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

[Flights of Fancy]

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.

You're missing the point in the analogy: both paths get you exactly where you want to go. There is no benefit to the longer more twisted path.

You're thinking the longer path gives you more to see, but it doesn't. What there "is to see" is at the destination, not the journey,

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...

Less often works better than more, which is why people strive for effeciency.

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.

Bards have more spell access than Rangers, can fight as well with the subclass options, have any skills they want, and expertise by default. So... you're dead wrong.

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?

Many people have discussed how the Scout Rogue makes for a better ranger experience. So, nuff said.

I remain on the side of more classes being better

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

Good for you. I remain on the other side. And "brand new class" just makes me and others I know roll our eyes and sigh, "More junk? More power creep? More imbalance?" Now, you get that with subclasses, too, which is why a new subclass should only be made if you LITERALLY cannot play a concept AT ALL using what is already available.

Anyway, I mean I know it is a losing battle on my side, and others I know already jumped ship at this point. "Our" D&D has been killed. We already discussed other game systems last night instead of playing D&D. Nimble is looking mighty good, for instance. The new 5E players are excited about 3E d20 Star Wars, too. 2014 5E will be my last D&D. Oh well, all good things must come to an end. 2024 is our end.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I do find it interesting that it often seems to be the half casters people are trying to change or get rid of. I hear about how artificer should be a full caster, or ranger should be a full martial (or removed completely). And I even hear about how paladin should be a full martial quite often (though not nearly as often as the other two).

Half caster warlock was also torn to shreds in the playtest for 5.5e, and the 2/3 caster sorcerer got killed very fast in the original 5e playtest. While bard who used to be a jack of all trades got turned into a full caster too.

As someone who likes half casters the most and wishes there was more of them, I find it very upsetting that quite a lot of the playerbase seemingly wants them all gone.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Ultimately if ranger got nuked or made a fighter subclass, that's fine.

But I'd expect a primal half-caster seeker, shaman, or warden class to replace it...

 

[Flights of Fancy]

As someone who likes half casters the most and wishes there was more of them, I find it very upsetting that quite a lot of the playerbase seemingly wants them all gone.

Yes. I like half-casters, too.

Arcane half-casters: Artificer, Bard
Divine half-casters: Paladin, Warlock
Primal half-caster: Ranger

Something along those lines.

 

[Corinnguard]

You're missing the point in the analogy: both paths get you exactly where you want to go. There is no benefit to the longer more twisted path.

You're thinking the longer path gives you more to see, but it doesn't. What there "is to see" is at the destination, not the journey,

How exactly are you benefitting from the shorter path then? And why do you assume that the destination is more important than the journey?

 

[Scribe]

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

Dissatisfaction with an offering, does not mean an alternative cannot be found that would be an improvement.

The Ranger as a concept is not flawed, just Wizards implementation, or perhaps (also?) the players disjointed view on what the Ranger should be.

 

[MGibster]

There are only three classes necessary: The Fighting Man, Magic User, and Cleric. Everything else is superfluous.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

How exactly are you benefitting from the shorter path then? And why do you assume that the destination is more important than the journey?

The destination is playing the character you want to play. For most people, playing the game is more fun than just making the PC--but I suppose some might just like making PCs and not playing them...

Simpler, shorter, faster, more efficient means I get to play sooner, I don't have to wade through a bunch of extra stuff to make my concept come to life, and so on. Simpler design also makes the game play more efficient and faster, players don't forget stuff as often, and in my experience at least, imagination plays a bigger role than mechanics.

Anywho, like I said, I know this is a war I can't win here. I think the thread has been diverted enough by it.

As for the Ranger. Kill it. Divide the concept into different classes. Easy peasy.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

There are only three classes necessary: The Fighting Man, Magic User, and Cleric. Everything else is superfluous.

I think you need a Skill-Monkey. Magic-User and Cleric can be combined. Same coin, just different sides thing.

 

[Corinnguard]

The destination is playing the character you want to play.

Ah. I see the journey being the way a character is played in an adventure from start to finish. Completing an adventure is the destination. An adventure in D&D is full of twists and turns in the form of a main quest and one or more side quests. You can either stick to the fast and direct by sticking only to the main quest itself, or you can do it and the side quests. The latter approach will take longer.

I think you need a Skill-Monkey. Magic-User and Cleric can be combined.

3e's Unearthed Arcana has the Expert (the Skill-Monkey), the Adept (arcane/divine casters) and the Warrior.