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

[Flights of Fancy]

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 was more talking about the character creation process, sorry for any confusion.

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

Yep, and it is why I like the Sidekicks in 5E.

Anywho, back to the ranger part of the thread.

 

[Laurefindel]

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

The skinny;

if you think the ranger class is unnecessary, this thread isn’t going to convince you otherwise.

If you like the ranger, this thread isn’t going to make you think it’s more superfluous than the paladin, bard, or barbarian.

 

[Minigiant]

one class can also be enough.

classes are just a laundry list of preselected feats.

Eh.

Class are just a laundry list of pre-selected feats balanced around being pre-selected.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Primal half-caster: Ranger

I think calling it something different, without all the contradictory baggage, would be the be the way to go.

“Warden” seems like a good name.

 

[Minigiant]

Yes. I like half-casters, too.

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

Something along those lines.

I like half casters as well

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

I think calling it something different, without all the contradictory baggage, would be the be the way to go.

“Warden” seems like a good name.

Ranger would still have to cast spells because the majority of rangery effects require specific language and most D&D fans don't want to learn additional subsystems.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

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

Works for me!

But what exactly is "Eldritch" for spells as opposed to arcane, divine, or primal?

 

[Minigiant]

Works for me!

But what exactly is "Eldritch" for spells as opposed to arcane, divine, or primal?

Eldritch to me is the realm of the "almost divine". The powers of the not-gods. The Arches

The Archfiend
The Archfey
The Archangel
The Lich
The Old God

Those with a lot of destructive or manipulative power but without the full command of a domain nor the constraints of a domain.

 

[Mecheon]

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.

They're weighed down with useless stuff that's irrelevant to the character concept.

Let's be simple: If you want a ranger, you either want a duel-wielding swordsman like Dritz, or you want a survivalist. So let's look at what Bard offers.

Stat line? Completely wrong. Bards are set up to be the party face, charisma does not help you being a wilderness survivor
More spell access? Not relevant spells, closer to wizard
Any skills you want? Irrelevant given the skills you're given are specifically related to music and performing

It gets worse once we look at the further skills. Expertise doesn't mean anything when your concept is being watered down and diluted because you're getting Bardic Inspiration, Countercharm and Magical Secrets all on top of it, abilities that are useless to the survivalist idea

The point of a class is so Job McNewPlayer can look at it and go "This fits my play idea". Bard does not fit the play idea of a ranger in the slightest.

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

I'd argue this is a statement on the design of the Ranger class, not its viability as a class in the game

If we scrapped classes for bad implementation then Monk, Paladin and Fighter wouldn't have made it out of 3.5E

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.

I mean, I come at this from the "I remember 3.5e" route, where the most broken classes in both "Too underpowered to be useful" and "Unstoppable god-king" were right there in the PHB, with the ones being produced in later books generally being better balanced and a few rare exceptions of the 'broken' variety, generally hitting the underpowered route

Every edition of D&D has added new classes through its lifespan. A game that doesn't add new things to the new player experience, especially a game like D&D where rolling new characters is expected, isn't going to be a game that holds people attention for long.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm always curious as to whether all the players who always say "We only need four classes" actually play their games that way? I mean just because the PHB includes the other eight doesn't mean a DM is required to use them. All of us could be playing Fighting / Rogue / Cleric / Wizard all along if we really wanted to.

Which is why the calls for the removal of classes from the game always just makes me shake my head. If someone doesn't want to use the Ranger... then don't. It's existence in the book does not matter.

 

[Shades of Eternity]

I miss 4e's role niches
It made it easier to determine what you needed for your party and allowed everybody to be special.

I liked some of the class concepts that came from it.

If they had followed a similar stringency with the 3 pillars, I think it could have been amazing.