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

[Parmandur]

No Class is "necessary."

 

[dave2008]

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?

We us a Rogue (Scout) for our spell-less ranger, so I don't see how I can convince you.

 

[ECMO3]

Is 5e more magical and mystical than 1975 D&D? Absolutely!
Is the inspiration for what a Ranger is in doubt? No. Not at all.

I forgot the handy link earlier

https://annarchive.com/files/Strv102.pdf

There's no doubt whatsoever that the first Ranger was inspired by the hero that leads a group called Rangers (also Ivan Rodriguez)

This Ranger has Magic-User spells and the potential for Magic-Users, Pegasus, Unicorn and Dragons as potential followers. Able to employ all devices that deal with Clairvoyance, Clairaudience, ESP, Telepathy, Telekenesis, and Teleportation.

They get extra damage against Giant Class monsters (mostly humanoids and Giants), they can track.

This guy is highly magical and there is very little about wilderness or nature surrounding that link.

 

[ECMO3]

I personally don't feel ranger 'needs' magic, as a spell-less ranger would still work fine. Especially if things like hunters mark were turned into class abilities. The problem here is that it starts to bump up against rogue a lot more, and a feel that the scout rogue does an ok job of being a no-magic ranger.

I think a Ranger needs magic and it explicitly needs magic spells. What I would like are more traditional arcane spell options in the class; spells like Chill Touch, Friends, Magin Missile and Web.

You can get this kind of stuff on Rangers now through subclasses, feats and races, but I would really like more spell options as part of the class itself.

 

[ECMO3]

We us a Rogue (Scout) for our spell-less ranger, so I don't see how I can convince you.

I have played a scout once and loved it. It really filled the role well.

 

[Shardstone]

People who want the classes to be things like Fighter, Half Caster, and Full Caster want a game I find absolutely boring. A game with classes that just gives me the basics is a personal waste of money; I am paying for ideas, not to be told to make up all the cool parts myself with """fluff"""

 

[Seramus]

For example, how do you account for a wizard who has to hide in a tree from goblins, but can also go toe to toe with a Balrog?

You give him a big pile of spell points but only let him recover between story arcs.

Even that would be generous by LOTR standards. Many of the supernatural creatures in LOTR had vast power, but once it was used up... it was just gone. Knowing how to conserve and only using it at the right moments was a big deal for them

 

[Tonguez]

This Ranger has Magic-User spells and the potential for Magic-Users, Pegasus, Unicorn and Dragons as potential followers. Able to employ all devices that deal with Clairvoyance, Clairaudience, ESP, Telepathy, Telekenesis, and Teleportation.

They get extra damage against Giant Class monsters (mostly humanoids and Giants), they can track.

This guy is highly magical and there is very little about wilderness or nature surrounding that link.

my reading of that is Rangers get tracking skill for the first half of their levels (about a year of game time) and bonus v giants

Then they get use magic device - which was a 10th level Thief ability
And the 6 spells
Plus followers (a bonus every class got)

- This ranger would be better as a Rogue subclass

 

[Horwath]

No class is necessary.

Every class is just a collection of feats pre-picked to present a theme of the character.

however, player love the theme of the ranger so it is necessary.
even if we go to pitchforks about if ranger needs to have spells or not.

 

[Clint_L]

This Ranger has Magic-User spells and the potential for Magic-Users, Pegasus, Unicorn and Dragons as potential followers. Able to employ all devices that deal with Clairvoyance, Clairaudience, ESP, Telepathy, Telekenesis, and Teleportation.

my reading of that is Rangers get tracking skill for the first half of their levels (about a year of game time) and bonus v giants

Then they get use magic device - which was a 10th level Thief ability
And the 6 spells
Plus followers (a bonus every class got)

- This ranger would be better as a Rogue subclass

My first main was a 1e ranger and I played him for about six years.

Including a class called “ranger” was almost certainly a response to the popularity of LotR, but the execution looked nothing like Aragorn.

To begin with, my guy wore heavy plate, as did most rangers, because there was no penalty for doing so. And, like most rangers, he was a melee tank, wading into battle with his two handed sword.

He eventually had spells. Aragorn, not so much. And while everyone in 1e got some version of followers, rangers were very unusual in that they could get an array of magical creatures. Mine included a storm giant!

Edit: incidentally, storm giant: way less awesome than you might think. I got to use mine only a few times as she was too damn big for most places we adventured!

In my head canon, she saw me as her follower, since from her perspective I gave her a nice stronghold and just showed up every few months to drop off a bunch of treasure.