Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dire Bare" data-source="post: 9349814" data-attributes="member: 18182">I haven't read all 9 pages so far, so forgive me if I cover ground already trod.Is the ranger "necessary"? Well, no. Few of the classes are, really.The ranger exists because early D&D classes were designed to emulate literary archetypes. The barbarian is Conan, the paladin comes from a Poul Anderson novel, the thief (later rogue) comes from Fritz Leiber's Fafrd and the Grey Mouser stories . . . . the ranger is Strider, Aragorn, the leader of the Rangers of the North.Of course, that was 50 years ago. The classes have shifted in design and become more broad since then. The 5E ranger has evolved quite a bit from Aragorn.How necessary are the ranger vs the rogue today? They overlap, I think, but still represent different archetypes. The ranger is a solitary warrior who roams the wilderness dealing with threats to civilization, is a woodsman and a bit of a mystic. The ranger acquired the two weapon fighting style and beast companions at some point. Various subclasses take the ranger in different directions, but the core is still there.The rogue is urban, sneaky, lives by their wits and charisma, and isn't above breaking the law. The "thief" archetype is still well embodied by the core rogue class, even though its broadened since the White Box days. Again, subclasses take the rogue in different directions, but the core of the class remains thematically intact. IMO.The scout subclass for rogue covers similar ground as the ranger class. It's almost a spell-less ranger, which is something a lot of fans like. But if we "have" to get rid of one, I'd rather ditch the scout than the ranger. Perhaps because I grew up on both old-school D&D and the Lord of the Rings.IMO, the key to making any class relevant and "necessary" is to give it a meaningful place in your campaign. The ranger, out of context of the archetype its based on (Aragorn) might just feel unnecessary to some gamers. But if you create your own "Rangers of the North" in your campaign that players can be a part of . . . than the ranger becomes integral. Same with any class or subclass.If you don't care for the ranger, you can always simply not use it in your campaigns. However, this creates the problem of your next player who wants to play a ranger and gets irritated with you for saying "no" to a core option. What's the right way to handle it? That varies with the DM, the group, and the campaign. There is no right answer.But I'm keeping the ranger in my games! I love the class!</blockquote>

Verification