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

[Minigiant]

Not really

Yah really,

If Rangers had their own internal feat system like Invocations, people could tail the Ranger to the setting.

But due the wide range of types and power, a Major Focus Minor Focus might be best.

Like you could Major in Weapons and Minor in Plant Magic or Major in Animal Companion and Minor in Divination.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yah really,

If Rangers had their own internal feat system like Invocations, people could tail the Ranger to the setting.

But due the wide range of types and power, a Major Focus Minor Focus might be best.

Like you could Major in Weapons and Minor in Plant Magic or Major in Animal Companion and Minor in Divination.

You could, sure. But it isn’t needed.

 

[Minigiant]

You could, sure. But it isn’t needed.

It is if you want designing a D&D for everybody.
If you want a specific feel of fantasy game then you don't have to offer so many options.

 

[ECMO3]

It just seems to me like a very obvious elective choice, rather than an enforced one. Some rangers use magic. Others don't. There are plenty of woodsman-type characters in the fiction that inspires D&D who would look painfully silly being forced to do their thing through chanting words and waving their hands.

For what it's worth, I have exactly the same stance on Paladins. I think a spellcasting Paladin is fine...as a subclass. I think the basal Paladin should focus on Paladin-specific mechanics, like Lay on Hands, auras, and smites, with spells being a fun addition on top, in the same way that Eldritch Knight gives spells as a fun addition on top of being a Fighter.

I don't really like that idea. If you want to play a clas without spells play a class that doesn't have spells. I would feel pretty cheated if other Rangers got additional things because they did not get spells. I want that stuff and spells too.

Also you have the problem that players who play spell casters want spells from level 1, so if subclasses are at level 3, then what about levels 1 and 2? You start with spells then lose them when you pick your subclass?

 

[ECMO3]

I know a lot of people are going to disagree with my assessment here, but I don't say any of this as a "Ranger-hater". I like the archetype just fine. It's just, when I sit down to make a new character, nothing about the Ranger class makes me want to play one anymore. I can get my Ranger fix from any other class. In fact, many other classes have options within them that can make me seem more "Ranger-coded", in some way. Perhaps it's minor, like a Green Dragon Sorcerer. Or more concrete, like a Warlock with a Fey patron.

I agree with your entire thesis except the part in red. I play more Rangers than any other class, but it is their flexibility that enables this. Part of this is I don't feel constrained by the fiction surrounding the class. The class is just mechanics, I make the fiction for my PCs and the Ranger class is a great canvas to put together my character on. It may be that it borrows so much from other classes that make it so good at this.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It is if you want designing a D&D for everybody.
If you want a specific feel of fantasy game then you don't have to offer so many options.

No. it’s not needed regardless.

The only reason the Ranger struggles is that they’ve failed to actually execute on the concepts in the class, and instead genericised it, and it has some frustrating gameplay issues that have painfully clear solutions.

They don’t need to be six classes in one. They need to be actually good at what they already try to do in a way that isn’t annoying during play.

 

[Minigiant]

No. it’s not needed regardless.

The only reason the Ranger struggles is that they’ve failed to actually execute on the concepts in the class, and instead genericised it, and it has some frustrating gameplay issues that have painfully clear solutions.

They don’t need to be six classes in one. They need to be actually good at what they already try to do in a way that isn’t annoying during play.

Were saying the same thing.

The Ranger is a set of six different common class concepts. Either you choose one of them as THE ranger and make the other 5 classes other classes. Or you let the ranger choose which path.

 

[cbwjm]

In 2e and 3e, for example, the Ranger had a two-weapon fighting focus, with no ranged combat bonuses in sight!

A small note, but 3.5 allowed the ranger to choose between 2 weapon fighting and archery.

 

[Corinnguard]

A small note, but 3.5 allowed the ranger to choose between 2 weapon fighting and archery.

And depending on whether or not you picked Two-Weapon Fighting or Archery, you also gained access to several Bonus Feats from doing so.

 

[Zardnaar]

And depending on whether or not you picked Two-Weapon Fighting or Archery, you also gained access to several Bonus Feats from doing so.

Tgat to.
. AD&D 1E Rangers made great archers due to ow rate of tire and favored enemies interaction.

If weapon specialization was a thing that ascwell.

2Ecranger was a dual wielding wilder rogue.

So most editions Rangers have made good archers 2E and 3.0 are odd ones out.

Best archer now probably a toss up between hunter ranger and battlemaster fighter. At levels that matter at least.

And shortbows are surprisingly good especially for fighters.