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

[kermit4karate]

Because the original target audience for 5V were guarding arts would not allow an ability like hunters Mark 2 not be a magical effect. And blatant magical effects in 2014 were spells.

If you asked an old school DM that if a ranger mark their target, is it a spell or natural skill, they would usually say that's a spell.

The ranger exists and got spells because for the first 30 years of DnD's History, a lot of the rangery things would have to blatantly be magical.

I'm an old-school DM, and I don't recall thinking of Rangers marking targets as spells or otherwise magical. Pretty sure I thought of it as a talent.

Of course, being an old-school DM, I can't remember for $h*! anymore so there's that.

 

[Zardnaar]

Because the original target audience for 5V were guarding arts would not allow an ability like hunters Mark 2 not be a magical effect. And blatant magical effects in 2014 were spells.

If you asked an old school DM that if a ranger mark their target, is it a spell or natural skill, they would usually say that's a spell.

The ranger exists and got spells because for the first 30 years of DnD's History, a lot of the rangery things would have to blatantly be magical.

Non magical it was just an ability.

They weren't explicitly magical until level 8 iirc.

 

[billd91]

It comes down to whether or not this specific package of abilities is what you want, I guess. Deft Explorer is equivalent to the Scout Rogue's Survivalist and Roving is the exact same ability as the Scout Rogue's Superior Mobility. There's very little that's truly unique about the Ranger's abilities is what I'm getting at. So yeah, if you want everything the Ranger provides, then the Ranger is the class for you, but a lot of what I hear from people is they don't want everything the Ranger provides- no spells, no Hunter's Mark the class, etc. etc., and would rather have other things.

And it turns out that the combination of "what you'd want from Ranger and dispensing with what you don't want" is perfectly available with other classes and subclasses. Again, it's a perfect storm of a lack of justifiable niche protection + the multiclassing rules that makes this so. I'm not telling anyone they have to like it. It's just that, if I sit down to make a character, even one that fist the Ranger archetype, I don't have to be an actual Ranger to get the results I want. And nothing about the Ranger strikes me as so unique and cool that I really want to play a Ranger- that's a personal preference, obviously, but it's been like that a lot over the years. I contemplated making a lot of Rangers, but never actually did (outside of that one time in 4e and a 13th Age one-shot which barely counts) because "Druid-flavored Paladin with less defense and unreliable class features" wasn't for me. I know that description sounds reductive, and it is, but that's how I personally felt about it.

I think a major part of the ranger's identity crisis comes from too many ways to encroach on its mojo (starting with the barbarian in 1e's Unearthed Arcana) and on trying to develop niche protection for it in all the wrong ways in 2e (with two-weapon fighting and tracking being available but ridiculously cost prohibitive for anyone BUT a ranger) and then basing too many abilities on DM benevolence.
For what it's worth, the group I play in liked the 5e.2014 ranger. As DM, I made sure the ranger's player was appropriately informed about good environments to pick and played up their natural explorer strengths. I did that because it was the right thing to do for my group. And I'm disappointed in what replaced it in the 5e.2024 rules. I feel that they replaced a powerful situational ability with a much weaker and only slightly less situational ability.
All that said, I still think there's a niche for the people operating in the wildlands beyond society's fringes to protect society by assessing and neutralizing threats or by safely getting people though the wildernesses that will otherwise kill them.

 

[cbwjm]

The 2e ranger was improved by kits if you had access to them; they brought back the giant slaying aspect of the 1e version with a kit though it still wasn't as versatile since the 1e version had 'Giant' apply to multiple enemy types that I probably wouldn't have included whereas the 2e kit reigns it in a bit. If you're starting at 1st level, you probably won't get much use out of your hit and damage bonus until quite late in your career since it really was limited to giants (and giant-kin). It was a cool kit for a giant slaying campaign though.

 

[kermit4karate]

I think a major part of the ranger's identity crisis comes from too many ways to encroach on its mojo (starting with the barbarian in 1e's Unearthed Arcana) and on trying to develop niche protection for it in all the wrong ways in 2e (with two-weapon fighting and tracking being available but ridiculously cost prohibitive for anyone BUT a ranger) and then basing too many abilities on DM benevolence.
For what it's worth, the group I play in liked the 5e.2014 ranger. As DM, I made sure the ranger's player was appropriately informed about good environments to pick and played up their natural explorer strengths. I did that because it was the right thing to do for my group. And I'm disappointed in what replaced it in the 5e.2024 rules. I feel that they replaced a powerful situational ability with a much weaker and only slightly less situational ability.
All that said, I still think there's a niche for the people operating in the wildlands beyond society's fringes to protect society by assessing and neutralizing threats or by safely getting people though the wildernesses that will otherwise kill them.

I don't think the Ranger has an identity crisis at all, certainly no more than Bards, Clerics or Paladins.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm an old-school DM, and I don't recall thinking of Rangers marking targets as spells or otherwise magical. Pretty sure I thought of it as a talent.

Of course, being an old-school DM, I can't remember for $h*! anymore so there's that.

It didn't exist back then.

WOTC wanted to copy the popular 4E Hunter's Quarry for 5e. However they didn't think the old school DMs they were courting would be okay with a jumping target reticle that continues even when line of sight is broken for tracking not being a spell.

I mean all the original 5e designers aren't young spring chickens.

If they were okay with a damage and tracking tag that can jump targets not being a spell, Hunter's Mark wouldn't be a spell

 

[Minigiant]

Non magical it was just an ability.

They weren't explicitly magical until level 8 iirc.

A blatant supernatural ability.

In 2014 90% of anything blatantly supernatural was a spell.
And 9% was the monk class.

0e Ranger weren't called Ranger until level 9. At Name level they got spells and scroll use.

You see how badly it got nerfed in Favored Foe to be not a spell. Favored Foe sucks.

 

[Senior_WotC_Janitor]

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?

It's necessary if you think it is. It's not if you don't think it is.

 

[kermit4karate]

A blatant supernatural ability.

In 2014 90% of anything blatantly supernatural was a spell.
And 9% was the monk class.

0e Ranger weren't called Ranger until level 9. At Name level they got spells and scroll use.

You see how badly it got nerfed in Favored Foe to be not a spell. Favored Foe sucks.

Regardless, I didn't think of any Ranger class combat bonuses and abilities that weren't literally spells as magical, and I don't think most people did.

Having said that, I don't think I would have cared if it had been technically magical. I'm unsure what the implication of it are/were. Does it matter if it had been magical? Those games were already played long ago.

 

[Zardnaar]

A blatant supernatural ability.

In 2014 90% of anything blatantly supernatural was a spell.
And 9% was the monk class.

0e Ranger weren't called Ranger until level 9. At Name level they got spells and scroll use.

You see how badly it got nerfed in Favored Foe to be not a spell. Favored Foe sucks.

Maybe supernatural spell no.