Chaosmancer
Legend
That's a good idea
D&D 5E The Dual Wielding Ranger: How Aragorn, Drizzt, and Dual-Wielding Led to the Ranger's Loss of Identity
That's a good idea
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
What this seems to be turning into is basically a debate about game design. '0e' was kind of a hodge-podge, but by 1e there was a pretty solid design concept. You had basically 4 'core classes' and then most of the other classes were 'sub-classes' of those (this is spelled out clearly in the 1e PHB). However there wasn't a principle which stated that the 4 were exclusive, and the 1e Monk is not really described as a sub-class at all (nor the Bard if you want to get technical, though it could be considered a sort of Druid variant). In this design the base 4 are playable classes and sub-classes are, to a varying extent, elaborations and specializations on them. In this scheme the casting sub-classes get their own spells, and the others sometimes get limited spell access. Otherwise sub-classes generally get access to some version of the main class core abilities (IE Assassins) or some more appropriate substitute (IE druids).
2e really mostly just polishes that design by making the base-classes non-playable abstractions which hold certain rules, like XP tables. That does change up some things in that all playable classes get some things in common, but also removes the idea that a class can be a sub-class of another playable class. Overall the difference is not that much, but now some classes are quite broad (fighter is basically "everything that isn't a paladin or a ranger" for example). Kits then get added later, along with the modular priest classes, to allow a more open-ended set of options without adding an endless litany of new classes. This replaces things like the Assassin, Monk, Thief-Acrobat, Cavalier, Barbarian, and all the OA classes, plus a lot of more specific examples. Clearly kits are meant to give you a way to articulate a very specific set of ideas that might represent a given setting, or maybe even a specific character. One question there is whether or not 2e really needs both sub-classes AND kits. It is telling that NO additional official classes are added to 2e beyond the ones in the PHB, everything else is strictly kits or else priest sub-classes or maybe wizard specialist variants (I think the Al Qadim ones are done that way, I forget exactly).
Interestingly 2e is a bit equivocal on the modular use of kits. Some of them seem applicable to more than one class, but most are described in supplements for a specific class (IE Complete Fighter's Handbook, it isn't Complete Warrior's Handbook). My feeling is if they'd rationalized 2e (2.5?) kits might have replaced all but the archetypal classes. As far as I know there really isn't a coherent set of rules about the application of kits either, can you have more than one? Can you acquire them after first level?
I guess you could think of 3e as a rationalization of 2e, in part. However it moves from kit to prestige class, and makes them distinctively something you gain AFTER first level. Of course MCing also becomes easy and almost free, but at the same time sub-classes remain, though now they are simply named as co-equal independent classes for the first time, IIRC. Frankly I don't think 3e was all that well thought out...
Ignoring 4e as going down a bit different path, 5e is mostly a rehash of the 2e idea, except with kits becoming sub-classes of classes, which are sort of loosely 'binned' but not really specifically declared to belong to a base class (so maybe it is more like 3e, but not quite). 5e doesn't seem to so much want or need something like ranger as a sub-class of fighter, it is more like it is a half-caster simply because this is how 5e tries to emulate the greater class parity of 4e. It does seem like Ranger and Paladin could almost have been simply fighter sub-classes, or even THE fighter sub-classes.
Every edition has tried to parse the meaning of class/sub-class/base-class/options in a bit different way, and it kind of seems like none of them really quite hit a home run. It just is not clear what, in D&D is supposed to make something a distinct class. Never was, never will be!
So, ARGUE ON!
So the question has always b
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
I think part of the problem with this whole discussion is that the OTHER non-combat aspects of the two classes are important! Rangers DO have the aspect of wilderness traveler and warrior, and rogues DO have the aspect of urban sneak/thug and generally as a stealthy trickster. Technically 4e would let another class emulate the non-combat features of a Rogue or Ranger, but the whole package is pretty iconic in each case.
I think this brings us to THE fundamental question I like to ask about classes, which is why do they exist at all? I think the answer is really that they serve a deep RP purpose. They are a shorthand which allows us to articulate what the character IS. In that sense Ranger and Rogue are really good solid classes (well, we can still debate exactly what they represent, but I think it is clear there is a cluster of concepts for each one).
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Ranger is certainly a wilderness warrior type, and distinct from barbarian as being a representative of civilization, where barbarians are the opposite, denizens of the wilderness itself. I mean, we can argue if every single character you can make up is COMPLETELY distinct, but we can define a set of things that tends to unite all rangers. They travel, they have survival skills, they have some sort of tie or relation to civilization, although they may have left it. Usually they can hunt, they have good weapon skills and generally use weapons and equipment which allow light travel and multiple uses (knives, axes, bows, light armor, often eschew shields, etc.). Sometimes they have associations with animals or other wilderness inhabitants.
No other class has this mix. Rogues may be lightly armed, often ranged, combatants. Druids may be wilderness dwellers and associated with animals/inhabitants. Fighters may utilize similar fighting styles, but tend to be 'defenders' (even if the term is not used explicitly anymore) who go toe-to-toe with foes. Wizards and clerics are obviously quite different. Certainly a specific instance of some other class might emulate a lot of what a ranger is, even being indistinguishable from a specific ranger in narrative terms. That might be true of almost any class. In 5e an Eldritch Knight could be virtually a wizard who happens to wear heavier armor and can fight with a weapon. A paladin could be virtually a cleric in narrative terms. Classes are not necessarily utterly distinct. I don't think we could ever pigeonhole every character as a specific class. Certainly literary and legendary characters don't easily fit in the D&D class structure at all, unless you are pretty lenient with it.
In v2.0 of my own game I think that classes will define 3 things, a power source, a combat role (and associated feature), and a non-combat class feature. None of these are absolutely exclusive though, and once you start playing you can pretty much pick up whatever powers and such you want. At most some things might be easier to use.
Personally, I think the main purpose of having classes is to make character creation a conceptually different exercise than it would be if abilities could be picked al a carte.
By combining abilities into thematically linked packages, players taking levels in a class to get a certain ability that they want to mechanically model their character concept get other, thematically similar abilities at no additional opportunity cost. This makes those abilities much more attractive to rely on in comparison to taking levels in a different class that has a substitute ability. Ergo, acquiring any one ability in a class-based system dynamically changes the comparative opportunity cost of acquiring other abilities. By contrast, in an al a carte system, abilities are picked in isolation from each other, and the opportunity cost of taking each ability is fixed.
To use a generic example, in a class-based system, taking levels to acquire a desired offensive ability often comes with a defensive ability for "free". The player has an incentive to rely on that defensive ability even if it isn't the most powerful or (ostensibly) most efficient ability, because the marginal difference in effectiveness between the already-possesed ability and the better abilities isn't worth the cost of taking levels in another class. Accordingly, a diverse range of defensive abilities see play.
In an al a carte system, however, there is rarely any mechanical incentive to take a core ability that isn't either the strongest of its type, or the most efficient of its type. Either the character wants to emphasize (e.g.) defense, and so spends the character points to buy the best defense, or wants to emphasize some other aspect of their character and so wants the cheapest "good enough" defense. Accordingly, it is common in such systems to see the same abilities repeated from character to character for core elements like offense and defense.
This perspective doesn't only apply to powergamers either--the opportunity cost of taking thematic and/or idiosyncratic abilities can be quite high in any system. Freeing up the points/levels/etc. to make "non-optimal" choices incentivizes going with the most efficient options for core capabilities. As above, in a class-based system, the most efficient options are going to vary more from character to character than they do in an al a carte system, so more variety is the likely result.
Scott Christian
Hero
One thing about a ranger that might help with uniqueness would be to focus the spell set. But even more important than that, to give them a boatload of rituals. Things that protect them when in the wilderness. Things that allow them to survive alone. Things that give them a huge advantage of specific terrains or creatures.
Chaosmancer
Legend
I don't disagree with any of this per se, but I do think there can be... different incentives in an "al a carte" system. Mostly I think this applies to MMO's which are a very different beast from TRPGs, but the ability to have a very specific niche is something that some people find appealing, or the ability to do a little bit of everything.
One big example of this are gishes. Gishes are far far far easier to work with in an "al a carte" system to my knowledge, and can allow for some odd combinations.
But, this is just to point out that both systems have strengths and weaknesses. I like both, just for different reasons and in different games.
The 4e Ranger got Dungeoneering or Nature for free. 4e Rogues got Stealth and Thievery. Essentially the classes were different social classes in the pseudo feudal/caste/estates system D&D original used as a foundation.
- Nobility- Fighter
- Clergy- Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Monk
- Military- Fighter, Ranger
- Middle- Wizard
- Peasants- Fighter, Rogue,
- Outsider- Barbarian
Classes let you attach your character to the world's story and strength the roleplay in the types of worlds D&D tends to use. Classes let each world have different interpretations of the archetypes but made them matter in the setting in order to have a solid foundation to branch out from.
I think people getting away from the military role or origin of the ranger is where the confusion started. The pendulum swung to hard one way to "special uniques" divorced from the ranger origins.
Chaosmancer
Legend
I think they had to get away from the military role though, because that role is very much meant to be alone.
Even now, in 5e, I think the Ranger is one of the classes most likely to survive a fight with a group of low-level enemies. Their combination of skills, spells, defenses and abilities make it very possible. But... DnD isn't a solo game about kiting a squad of orcs through the woods. So, while I think the Ranger has some good design space in that direction, that is because it is a design space outside of the game of DnD.
Well it's the same with the rogue. Most of the classes are part of organizations or loners on a mission.
D&D is typically 3-6 loners going up.
Similar Threads
