D&D 5E (2014) Convince me that the Ranger is a necessary Class.

[Zardnaar]

Indeed not!



Right, I think a lot of Ranger's problems come from this sort of place. Like, it's most clear in hindsight what the issues are, and now it's too late to course correct because of issues that've been grandfathered in.

. Not sure how applicable the grandfather clause is to thr Ranger class.

Its been a different beast each edition.

 

[CreamCloud0]

. Not sure how applicable the grandfather clause is to thr Ranger class.

Its been a different beast each edition.

that just means we can grandfather in SO MANY features for it.

 

[CreamCloud0]

No, it’s too late for that. But it could (should?) have been ‘it’ from the start.

i'd have to disagree with you, i absolutely despise HM in it's entirety.

 

[Rocker26a]

. Not sure how applicable the grandfather clause is to thr Ranger class.

Its been a different beast each edition.

Oh I mean particularly with regards to 5E and 2024. Only loosely aware of the previous editions.

 

[Rocker26a]

i'd have to disagree with you, i absolutely despise HM in it's entirety.

I may have misinterpreted of course, but I took 'it' to mean "Ranger could've gotten a signature class feature that offers sustained bonus damage to their attacks, but instead we got Hunter's Mark as a spell, and any attempt to offer Ranger that sort of feature now is gonna chafe against Hunter's Mark's existence". Which is basically what I think about it, as a fellow Hunter's Mark hater. It imposes difficulties on improving Ranger just by being there, obliging some form of backwards compatibility.

 

[Zardnaar]

Oh I mean particularly with regards to 5E and 2024. Only loosely aware of the previous editions.

1E Aragon
2E Wilderrogue dual wielder
3.0 Crap Aragon
3.5 Wilderrogue 2.0 archer or dual wielder. Has pet
4E Striker no spells or pet

1E and 4E were the best ones relatively. 4E one was better striker than Ranger though.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I may have misinterpreted of course, but I took 'it' to mean "Ranger could've gotten a signature class feature that offers sustained bonus damage to their attacks, but instead we got Hunter's Mark as a spell, and any attempt to offer Ranger that sort of feature now is gonna chafe against Hunter's Mark's existence". Which is basically what I think about it, as a fellow Hunter's Mark hater. It imposes difficulties on improving Ranger just by being there, obliging some form of backwards compatibility.

what you say is true but what i meant was that the emphasis of '24 ranger's design on hunter's mark seems to wants us to believe that hunter's mark IS ranger's 'signature feature' comparable to rage or sneak attack.

personally i think favoured foe and terrain in a different incarnation could've really been the ranger's iconic feature, i look to how they were implemented in BG3 as the grounds for avoiding the all-or-nothing problems of '14's versions.

 

[Rocker26a]

what you say is true but what i meant was that the emphasis of '24 ranger's design on hunter's mark seems to wants us to believe that hunter's mark IS ranger's 'signature feature' comparable to rage or sneak attack.

Oh yeah, I think that was the latest symptom of the same problem, they still couldn't bring themselves to wipe that particular slate clean.

personally i think favoured foe and terrain in a different incarnation could've really been the ranger's iconic feature, i look to how they were implemented in BG3 as the grounds for avoiding the all-or-nothing problems of '14's versions.

I don't disagree in principle, but I will say BG3's Favoured Enemy and Natural Explorer are... Not what I'd be looking for, in terms of an iconic feature. It's options are mostly additional spells known and/or skill proficiencies! Now don't get me wrong, I think they're on a range of fine to good for that game, I just don't think it'd translate back the other way.

I think Deft Explorer is sort of along similar lines to what you're saying? And I quite like Deft Explorer on the whole (except Canny). Tireless and Roving are good bonuses mechanically, they're relatively unique, and they're right in line with the Ranger flavour.

 

[Minigiant]

. Not sure how applicable the grandfather clause is to thr Ranger class.

Its been a different beast each edition.

THe grandfather issues is 2024's backwards compatibility with 2014's elements.

 

[Zardnaar]

THe grandfather issues is 2024's backwards compatibility with 2014's elements.

They essentially rewrote the ranger though.
They could have remote it better and made it compatible enough. BG3 ranger is decent for example.