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

[Corinnguard]

While mechanically, they may be "just preselected feats," they are so much more to the player that visually imagines their character.

In essence, the character is the avatar form of the player within the setting. They are who we would like to play as. We get to explore through them what would it be like to be an elf, a dwarf or a dragonborn and as a member of a particular adventuring character class.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

Not always, it depends on who designed the class, subclass, etc. and how long they have been at it.

That was a given. If someone is not good at design and/or a novice at it, odds are they will over design and make things needlessly complex.

Why do more when less works just as well, if not better?

 

[Corinnguard]

Why do more when less works just as well, if not better?

Less character classes in an RPG works well, if not better, for you. But for others such as myself, more character classes work well for us. More classes for me lead to more choices and opportunities on what I can play as in an RPG. Especially in an RPG like D&D or one of its' adjacent RPGs.

Your question is pretty subjective and in the eye of the figurative Beholder.

 

[Horwath]

I might add to the bolded statement that they also have nostalgia (for some), and more importantly, boatloads of lore attached to them. While mechanically, they may be "just preselected feats," they are so much more to the player that visually imagines their character.

I agree on that.
perhaps the best design would be "build your own class" from scratch with 10 or so premade builds in PHB that represents the "iconic" classes.
this would be extra good for new players so they do not need to bother with planning ahead while they are learning the game.
That can come later.

 

[AnotherGuy]

So what is the skinny, are people convinced we should keep the Ranger?

 

[Flights of Fancy]

Your question is pretty subjective and in the eye of the figurative Beholder.

Well, of course "better" is subjective, I've been saying that all along.

Here's an analogy: you are driving and have two ways to go. One is fast and direct, the other has more twists and turns and takes much longer. Both get you there so you can do what you want to do. Why would you possibly take the more convoluted path?

I understand it all comes down to details. You can play D&D with B/X or 5E. Is B/X and your imagination enough or do you want everything in 5E? For myself the goal is somewhere in between.

Seven core classes based on how your PC deals with challenges: fight, skill, cast, fight/skill, fight/cast, skill/cast, fight/skill/cast. Subclasses to flesh out the concepts, specialties to give variety within each subclass, feats complete your PC.

So what is the skinny, are people convinced we should keep the Ranger?

Consider in 2024 people have already been trying (yet again) to improve, homebrew, whatever the Ranger, I would say kill it.

The concept is a wilderness expert with limited spellcasting. I could make a bard or rogue and often get a more effective "ranger" experience that others get with the ranger class, depending on if I want "spell ranger" or "spell-less ranger".

 

[Corinnguard]

Why would you possibly take the more convoluted path?

It's very scenic.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

It's very scenic.

HA HA HA.

Yeah, I knew you would say that. It isn't scenic, it is just long and complex and gets people lost.

 

[Corinnguard]

HA HA HA.

Yeah, I knew you would say that. It isn't scenic, it is just long and complex and gets people lost.

Only if it is the first time you have taken such a route by yourself. The first time is when you are likely to get lost because you are trying to understand the directions, of which there could be a lot of them that need to be followed. But the more times you take that route, the better you understand them and the more confidant you become.

Plus, you get to see a lot of interesting things that you might have missed by taking the fast and the direct route.

 

[Mecheon]

Why do more when less works just as well, if not better?

Less doesn't work as well as more, and debatably, not better. It runs into that issue where you start getting things useless to your class concept if you have to look at classes, or need to re-invent the wheel. Like, let's take a peak at your two ideas...

The concept is a wilderness expert with limited spellcasting. I could make a bard or rogue and often get a more effective "ranger" experience that others get with the ranger class, depending on if I want "spell ranger" or "spell-less ranger".

Bard is useless for the idea of a survivalist. Let's just get that out there already, nothing Bard offers you is what you'd need so why are we even bothering about it? No survival skills, playing music is completely unrelated to your idea, stats aren't useful for what you want to do, bard is just a complete wash. Wearing leather and casting spells does not a ranger make.

Rogue has a few things useful (stealth for one), but when trying to design classes to rely on the ranger's Big Things (Animal taming, for example), you could then immediately run into the issue where you're having to re-apply multiple things across multiple subclasses to re-apply the ranger ideas to them. At that point, why not just... Have a new class?

I remain on the side of more classes being better

(also like, just saying, 'brand new class!' is a bigger draw than 'new subclass')