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

[Mind of tempest]

Which monk?


It depends on how granular you want to me. I would be fine with three as I said for the base, with four as the combinations of those three.


Which is bloat and entirely unnecessary when subclasses and specialties and feats suffice. It depends on how much overlap you have between the "new core class" you want to make and what already exists, how it functions, its role.


Moving on like @DND_Reborn did. They are tired of D&D and the bloat, power creep, etc. you've heard ezo go on about. I play-test their stuff, but still have more interest in D&D so hang around here from time to time. Without ezo to keep me updated, I'll probably be around a bit more.

The mystical martial artist referred to as monk by all editions of past dnd.

if you would accept less, why not more?

a subclass plays on related concepts, but not all related concepts can be best done under one roof, otherwise, all academic subjects would become philosophy for a comparative example.

 

[Corinnguard]

Which is bloat and entirely unnecessary when subclasses and specialties and feats suffice. It depends on how much overlap you have between the "new core class" you want to make and what already exists, how it functions, its role.

The number of classes, subclasses and feats in a given RPG is a Goldilocks thing. For some, reducing the number of classes to the bare minimum is a good thing, but for others can be a bit stifling by limiting their creativity. For others, having a large number of classes can offer them a lot of choices but can lead others to feeling some action paralysis when it comes to that one class they want to role-play as.

 

[Laurefindel]

A class in 5eD&D is two things: a concept that cannot be easily and accurately reproduced with another class, and enough variations on the said concept to allow several subclasses of its own.

The two most obvious classical archetypes for rangers are the beastmaster and the wilderness hunter, which are distinct enough that it would be difficult to recreate both as a single subclass of fighter or rogue.

That alone gives the ranger more identity than the barbarian IMO, which would be just as easy if not more to recreate as fighter subclass, and is even less dependant on its own subclasses in its identity.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

The mystical martial artist referred to as monk by all editions of past dnd.

Which varies A LOT. Sort of my point.

if you would accept less, why not more?

Why more when less works?

a subclass plays on related concepts, but not all related concepts can be best done under one roof, otherwise, all academic subjects would become philosophy for a comparative example.

Which is why you have about seven roofs--not one.

for others can be a bit stifling by limiting their creativity

Nothing limits their creativity other than their own minds.

In D&D you have three things you can do when facing a challenge: fight it, skill it, or spell it. How you deal with the challenge is determined by your class primarily. There can be some overlap, of course, such as "fighting via spells", which is why I suggest the idea of 7 core classes.

A class in 5eD&D is two things: a concept that cannot be easily and accurately reproduced with another class, and enough variations on the said concept to allow several subclasses of its own.

The two most obvious classical archetypes for rangers are the beastmaster and the wilderness hunter, which are distinct enough that it would be difficult to recreate both as a single subclass of fighter or rogue.

That alone gives the ranger more identity than the barbarian IMO, which would be just as easy if not more to recreate as fighter subclass, and is even less dependant on its own subclasses in its identity.

Yes. I'd argue Barbarian should "Berserker" and Barbarian is really more of a background or culture or whatever than a class.

 

[Corinnguard]

Why more when less works?

It might not work for everyone.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

It might not work for everyone.

We'll never know if people instead default to more and more classes.

It is harder to balance classes because they are the "everything" picture. If you start with a common chassis, and develop a subclass or whatever to flesh out a concept, balance is far easier to acheive. So, the fewer core classes, the better. If you have too few, of course then the dynamic shifts the power-focus to the subclasses, feats, or whatever is used to create the desired concept.

I agree with the Goldilocks concept. I wouldn't want a single "adventurer" class, but I also don't think a dozen or more classes really is necessary and good design, either. How many posts talk about making this class or that class a subclass of something else??

 

[Laurefindel]

It might not work for everyone.

Indeed

Less is often better than more, but more is often preferable to not enough.

Current D&D hits my goldilocks zone for character classes but im happy when specific settings add a touch of uniqueness in the form of a class, like Eberron’s artificer for example.

 

[Corinnguard]

Current D&D hits my goldilocks zone for character classes but im happy when specific settings add a touch of uniqueness in the form of a class, like Eberron’s artificer for example.

Or when a homebrewer like Laser Llama creates a class whose concept has been talked and implemented about for years but hasn't quite satisfied that itch. I am talking about his Magus class, which is the arcane counterpart of both the Paladin and Ranger classes.

Laser Llama's Ranger class looks a lot better than the 2024 Ranger IMO.

 

[Mind of tempest]

The number of classes, subclasses and feats in a given RPG is a Goldilocks thing. For some, reducing the number of classes to the bare minimum is a good thing, but for others can be a bit stifling by limiting their creativity. For others, having a large number of classes can offer them a lot of choices but can lead others to feeling some action paralysis when it comes to that one class they want to role-play as.

well we know it is less than 100 and more than one so we are making progress

 

[Corinnguard]

well we know it is less than 100 and more than one so we are making progress

Currently 5e has fewer classes than PF2, which currently sits at 25 classes (minus their archetypes). PF1 had 36 classes. Level up just has 15 classes.