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

[Micah Sweet]

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?

If you use a ranger that doesn't have spells as standard then there are no "other rangers" to compare to and (presumably) be jealous of.

I'll reverse your statement. If you want spells, play a spellcaster.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

No, I believe that your premise is false. I don’t agree that the Ranger is a set of several noticeably different concepts, much less concepts too different to be one class.

 

[kermit4karate]

explain how it is necessary then?

Because I like them?

 

[ECMO3]

If you use a ranger that doesn't have spells as standard then there are no "other rangers" to compare to and (presumably) be jealous of.

What I responded to suggested a Ranger with spells be a subclass, so there would be Rangers with spells, they would just occupy a very narrow subset of Ranger and presumably not get any spells until the subclass.

I'll reverse your statement. If you want spells, play a spellcaster.

Sure, but that is not really compatible with the idea of a D&D Ranger for many players. They have always had spells with it trending towards more spells in recent editions. The playtest for 2024 showed that players wanted spells earlier for both Rangers and Paladins, so that is kind of the opposite direction of no spells or spells only through a subclass.

We could say the same thing about Clerics. Take spells away from a Cleric and if you want spells don't play a Cleric, play a caster instead.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What I responded to suggested a Ranger with spells be a subclass, so there would be Rangers with spells, they would just occupy a very narrow subset of Ranger and presumably not get any spells until the subclass.



Sure, but that is not really compatible with the idea of a D&D Ranger for many players. They have always had spells with it trending towards more spells in recent editions. The playtest for 2024 showed that players wanted spells earlier for both Rangers and Paladins, so that is kind of the opposite direction of no spells or spells only through a subclass.

We could say the same thing about Clerics. Take spells away from a Cleric and if you want spells don't play a Cleric, play a caster instead.

I'm not concerned about what's popular with "many players". I don't play with them. And as far as I'm concerned, a subclass with magic is all I need if for some reason spells on a ranger is important to me.

 

[CreamCloud0]

No, I believe that your premise is false. I don’t agree that the Ranger is a set of several noticeably different concepts, much less concepts too different to be one class.

if i might offer a middle position, the ranger is a collection of several mostly interrelated concepts but with a few that some people deem unnecessary or undesirable on their ranger(magic and animal companions are the first thar come to mind), and it's difficult to have a single class that does them all justice at once because of how OP that would end up being and the other option is struggling to specialize in more than one with only one main decision point for customization.

 

[kermit4karate]

I'm not concerned about what's popular with "many players". I don't play with them.

I should make this my profile signature.

 

[Micah Sweet]

if i might offer a middle position, the ranger is a collection of several mostly interrelated concepts but with a few that some people deem unnecessary or undesirable on their ranger(magic and animal companions are the first thar come to mind), and it's difficult to have a single class that does them all justice at once because of how OP that would end up being and the other option is struggling to specialize in more than one with only one main decision point for customization.

Which is why I love the A5e Ranger. It has a lot more points of customization.

 

[kermit4karate]

Only speaking for why Ranger's necessary for me -- because no class is necessary for everyone...

First, they are cool, and I like them.

Also, Natural Explorer and related stuff lets the whole group track, forage and hide better than other combos of feats and skills do.

Hunter's Mark with concentration protection.

Nature's Veil for on-demand invisibility is hard to dupe by other classes.

Lots of other cool class features and head candy from popular fiction...

Lastly, they are cool, and I like them.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

if i might offer a middle position, the ranger is a collection of several mostly interrelated concepts but with a few that some people deem unnecessary or undesirable on their ranger(magic and animal companions are the first thar come to mind), and it's difficult to have a single class that does them all justice at once because of how OP that would end up being and the other option is struggling to specialize in more than one with only one main decision point for customization.

I still don’t agree, but at least this is a bit more reasonable.

But to me, the 5e Ranger and the 3.5 Ranger both had the concepts down and just needed better execution.

People not liking that rangers have spells isn’t special. Most classes have stuff like that where part of the community hates some aspect that most of the community agrees fits the class.