D&D 5E Rangers in 5e

[LordArchaon]

The original paladin (from Greyhawk supplement) didn't have any spellcasting abilities. He was a fighter with Lay on Hands (healing), better saves, immunity to disease, detect evil, and Dispel Evil at 8th level. I think spellcasting was added in 1e to keep up with the original ranger.

Would that provide more of a distinction?

In that case, the problem is justifying the Paladin being a separate class from the Fighter. Maybe I should make a new thread for this, gonna do it right away.

 

[WotC_Trevor]

With the modularity as a big part of this, it's possible that the ranger could be, at it's core, a nature-based archer guy. So maybe we see some favored enemy type stuff, and some tracking type stuff along with the usual "I kill it with my bow" kind of thing.

For those of us who want something more complex, maybe as you level you can trade out something you would normally get as you progress for some druid like spells, or an animal companion, or two-weapon wielding abilities. I think this is what I would like to see. The core ranger being a wilderness tracker/hunter with options in the same core book to blow him out into the other iconic kinds of rangers we've seen.

 

[Astrosicebear]

With the modularity as a big part of this, it's possible that the ranger could be, at it's core, a nature-based archer guy. So maybe we see some favored enemy type stuff, and some tracking type stuff along with the usual "I kill it with my bow" kind of thing.

For those of us who want something more complex, maybe as you level you can trade out something you would normally get as you progress for some druid like spells, or an animal companion, or two-weapon wielding abilities. I think this is what I would like to see. The core ranger being a wilderness tracker/hunter with options in the same core book to blow him out into the other iconic kinds of rangers we've seen.

I think this particular approach is a prime example of the benefit character themes could have on class design.

Here's you base ranger with survivalist and some archery skills. If you like that great, if you want more, take theme A that has two weapon fighting, theme B that has a spellcasting approach, or theme C that turns you into movement based bonkers twin striking power fiend.

 

[Danzauker]

Coming from BECMI, I never had big nostalgia effect for Rangers.

IMHO, a "module" or "theme" strongly themed to wildeness/scouting/survival/herbalism that could be tacked to other classes would be more than enough.

Give it to a 2WF fighter: you have Aragorn.

Give it to a bow specialized rogue: you have the sniper ranger.

Give it to a sword and board fighter: you have the Night Watch.

You can also give it to a nature cleric and have a sort of "historical" druid.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I would prefer that excellent multiclassing rules be devised from the get go, such that any mix of ranger or druid makes an entirely viable character. (Same thing would apply for ranger/rogue for "urban ranger" or ranger/fighter for a more warrior-oriented approach, but druid mix is the big one.)

That way, those who want their particular ranger character to have some spellcasting can set the mix however they want, instead of it being preset by the class. Furthermore, druid players that want to be a bit more warrior-oriented have an easy way to set that aspect however they want, without losing their nature theme.

A substantial portion of the things that have been done with rangers (and paladins and bards and so on) in the past, and are pushed for now, are because the multiclassing rules don't work as well as they might. Fix the multiclassing issues, and you solve whole swaths of such problems at once, in ways that satisfy most people.

Edit: It need not be exactly "multiclassing," either. If some combination of multiclassing, themes, and other mechanics make ranger/druid in any mix viable, then we are good. I don't care what it is called.

 

[LordArchaon]

I agree with [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION] ... Multiclassing needs to be considered as a core mechanic. A class that feels a lot like the result of two classes mashed up needs not to exist as such. Classes should be unique for this reason too: because multiclassing them would mean ending up with other unique things. If you multiclass AB with BC, you'd better start as B and multiclass in AC... Classes should always be A or B or C. That way each multiclass combo is really different.

 

[paladinm]

So at what point is it justified to have an actual "class"? Hypothetically we could have 2 base classes, fighter (martial) and spellcaster, and all others would be multi-classes or themes/kits/whatever of the 2 base classes. If you think about it, every class could be generated this way.

How far do we take this?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

So at what point is it justified to have an actual "class"? Hypothetically we could have 2 base classes, fighter (martial) and spellcaster, and all others would be multi-classes or themes/kits/whatever of the 2 base classes. If you think about it, every class could be generated this way.

How far do we take this?

That's impossible to answer fully (though guesses will need to be made, of course) without knowing what abilities will be divided up amongst those classes. Moreover, there is no single, correct answer even then. I have no doubt whatsoever that if someone could go through time, derive all discrete important abilities in the fully functional 5E, give us the list, that we could come up with several good ways to package those.

However generally, if you have a hard break in ability concept, that is a good place to look for a class break. "Casts some form of nature magic" is one potential place, and is certainly a lot harder break than "operates well in the wild."

As far as actual number of classes, look at the purpose of classes in D&D: Niche protection and organization of information. The former has its own special issues, but the latter tells us something. The ideal number is somewhere between "a handful" and "too bloody many". With two classes, you might as well have one and admit that you aren't a class-based system anymore. To have useful "classifications" of something as diverse as character concepts, you want the packages narrow enough for the differences to mean something. OTOH, once you make them too narrow and too plentiful, they aren't truly "classes" anymore, either. At that point, they don't really organize anything--think of a deck of 100 cards with no "suits" or other organizing system. (Such a setup might still be great for niche protection, though.)

 

[WotC_Trevor]

I agree with BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention @Crazy Jerome END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention ... Multiclassing needs to be considered as a core mechanic. A class that feels a lot like the result of two classes mashed up needs not to exist as such. Classes should be unique for this reason too: because multiclassing them would mean ending up with other unique things. If you multiclass AB with BC, you'd better start as B and multiclass in AC... Classes should always be A or B or C. That way each multiclass combo is really different.

I think it's important that someone familiar with any core D&D book from any edition be able to flip open the core books in whatever comes next, and find the class they're looking for. Some base class should be called "Ranger" and something should be called "Paladin" because those are iconic and deserve to be defined and easily grabbed. This is true for any core class to me.

If you want to play a ranger (or any other D&D class that has been "core"), I don't want you to have to pick fighter, and multiclass into druid, or some other combination of class building. I want you to be able to flip through the book, find the ranger entry, and then start determining if you want to tweak it.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think it's important that someone familiar with any core D&D book from any edition be able to flip open the core books in whatever comes next, and find the class they're looking for. Some base class should be called "Ranger" and something should be called "Paladin" because those are iconic and deserve to be defined and easily grabbed. This is true for any core class to me.

If you want to play a ranger (or any other D&D class that has been "core"), I don't want you to have to pick fighter, and multiclass into druid, or some other combination of class building. I want you to be able to flip through the book, find the ranger entry, and then start determining if you want to tweak it.

That's a "denormalizing" of the classes (if you'll pardon a database term), i.e. deliberatley including hybrids for convenience. I agree that it is useful and necessary. However, please note that what was advocated here was not removing the ranger class, but making a ranger/druid multiclass in any proportion a useful character, instead of setting the ratio in the ranger itself.

Or to put it another way, if my wife wants to play a ranger, and fits your criteria above (she does), then she shouldn't need to build a fighter/druid (or some other mix) to work around a set ratio of fighting/spellcasting in the core ranger.