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

[Not a Decepticon]

Because you run the game your players want to play, and you make it as close to what you want as they let you. Pretty simple really.

Or, you know, you discuss with you players what they want and pick a game that fits or the one they wantr and you discuss eventual houserules together. If I wanted to play D&D the way I want it, I would force a homebrew where I never roll as a DM, but my players did not like it and our houserules are all minor.

Or you go and say "I'm willing to run one of those systems, anyone wants to try any of them?"

 

[Micah Sweet]

Or, you know, you discuss with you players what they want and pick a game that fits or the one they wantr and you discuss eventual houserules together. If I wanted to play D&D the way I want it, I would force a homebrew where I never roll as a DM, but my players did not like it and our houserules are all minor.

Or you go and say "I'm willing to run one of those systems, anyone wants to try any of them?"

So you sublimate your own interests for your players? I don't assume what I want is less important than what they want, and I don't see myself as their employee. We came up with something they enjoy playing and I enjoy running. Turns out that's Level Up with a few houserules. Not my ideal, but it works well enough.

 

[ECMO3]

Drizzt had 5 out of 16 ranger levels in 3.5.
that gave him a grand total of ONE spell slot of 1st level.

Sure, you can call that using magic in theory.

I am talking about in the novels. In the early novels he used Darkness and Faerie Fire all the time. Also in some of them he used Levitate. In the later novels he uses that magic far less often.

 

[Horwath]

I am talking about in the novels. In the early novels he used Darkness and Faerie Fire all the time. Also in some of them he used Levitate. In the later novels he uses that magic far less often.

yes.
but those are innate drow abilities, nothing with class or training he had.

 

[ECMO3]

yes.
but those are innate drow abilities, nothing with class or training he had.

They are not abilities, they are spells. And being afforded by being a Drow is irrelevant. Wielding two weapons at a time is (or more accurately was) an innate Drow ability too and that made it into the Ranger archetype.

The point he used magic and a Ranger Archetype built around him would as well.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Drizzt had 5 out of 16 ranger levels in 3.5.
that gave him a grand total of ONE spell slot of 1st level.

Sure, you can call that using magic in theory.

3.5 was poorly designed and failed at capturing the characters it tried to stat by getting stuck on miniscule minutia instead of imp[ortant things, news at 11.

 

[cbwjm]

3.5 was poorly designed and failed at capturing the characters it tried to stat by getting stuck on miniscule minutia instead of imp[ortant things, news at 11.

I think 3e actually portrayed Drizzt's story arc quite well, he was trained as a fighter in his home city long before he became a ranger. In 2e, he was just a ranger because only humans could dual-class.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

3.5 was poorly designed and failed at capturing the characters it tried to stat by getting stuck on miniscule minutia instead of imp[ortant things, news at 11.

Do you think Rangers (and Paladins) having that spell progression is a 3e thing? In AD&D spellcasting for Rangers started at level 8th. 3ed lowered in fact the level for spell acquisition - an high-stats ranger could have at least 1 spell by level 4th, and every ranger (non-spellcasting ACF notwithstanding) would have at least 1 spell by level 6th.
Is your opinion of 3e all based on this type of information?

 

[Vaalingrade]

The concept of the 'half caster' is quickly rising in the ranks as one of the things I think may be one of the worst things in modern D&D.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Do you think Rangers (and Paladins) having that spell progression is a 3e thing? In AD&D spellcasting for Rangers started at level 8th. 3ed lowered in fact the level for spell acquisition - an high-stats ranger could have at least 1 spell by level 4th, and every ranger (non-spellcasting ACF notwithstanding) would have at least 1 spell by level 6th.
Is your opinion of 3e all based on this type of information?

The post I was responding to talked about 3.5, tho.