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

[Corinnguard]

While the 3.5 Ranger had access to one of two Combat Styles, the PF1 Ranger had access to a lot more from its' core rulebook and accessories.

Archery, Crossbow, Deceptive, Elemental, Menacing, Mounted Combat, Natural Weapon, Thrown Weapon, Two-Handed Weapon, Two-Weapon Fighting, Underhanded, Weapon and Shield.

The PF1 Ranger even had Combat Styles that depended on which deity they worshiped. Charging Throw, Dirty Combat, Fencing, Guardian, Merciful, Mighty Strike, Mobility, Reactive, Rip and Tear, Sawtooth Sabre, Short Sword, Spiked Chain, Thrown Weaponry, Trident, Unarmed and Whip.

 

[James Gasik]

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

In 3.5, yes, but not in 3.0. I should have specified which 3e I was talking about, and I probably should have mentioned the 3.5 Ranger in my post, since it was a significant improvement and arguably the best version of the Ranger, if still held back by Favored Enemy and Terrain Mastery features that could be quite unreliable.

 

[James Gasik]

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.

Maybe I missed something, were 1e Rangers better archers than Fighters, or were they about the same? I vaguely recall Rangers being able to use a bow in melee, but that could be a product of a fever dream, lol.

 

[James Gasik]

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.

I mean it's a personal preference. I still feel I could make a multiclassed character that gives me anything I'd want from Ranger without the actual class and more, but whether that's a Ranger problem or a Multiclassing problem is debatable.

 

[Zardnaar]

Maybe I missed something, were 1e Rangers better archers than Fighters, or were they about the same? I vaguely recall Rangers being able to use a bow in melee, but that could be a product of a fever dream, lol.

Not specially but bows had a higher rate of fire.

Ranger bonus damage applied on each shot.

 

[James Gasik]

While the 3.5 Ranger had access to one of two Combat Styles, the PF1 Ranger had access to a lot more from its' core rulebook and accessories.

Archery, Crossbow, Deceptive, Elemental, Menacing, Mounted Combat, Natural Weapon, Thrown Weapon, Two-Handed Weapon, Two-Weapon Fighting, Underhanded, Weapon and Shield.

The PF1 Ranger even had Combat Styles that depended on which deity they worshiped. Charging Throw, Dirty Combat, Fencing, Guardian, Merciful, Mighty Strike, Mobility, Reactive, Rip and Tear, Sawtooth Sabre, Short Sword, Spiked Chain, Thrown Weaponry, Trident, Unarmed and Whip.

If you count Pathfinder 1e as D&D, then that is probably the best version of the Ranger, especially with the ability to swap out class features you find less than reliable with Archetypes (3.5 had this option as well, but Alternative Class Features and Racial Substitution levels were scattered all over the place and not as robust as Pathfinder Archetypes).

I'd rank it highly, but I'm not sure where I'd rank 4e Rangers specifically. Everyone remembers them as damage machines, but I have fond memories of their support and Utility powers. I played a 4e Ranger into epic tier (stopping at level 22 if memory serves because the adventure path we were on just couldn't keep up with us, and the DM felt like it was too much work to rewrite the adventure around our antics) and while I wasn't the best damage dealer in the party (I rolled lots of dice and it looked scary, but my die rolls were usually mid, lol), I could serve up enemies on a silver platter to my party to annihilate with my nova round which left enemies prone, slowed, dazed (save ends) and stunned (save ends). I could create a temporary teleportation gate on the battlefield, create a wall of earth, and even combat teleport granting myself a huge defense buff. Plus I had an encounter power that could block an enemy attack on an ally. Toss in my Warlord multiclass Feat that granted the party +3 to hit on the turn they spend an Action Point, and I was a menace.

Now there's a lot of supernatural stuff going on there, which some people might not like in their Ranger, but I definitely wasn't wiggling my fingers to do any of it!

 

[James Gasik]

Not specially but bows had a higher rate of fire.

Ranger bonus damage applied on each shot.

Oh yeah, against "giant-class" enemies. I remember it was a pretty random list (like Tasloi were on it for some bizarre reason, lol), so the chances of it coming up were fairly decent.

The same could not be said of 2e, where you picked one creature you hated for a +4 bonus to hit and that was that.

 

[Corinnguard]

In 3.5, yes, but not in 3.0. I should have specified which 3e I was talking about, and I probably should have mentioned the 3.5 Ranger in my post, since it was a significant improvement and arguably the best version of the Ranger, if still held back by Favored Enemy and Terrain Mastery features that could be quite unreliable.

Level Up's version of Favored Enemy, Studied Adversary, allows you to replace your current studied adversary with a new one every time you have a Long Rest. It fixed what had to be IMO the biggest drawback that came with Favored Enemy, knowing if your favored enemy was going to be encountered sometime during the adventure your character was on. If they were present, then the feature provided your character with an advantage. If they weren't, then the feature ended up being wasted. With that little tweak in Studied Adversary, you could make any monster into your studied adversary with every long rest.

 

[Corinnguard]

If you count Pathfinder 1e as D&D

I did. Pathfinder 1e, I heard, sometimes went by the nickname 3.75e.

 

[Minigiant]

Really the biggest issue is that D&D spellcasting is a "go hard or it's a Waste" system.

You can't really dabble in spell slots as you get magic way too late and slow for anything.

Same with Animal Companions. That's why the 2014 Beastmaster sucked. Subclassing it isn't enough.

So you have to cut off a huge chunk of power to a choice in order to allow for the different kinds of Rangers in fantasy. Because many settings have Rangers but every type of Ranger goes hard on a different focus.