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

[Minigiant]

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.

Maybe supernatural spell no.

It mattered in 2014.

We were coming of 4e's mythic martials which got a bunch of backlash.

I mean that why we never got a Warlord class.

 

[Rocker26a]

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

I can't speak to 3.5E, but that's what particularly gets me as far as 5E goes. I'd say there were a few times where we were really close to an official version of Ranger that was just good, mechanically and thematically, that you wouldn't have to qualify with a bunch of caveats, if they'd only taken some ideas just a few steps further. Like, it's not as if they consistently missed the mark by miles!

 

[James Gasik]

It mattered in 2014.

We were coming of 4e's mythic martials which got a bunch of backlash.

I mean that why we never got a Warlord class.

Made worse by the fact that nothing is supernatural about the Warlord. Healing in D&D does not require magic or supernatural abilities. It usually does, granted, but not always. In 3.x, Fast Healing, for example, is an Extraordinary ability. No magic involved.

Hell, even in 5e you have non-magical healing, but I love how everyone turns a blind eye to Second Wind (or if they do acknowledge it, they say that it's somehow different because it doesn't heal other people...oh hi there Banneret, I didn't see you there!).

Ahem, sorry. Sore spot for me, and doesn't really belong in this discussion.

 

[James Gasik]

I can't speak to 3.5E, but that's what particularly gets me as far as 5E goes. I'd say there were a few times where we were really close to an official version of Ranger that was just good, mechanically and thematically, that you wouldn't have to qualify with a bunch of caveats, if they'd only taken some ideas just a few steps further. Like, it's not as if they consistently missed the mark by miles!

Does anyone remember the Revised Ranger from UA? They released it online, allowed people to play it in one season of Adventure League, then pretended it never happened.

EDIT: link is cursed, removed.

 

[Rocker26a]

Does anyone remember the Revised Ranger from UA? They released it online, allowed people to play it in one season of Adventure League, then pretended it never happened.

EDIT: link is cursed, removed.

Seriously! There's a lot I really like about Revised Ranger, and wish got folded back into later attempts! Particularly the combat centric additions to Natural Explorer, and the animal kinship from Primeval Awareness! It's not an awful crack at it, especially for the time it was offered!

 

[Minigiant]

Made worse by the fact that nothing is supernatural about the Warlord. Healing in D&D does not require magic or supernatural abilities. It usually does, granted, but not always. In 3.x, Fast Healing, for example, is an Extraordinary ability. No magic involved.

Hell, even in 5e you have non-magical healing, but I love how everyone turns a blind eye to Second Wind (or if they do acknowledge it, they say that it's somehow different because it doesn't heal other people...oh hi there Banneret, I didn't see you there!).

Like I said before

5e 2014 was designed for the sensibility of ultraconservative fans who griped about 4e.
5e 2024 had to be compatible to 5e 2914.


Like the fighter had to be the toughest class despite the Barbarian having a D12 hit die in the fighter in the 10 hit die. So self-healing was excused for the fighter in order to get what the conservative fans wanted without changing the fighter's HD.

So the ranger's hunter mak has to be a spell because it was supernatural in nature. It couldn't get expertise at first because that was the rogue thing. And Favored enemy and Natural Explorer were designed around hexcrawls and Gygaxian West Marches campaigns.

 

[Zardnaar]

It mattered in 2014.

We were coming of 4e's mythic martials which got a bunch of backlash.

I mean that why we never got a Warlord class.

I was referring to older rangers.

The class is a mess as its been drastically overhauled each edition.

 

[Minigiant]

I was referring to older rangers.

The class is a mess as its been drastically overhauled each edition.

Older Rangers weren't considered Rangers until they got magic spells to do things that the fan community believe that Rangers needed.

And once they got spells designers would just give them more spells that match the other things they expected Rangers to have.

Personally I think Rangers would be best suited by it being infusion users and crafting items in a downtime that seems more appropriate to how rangers work and more settings. Rangers Hunt and Gather materials to then craft at their camp or their base and they use those against their enemies and to survive the wild.

But that will require artificer to be a core class

 

[kermit4karate]

I was referring to older rangers.

The class is a mess as its been drastically overhauled each edition.

No, it is not!

Calls last word! Adds infinity!!

Disclaimer: that was meant as a joke.

 

[James Gasik]

Like I said before

5e 2014 was designed for the sensibility of ultraconservative fans who griped about 4e.
5e 2024 had to be compatible to 5e 2914.

I mean, I know it's a typo, but the idea we'll still be edition warring 889 years from now fills me with hope and dread simultaneously.