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

[Crimson Longinus]

Well like I said the description described the Ranger as Druidic and Magical in 1E, although I will admit I do the opposite. I focus on the mechanics and use those to write the fiction for a specific PC.

If I want a PC that is all about Fear and Charms and being crazy good at Charisma checks I am probably going to a Fey Wanderer Ranger, picking up 1 or 2 level dip and feat to get specific spells I want and to rip with survival and hiding and nature and anything not related to my character idea, but I can understand how others don't do this.

You can do that, but personally I think the literal point of having character classes is to evoke archetypes, so I want to lean into that in a class based game. If I want to independently come up with a character concept and then pick mechanics to suit it, I'd rather do that in a more freeform character building system where I don't need to fight with the constraints of the classes.

 

[Minigiant]

I would say that's as least worst as it gets if you are determined to keep as close to the regular Favoured Enemy/Natural Explorer frameworks as you can. Obviously for me personally, I'd rather just scrap both altogether, but I do get why that'd be unpalatable for some.

Well both were written poorly and with the wrong mechanics. How Id s do it:


Favored Enemy
you have significant experience studying, tracking, hunting, and even talking to a certain type of enemy.

Choose a type of favored enemy: aberrations, beasts, celestials, constructs, dragons, elementals, fey, fiends, giants, monstrosities, oozes, plants, or undead. Alternatively, you can select two races of humanoid (such as gnolls and orcs) as favored enemies.

Whenever you roll a Wisdom (Survival) check to track your favored enemies, Charisma (Intimidation) check to scare your favored enemies, or Intelligence check to recall information about them, you treat a roll of 9 or lower as a 10.

When you gain this feature, you also learn one language of your choice that is spoken by your favored enemies, if they speak one at all.

You choose one additional favored enemy, as well as an associated language, at 6th and 14th level. As you gain levels, your choices should reflect the types of monsters you have encountered on your adventures.

You can also gain one additional favored enemy by studying them for at least 7 days straight. This can be by observing them unaware of your studies or reading a manual about the nature of culture of the favored enemy costing 100gp per favored enemy you currently know.

I disagree with this. I think spells are a core part of the Ranger design concept and not a result of the features they are trying to implement. I think spells on their own are at least as necessary to the class identity as some of the things you mention.

It became core.

But it original was because the only subsystems for ranger stuff besides lower level tracking and surprise were spells.

IMHO, they should be infusions.

I ranger should be shooting a special arrow they crafted, warding camp with specially treated string, talking to other rangers with crystal balls and walkie talkies, and equaling their animal friend with a charm they learned that lets them communicate.


I just got the image of a high level ranger lord calling in air strike to a giant eagle with 2 very angry dwarves in their talons.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

i think claiming the ranger is a wilderness expert is actually a significant factor in what muddies the waters on what they are, i'd claim they're actually a survival expert, and knowing your terrain and the enemies in it is a huge boon for survival, it's a subtle distinction but an important one, plus there are plenty of urban ranger concepts out there.

Perhaps. Not sure "urban ranger" works for me though.

i mean, the druid is standing right next to the ranger in this topic aren't they? i think there's plenty of examples of magic and powers coming from understanding gaia, mother earth and being in tune with nature

Right. Druid already is there as the nature magic class, so ranger doesn't necessarily need to do that too. But if rangers have magic, then I'd certainly expect it to be similar to that of the druids. In my current setting both druids and rangers metaphysically work in the same way, via channelling the power of nature spirits.

out of curiosity i would question the magic levels of the settings those rangers are taken from

I mean, almost always more low magic than D&D is, as D&D (especially these days) is wildly high magic. But that exactly is the issue. It is really hard to do more grounded lower-magic with D&D and I think a lot of people would want to have that option. And ranger is one class that could easily conceptually work without magic.

 

[Rocker26a]

Well, if it's that much of an issue for your PC, why are they wasting their time busting ghosts when they should be hunting down fiends?

Unless, busting makes them feel good of course.

because just because you can't always be directly driving towards your own character's personal backstory hooks doesn't mean they shouldn't have weight on your character's in-universe build choices.

Jests aside, yeah that's basically what I would've said there.
In terms of the "changing your Favoured Enemy" prospect in general though; you wouldn't expect this of, an Oath of Vengeance Paladin for example. That their respective targets are baked in at character creation and non-fungible is part of the point.

 

[Rocker26a]

and even talking to a certain type of enemy.

While I get the thinking behind it, the languages feel strange. Obviously a fair chunk of the presented categories don't talk at all, but also I feel like a fair chunk of Rangers aren't going to have that much to say to their Favoured Enemies. Maybe "die".

The other stuff, there are some bits I like okay, but yeah I still would just scrap it. I do not like Favoured Enemy at the premise level. That's just me, though!

 

[Micah Sweet]

i mean, the druid is standing right next to the ranger in this topic aren't they? i think there's plenty of examples of magic and powers coming from understanding gaia, mother earth and being in tune with nature

I would say the lack of a specifically magic narrative for the Ranger is a major point of separation from Druid.

 

[Minigiant]

I would say the lack of a specifically magic narrative for the Ranger is a major point of separation from Druid.

There's not much of a lack.

Most high level rangers just exist in video games, anime/manga, and sci fi.

It's just that D&D discussions and discourse is heavily dominated by people of an age who really don't play video games.

I listen to a lot of D&D podcast and there is a distinct level of video game and anime references to class stuff and monsters that enter discussions once you have millennial hosts.

 

[ECMO3]

But the wilderness expert archetype being a spellcaster is a bit of an anomaly. It is not strongly associated with magic conceptually and a lot of the examples of this archetype in fiction are non-magical.

A lot of them are magical too (Aragorn and Drizzt specifically), moreover as Cream alluded to most of the non-magical archetypes come from non-magical settings.

The Rangers/Regarders of Medieval England or the Scottish Rievers are probaly the best two examples of the non-magical Ranger Archetype, but that is specifically a historical/non-magical setting they come from.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There's not much of a lack.

Most high level rangers just exist in video games, anime/manga, and sci fi.

It's just that D&D discussions and discourse is heavily dominated by people of an age who really don't play video games.

I listen to a lot of D&D podcast and there is a distinct level of video game and anime references to class stuff and monsters that enter discussions once you have millennial hosts.

I play video games, and somehow I still don't see all that many magical rangers.

Seriously, you want a ranger who's big into spellcasting? Change the narrative in the books to feature spellcasting.

 

[Minigiant]

While I get the thinking behind it, the languages feel strange. Obviously a fair chunk of the presented categories don't talk at all, but also I feel like a fair chunk of Rangers aren't going to have that much to say to their Favoured Enemies. Maybe "die".

The other stuff, there are some bits I like okay, but yeah I still would just scrap it. I do not like Favoured Enemy at the premise level. That's just me, though!

I see it mode as rangers know the fears, loves, sore spots, and curses of the favored enemy.

So if the party is using advanced interrogation techniques on the lone survivor, the ranger can get them talking.