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

[Minigiant]

I would not mind that, or similar to 3.5e warlock invocations, even if magical, they are always on

That's how I would have it.

A ranger instead of spells would have:

4 arrow of slaying
2 arrows of ensnaring strike
1 goggles of the night
1 ring of animal influence
1 ring of pass without trace
2 potions of healing

IE: the signature Pass without trace, rangers need to wait 5 levels for it, while druids need only 3 levels.
again, druids, better rangers than rangers

That's more due to encounters per day.

Ranger was suppose to afford PWT whereas PWT eats major offense and defense for a druid.

 

[Horwath]

That's more due to encounters per day.

Ranger was suppose to afford PWT whereas PWT eats major offense and defense for a druid.

maybe,
but at 5th level, ranger PWT is 1/2 2nd level slots,
druid is at 1/3 2nd level slots and still having 2 3rd level slots.
if we are going with spell points:
ranger is 3/14, while druid is at 3/27 for single PWT usage.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Maybe so, but I think the public asked for more magic in the playtest as they gave both Paladin and Ranger more magic including spells right out of the gate at level 1 (and the Ranger more spells to cast per day at level 1 than any other class). When it comes to the number of spells a day you can cast a full caster does not catch up to a Ranger until level 3.

The public and I often disagree, so I don't give their opinion much weight at my table (the only thing that matters IMO unless you're in the trade).

 

[Micah Sweet]

In any case, like I said ages ago when this thread started, the trouble with ranger is not actually the class, it is that the game as it is currently is basically has no structured mechanics for exploration, foraging, travel etc. These are things ranger should be an expert on, but there is no mechanical depth to attach the features to.

Yup. In the official game rangers are a clumsy patch on WotC's lack of robust exploration rules. Fix that problem, and the class has a lot more going for it.

 

[Rocker26a]

That's more due to encounters per day.

Ranger was suppose to afford PWT whereas PWT eats major offense and defense for a druid.

I still wish Primal Awareness offered Pass Without Trace as it's 5th level option! Either in the UA or TCE! To me that seems much more universal a Ranger thing than Beast Sense or Locate Animals or Plants.

 

[Minigiant]

maybe,
but at 5th level, ranger PWT is 1/2 2nd level slots,
druid is at 1/3 2nd level slots and still having 2 3rd level slots.
if we are going with spell points:
ranger is 3/14, while druid is at 3/27 for single PWT usage.

Point was that druids were designed to use multiple slots per combat. Where rangers use them only on major combats.

So rangers were more free to use slot for utility and noncombat.

But if you ran low amounts of combat, the druid could use more spells and wild shapes out of combat.

In combat rangers looked less magical. But tables went for few setpiece battles over long dungeon crawls so the D&D ranger started using magic every fight.

 

[James Gasik]

In any case, like I said ages ago when this thread started, the trouble with ranger is not actually the class, it is that the game as it is currently is basically has no structured mechanics for exploration, foraging, travel etc. These are things ranger should be an expert on, but there is no mechanical depth to attach the features to.

Not to mention the fact that you can't make the Ranger an essential class, to where someone "has to" be the Ranger. So even if they got bonuses to exploration, they couldn't be so good that no other option is at least competitive.

I mean, I'm not saying there's a law against it, but it kind of goes against modern class design. You don't need any particular class. Some are a little better or worse at a given role, but a group with a Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue should be just as viable as one with a Barbarian, Druid, Sorcerer, and Monk.

Again, it's pretty much the loss of niche protection that's brought the Ranger to it's current state.

 

[Minigiant]

Yup. In the official game rangers are a clumsy patch on WotC's lack of robust exploration rules. Fix that problem, and the class has a lot more going for it.

Eh

TBH, the official game DOES have robust exploration rules.

They are just not what most current fans want AND are hard to remember AND not for the modern styles of play.

2014 Rangers were GREAT at official 2014 exploration. But only 55+ year olds who don't run 5e anyway play that way.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Point was that druids were designed to use multiple slots per combat. Where rangers use them only on major combats.

So rangers were more free to use slot for utility and noncombat.

But if you ran low amounts of combat, the druid could use more spells and wild shapes out of combat.

In combat rangers looked less magical. But tables went for few setpiece battles over long dungeon crawls so the D&D ranger started using magic every fight.

What tables? Are you speaking on behalf of the entire gaming public here? Rangers didn't even have magic in early D&D until they went down the road a while. I played a ton of 1e, and can count the number of times I've seen a ranger cast a spell on less than one hand. Does that mean most tables are like my experience, or yours? Or maybe neither of us can make that claim.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Eh

TBH, the official game DOES have robust exploration rules.

They are just not what most current fans want AND are hard to remember AND not for the modern styles of play.

2014 Rangers were GREAT at official 2014 exploration. But only 55+ year olds who don't run 5e anyway play that way.

Excuse me? What "robust" exploration rules do you think 5.0 had? All I saw was weak tea that could nonetheless be ignored if you had a ranger in your party. Hardly robust IMO.