 1 and then throwing five more at them at level 2 is a lot.

And if you get anything wrong the veteran D&D fans will murder you verbally


Not saying it's impossible.
But it's a lot harder than how you are presenting it.

 

[Horwath]

The way you're explaining it is that all of these things are separate feats.

You'll have to chop those class features up in order to balance them with spellcasting because as we see in the current system magic initiative is a top three origin feat and prolly will be for the entire existence of 5e. Teaching a new player five feats at level 1 and then throwing five more at them at level 2 is a lot.

again, what 5 feats to teach?

as you stated, there is 4 spells known at level 2.
those are real features to watch for.
as you need to learn what spells do and when to use them.

everything else on ranger is no brainer.
you write on your sheet and just use it when called for.

and most of my talents are "passives".

And if you get anything wrong the veteran D&D fans will murder you verbally

that is why we are all here

Not saying it's impossible.
But it's a lot harder than how you are presenting it.

ofc it's hard, if it were easy I would already work for WotC, hahaha.


but cant find 2 days alone so I can at least initially number crunch all of it.
need to take few days off from work...

 

[Minigiant]

again, what 5 feats to teach?

Spellcasting (Primal)
Ranger Spell List Access
Weapon mastery
Favored Enemy (Ranger Spell 2/Day)
Medium Warrior (med armor and martial weapons)

I don't envy someone who has to balance spells with armor training and weapon proficiency