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

[doctorbadwolf]

The issue is that that

Spell optional Mostly Martial Ranger fans
Spells mandatory, Magical Fighting Ranger fans
&
Ranger with Combat beast fans

are fighting for the same class spot because WOTC didn't want to add classes. No one successfully made this all in one class.

And no designer invested time and page space to specifically to Rangery skills in a high magic power fantasy game.

The mostly martial “ranger” is a scout.

I'm glad you've asked! I actually mentioned this in a thread ages ago.
The issue with that sort of proposed solution is; it becomes a non-choice, because you just pick whatever you know/you think you're most likely going to see today. You might as well just have the bonus regardless.
And then also, the ability to pick something different detracts from the roleplay aspect, it's no longer a meaningful part of your character's backstory or identity. "My home town is raided by Fiends at the end of each season... But, we're exploring a Haunted Manor today, so my Favoured Enemy is Undead."

Not a bad point. How it could work is to replace favored enemy with Hunter’s Bane, and you choose an effect or two at the end of a long rest (more active at a time as you level, analogous to artificer infusions), and each has benefits against a type of enemy such as flying creatures, outsiders, creatures with damage resistences, spellcasters, whatever.

And worse, you're being forced to make a choice at the start of the adventuring day when you might have zero information about what you're actually going to fight, thus opening the door to picking wrong anyways. Just looking over my last adventure session, the players had three encounters, one with beasts, one with celestials, and one with fey. Based on what they knew about the scenario, I'm certain a Ranger player would have chosen fey, because they'd faced some already, but they'd also already faced dragons twice, beasts twice, and an encounter with monstrosities.

The problem is? The fey encounter was the easiest of the three and wouldn't have required a bonus. Now maybe it scouting ahead was a more viable strategy in D&D, you could do that before the long rest, but typically, that just puts you at risk of having to escape a solo encounter since stealth is unreliable.

Primeval Awareness isn't even all that helpful, since it requires you to still have a spell slot to use it, only has a 1 mile range, and tells you only if a creature type is present, not location or number- unless you're in one of your favored terrains, another unreliable feature, which at least ups the range significantly.

So you could use a first level slot, find out that there's a dragons within 1 mile, swap your FE, end up encountering a lone friendly Fairy Dragon and then find a cave with an underwater grotto with an Aboleth and a pack of Chuul inside.

Changing FE gives you more chances to get it right, so it's less unreliable, but it's still not reliable. Great for a ribbon feature, not great for a prime ability.

Using the revised version of primeval awareness helps.

i've probably already said this in this thread but given it's inclination to disappear and resurface every couple of weeks it's probably worth restating, i really liked what baldur's gate 3 did conceptually with favoured enemy(admittedly focused on humanoid archetypes than creature categories) and favoured terrain, just to start with you get multiple of both as you level up, but more importantly the benefits you get from both are more generically applicable rather than specifically active against a specific type of foe, you pick the anti-demon archetype and you get proficiency in religion and the sacred flame cantrip, pick bounty hunter you get investigation proficiency and advantage on ensnaring strike, pick tundra as your favoured terrain and get cold resistance, pick the city and get sleight of hand.

i do think you could probably get away with a baseline martial ranger, but with a number of feature choices that offer to lean into spellcasting that have the potential to synergize into making your character play higher-magic than they are, like stacking a third-caster subclass, with a druidic warrior fighting style for extra cantrips, and 'ranger invocations' which give you an arcane recovery feature and the ability to cast cure wounds PB/LR,
plus a focus on giving high quantity usage of low level magic that remain useful being cast at low levels(like find familiar, jump, shield, healing word, speak with animals, identify, bane, detect poison+disease) rather than spells that come online too late to be useful.

Definitely could be a solid take. Especially if you can also choose a feature that gives ways to use spells slots that isn’t casting spells.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don’t understand how anyone could say that wilderness expert being magical is odd, or not based on a strong association.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If Aragorn knew any magic as a Ranger in LoTR, it would have to be subtle to the point where you didn't know he cast a spell. A whisper here, a whisper there for the verbal component. A hand gesture that wouldn't seem too out of place for the somatic component. An item seemingly picked up at random for the material component. Stealth-casting?

Aragorn is definitely doing magic in LoTR.

LoTR has very subtle magic. Very rarely is it flashy or anything like the D&D idea of spellcasting.

 

[Minigiant]

The mostly martial “ranger” is a scout

Mostly Martial ranger fans don't like it when you say that.

 

[Corinnguard]

Mostly Martial ranger fans don't like it when you say that.

I am perfectly okay with it. Whenever my RPG group travelled through the wilderness or through a dungeon, my Gloom stalker Ranger/Scout Rogue always volunteered to scout ahead.

 

[James Gasik]

I just had a chat with some people I game with who are younger, and asked them what they thought the Ranger should be. The answer was basically, The Witcher.

 

[ECMO3]

So they would have magic if there was magic? That just leads back to wondering why every class doesn't feature spellcasting.

In modern D&D the overwhelming majority of PCs cast spells of some sort whether from their classes or somewhere else and in the rare event where a PC actually can cast no spells at all they still are almost always magical in some other way.

So I would argue it largely already is this way in modern D&D when it comes to PCs even if it is not universally part of the class mechanics.

 

[ECMO3]

If Aragorn knew any magic as a Ranger in LoTR, it would have to be subtle to the point where you didn't know he cast a spell.

But it is largely the same for Gandalf in LOTR.

 

[ECMO3]

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

In 2024 it does:

"Thanks to their connection with nature, Rangers can also cast spells that harness primal powers of the wilderness. A Ranger’s talents and magic are honed with deadly focus to protect the world from the ravages of monsters and tyrants."

That narrative very clearly features spellcasting and magic.

2014 is less specific, but it is included:

"Thanks to their familiarity with the wilds, rangers acquire the ability to cast spells that harness nature’s power, much as a druid does. Their spells, like their combat abilities, emphasize speed, stealth, and the hunt. A ranger’s talents and abilities are honed with deadly focus on the grim task of protecting the borderlands ....... Or perhaps you learned your skills as part of a band of rangers affiliated with a druidic circle, trained in mystic paths as well as wilderness lore. You might be self-taught, a recluse who learned combat skills, tracking, and even a magical connection to nature through the necessity of surviving in the wilds."

So magic is mentioned in 2014 as well, but not as specific as 2024.

 

[Corinnguard]

But it is largely the same for Gandalf in LOTR.

Yes, however, Gandalf dresses the part and carries a staff. Aragorn could be mistaken for a Fighter or a Rogue.