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

[Minigiant]

As much as I hate to admit it, that’s how 5e makes it work best.

My my ideal ranger would have low-key magic or talents that borderlines the supernatural. I’d like to give them a choice within a list rather than impose abilities at set levels. To balance it out it needs some meta-resources. At that point they might as well be spells and spell-slot-fuelled abilities since the system already make extensive use of that.

It's the easiest method.

Still think Infusions are better and more thematic for ranger

 

[Maxperson]

Ranger and Rogue fullfill the same niche that I have had legendary game designers argue that Robin Hood is a rogue.

If the paragon of ranger is not your class, it is extraneous.

Rogue now covers the skirmisher concept so I would be okay of folding the ranger abilities into it and the stereotypes as sub classes.

Then again my favorite ranger was the 4e version, because i have always preferred the deepwoods sniper version for my rangers.

So I'm asking.

Is the Ranger a necessary Class?

They don't fill the same niche at all. I mean, nature/wilds focus vs. urban focus makes them opposites, even if they are both skill experts. That's like saying that because Clerics and Wizards are both spellcasters, we can get rid of wizard and just use cleric for both.

 

[Maxperson]

No class is "necessary".

Each one could of been mixed in with another. Clerics and Fighters could be Paladin subclass.

But I do agree Ranger probably has the least identity.

I thought that distinction(at least according to others) belonged to the Sorcerer. And the Ranger has a greater identity than the Rogue. The rogue's identity is essentially, "I am a scoundrel." The ranger is at least the nature/beast wanderer/tracker.

 

[Gradine]

How else are you gonna be Aragorn?

 

[Maxperson]

Aragorn had neither nature magic nor a beast. Not to mention all the treads trying to make a magic-less ranger. So that's not a point.

Aragorn used herbs to heal wounds quickly and slow the poison in Frodo. He also had supernatural abilities as a Dunedain. Gygax brought those out as class magic and it has stuck.

And yes it is a point. The existence of people who want a magicless ranger doesn't mean that all those who do want it don't count. I strongly believe that those who want rangers without magic are in the minority here.

And it's easy enough to add Beastmaster to any other class, so it's false to say you need a ranger to do that. Artificer has one for example. Druid or Barbarian could easily take that subclass as well.

You can add wizard, cleric, or rogue to any other class as well. Beastmaster only really fits druid as a subclass.

 

[Maxperson]

Aragorn absolutely had magic in the Tolkein novels, both healing magic and other spiritual out of body divination type magic.

Yes, but those stemmed from his bloodline(Human, elf and maia), not his being a ranger.

 

[Maxperson]

It is fascinating how nobody really wants to acknowledge that may be how 5e does things is bad and is part and parcel to why this topic even exists.

If you want to talk about justifying the Ranger, you can't stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to address how 5e works and how that makes answering that question harder.

I wouldn't call how 5e does things bad. They simplified the rules(in my opinion oversimplified) and with that simplification came some necessary changes in how things were done. Those changes cause issues with those who want more complex rules to cover classes and other areas of the game.

 

[Maxperson]

guess the biggest gripe people have about the ranger spellcasting is spell components.
An essentially stealth class that needs to flap like a spastic and scream from top of their lungs while stalking and hunting is huge suspension of disbelief.

add to that Conc mechanics that you can lose the spell as you are also a melee fighter without proficiency in Con saves is another case against spells and ranger.

I think ranger magic should be more in the realm of rituals than on the spot spellcasting. Take some time to rub mud on your face, mix in some magical herbs you foraged and 10 minutes later you are magically camouflaged for an hour or more. Longer spellcasting would also get rid of concentration as a component since you wouldn't need concentration as a balancer.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

If the D&D fandom can have a total rage-quitting meltdown over the absence of the Gnome in the initial core 4e rules, I can only imagine how they would respond to axing the ranger.

It is necessary because the game exists to serve the fanbase and the players demand it to be a core class.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Beastmaster only really fits druid as a subclass.

eeh, debatable, i'd say that's true only as long as you're only considering beastmaster in quite a specific incarnation, but a beastmaster could be a rogue with their tracking hounds and warhawk, or a wizard with magical creatures bound to them, a paladin with a holy beast alongside them...