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

[Minigiant]

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

They weren't allowed to.

Too many of the 5e audience want 5e to be errataed but compatible with 2014 so their official and 3pp books and apps still work with it

The first time WOTC suggested changed that aren't EXTREMELY easy to convert, at least 30% of the community kicked them in the mouth.

 

[Minigiant]

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

They rewrote it with stuff already in D&D. That's the point.

They literally A/B test PHB vs Tasha when they made the 24 ranger.

 

[Zardnaar]

They weren't allowed to.

Too many of the 5e audience want 5e to be errataed but compatible with 2014 so their official and 3pp books and apps still work with it

The first time WOTC suggested changed that aren't EXTREMELY easy to convert, at least 30% of the community kicked them in the mouth.

It would be idiotic for 2024 to be anything apart from a revised 5E.
6E will have to wait until the playerbase organically gets sick of 5E en masse.

 

[Rocker26a]

They weren't allowed to.

Too many of the 5e audience want 5e to be errataed but compatible with 2014 so their official and 3pp books and apps still work with it

The first time WOTC suggested changed that aren't EXTREMELY easy to convert, at least 30% of the community kicked them in the mouth.

Oh yeah don't get me wrong, I don't envy them in that regard.

 

[Laurefindel]

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

Hunter’s Mark was/is a bit wonky, but whereas the paladin was a burly combattant with auras and smites, the ranger should have been the agile combattant with terrains and marks. But I probably like horizontal symmetry more than most.

 

[Rocker26a]

Hunter’s Mark was/is a bit wonky, but whereas the paladin was a burly combattant with auras and smites, the ranger should have been the agile combattant with terrains and marks. But I probably like horizontal symmetry more than most.

That's close to what I've been saying! Ranger as a parallel to Paladin, equal-but-opposite style, is a nice way round it!

 

[ECMO3]

Hunter’s Mark was/is a bit wonky, but whereas the paladin was a burly combattant with auras and smites, the ranger should have been the agile combattant with terrains and marks. But I probably like horizontal symmetry more than most.

I kind of dislike that idea. I think Ranger should be the spell focused Gish, if you want to compare to the Paladin - the Paladin is a weapon user who can throw spells when needed and the Ranger should have been a spell user who can fight with weapons when needed.

Also the original 1E Ranger was a heavy armor fighter with a min 13 strength, 13 Intelligence, 14 Wisdom and 14 Constitution with an XP bonus of all four of those were above 15. It also had the most hit points at low level of any class. But they had no min Dex and Dex was usually dumped along with Charisma. As such, I have always kind of thought the agile nature warrior thing was out of place with a Ranger label on it.

 

[Minigiant]

I kind of dislike that idea. I think Ranger should be the spell focused Gish, if you want to compare to the Paladin - the Paladin is a weapon user who can throw spells when needed and the Ranger should have been a spell user who can fight with weapons when needed.

Also the original 1E Ranger was a heavy armor fighter with a min 13 strength, 13 Intelligence, 14 Wisdom and 14 Constitution with an XP bonus of all four of those were above 15. It also had the most hit points at low level of any class. But they had no min Dex and Dex was usually dumped along with Charisma. As such, I have always kind of thought the agile nature warrior thing was out of place with a Ranger label on it.

The stay spread of the 1E ranger don't translate to modern game design because the the 1E was practically impossible to ambush nor see coming but had terrible Dexterity and was beloved as a good moral leader despite having terrible Charisma.

You'd have to do something like the fame wanderer subclass and let the ranger at its wisdom modifier to its dexterity and charisma rolls.

Basically in the fiction Rangers have high dexterity. But in the original 0e and 1e design, the emphasis was on creating an Aragon clone.

Ranger shifted from "you are the abilities of Aragon, who is a good Ranger" to "You have the abilities of a Ranger whose membership includes Aragon as a paragon."