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

[CreamCloud0]

You misunderstand. I am perfectly happy with classes, I just feel they are outdated. The best thing about a class-structured system IMO is that it provides a framework for character growth. In class-less games, like Vampire and Shadowrun, growth is harder to measure in many ways, but is also so open in choice that it can be daunting for new players, especially.

Overall, I like a blended system where initially characters are build following or around an archetype, but quickly allow for open growth without following any structure necessarily. It's fine if you had the archetype "go on" so a player could follow it and not bother with those choices, but leaving it open is nice, too, IME.

not saying you are doing this in your post it just provides a nice in into a point

judging any game mechanic's worth purely on how old or new they are is a bad idea, be that if we're revering tradition or innovation or criticising clunky sacred cows or messy bleeding edge systems.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

can I ask why you think the Ranger needs magic? as it is half the spells on the ranger list could be done with a better Skill system or as basic class abilities (Hunters Mark!)

I personally don't feel ranger 'needs' magic, as a spell-less ranger would still work fine. Especially if things like hunters mark were turned into class abilities. The problem here is that it starts to bump up against rogue a lot more, and a feel that the scout rogue does an ok job of being a no-magic ranger.

However I feel DnD 'needs' a primal half caster, and ranger is a reasonably obvious class to slide into this slot. Looking back at 4e, the competitors to fill the primal half caster slot were ranger, warden, seeker, and shaman. And ultimately, none of those come even close to ranger when it comes to how popular and known an archetype they are.

 

[ezo]

I could get behind that. Any examples of games that work that way?

Yes, mine, if I ever finish it LOL!

In a nutshell, what we are doing is this:

1. Imagine your "class (in 5E terms)" becomes an archetype which provides you with your base "hit points", skill options, defenses, and 5 features (garnered from 5E classes).
2. After you begin, your archetype does nothing. Your archetype features continue to improve as you level, but otherwise the game is open to develop your PC as you wish. You are not locked into a predetermined course of development.
3. Each level (currently there are only 6!) you can choose a new feature from a wide open pool of options (similar to feats) which allow you to continue in your role, or adopt a new role, "multiclass" in some ways (a Fighter archetype gaining magic).
4. Your "hit points" continue to increases as you level, as do your defenses and offense capabilities. If your archetype uses spells, your progression to gain more spells must be acquired through your feature options when you level--it isn't automatic. To be clear, you get better at the spells you already know, but nothing else unless you choose to develop it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I personally don't feel ranger 'needs' magic, as a spell-less ranger would still work fine. Especially if things like hunters mark were turned into class abilities. The problem here is that it starts to bump up against rogue a lot more, and a feel that the scout rogue does an ok job of being a no-magic ranger.

However I feel DnD 'needs' a primal half caster, and ranger is a reasonably obvious class to slide into this slot. Looking back at 4e, the competitors to fill the primal half caster slot were ranger, warden, seeker, and shaman. And ultimately, none of those come even close to ranger when it comes to how popular and known an archetype they are.

Level Up rangers only have magic if you choose the one archetype that has them. That gives them five official classes that don't have built-in magic: fighter, marshal, ranger, rogue, and savant.

More than enough to run a magic-less game, actually. Hmm...

 

[ezo]

not saying you are doing this in your post it just provides a nice in into a point

No problem.

judging any game mechanic's worth purely on how old or new they are is a bad idea, be that if we're revering tradition or innovation or criticising clunky sacred cows or messy bleeding edge systems.

Sure, there is nothing "wrong" with the class system, but the shift is moving towards more variation IMO. Having all the feats, for example, that allow you "feature dips" into other classes without having to take the class is a perfect example.

Fewer and fewer players IME are content to start in a class and just stay with it. A lot of tables don't allow multiclassing, but still allow feats, and the sort of feats I mention above allow a pseudo-multiclass experience.

Because of that shift, I see the game eventually moving into a more open development system. Of course, "class" is a sacred cow for D&D, so it might never happen for D&D.

 

[Weiley31]

And it's easy enough to add Beastmaster to any other class, so it's false to say you need a ranger to do that. Artificer has one for example. Druid or Barbarian could easily take that

And if you add 3PP material then Flee, Mortals pretty much gives EVERYBODY the option to have pets via its Companions system.

 

[Minigiant]

i'd like rangers to have magic but not because they need magic to do their rangery things, magic to do extra stuff on top of a reliable skill system.

Oh the dream.

The ranger who nonmagical crafts gear then uses magic to summon their poisoned trick arrows, camo suits, traps, and tamed beasts from home.

That's the bastion system I wantt WOTC.

 

[DarkCrisis]

In 5E, not really. Even Drizzt is more of a Fighter with Nature skills (gained from background).

 

[CreamCloud0]

Oh the dream.

The ranger who nonmagical crafts gear then uses magic to summon their poisoned trick arrows, camo suits, traps, and tamed beasts from home.

That's the bastion system I wantt WOTC.

Definitely a cool option that I’d love for the ranger but not exactly what I was personally thinking of.

The Ranger is IMO, the class of a type of person (in-universe) who’ll learn anything they come across and will actually bother to remember it because it might be useful someday, and magic? Magic is way up there as one of the most useful and versatile tools you could possibly hope to have, so any ranger worth their salt will have picked up some spellcasting along the way.

 

[bedir than]

how do you account for a wizard who has to hide in a tree from goblins, but can also go toe to toe with a Balrog?

Pipeweed