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

Another thing that makes the Ranger necessary, is the need for more base classes/archetypes that are NOT magic-using classes.

Sure, the original Ranger eventually -at "mid-high" level, I would argue. Remember how long it took to get from 1st to 8th or 9th level bitd?-could replicate some magic stuff they'd been around/seen/found. Use some magic items (because Aragorn could). etc... Not rehashing that.

But from a class "balance" or a general design "symmetry," if you prefer, standpoint, the Ranger has a firm, almost unassailable imo, space as the Fighter - Thief amalgam multi-class.

The game has the Fighter who does what they do, by default, by definition, without magic spells or supernatural abilities.

The game has the Rogue/Thief who does what they do, by default/definition, without magic spells or supernatural abilities.

There is NO reason the class that does what they do, being a warrior and a [wilderness/survival] skill expert, by default or definition needs nor (I will always argue) /should/ get spells or supernatural abilities to be that wilderness/survival expert warrior guy.

The Barbarian makes the only other "clear" default/by definition class that does not need/use spells or supernatural ability to do what they do (be the ragey damage dealer last-guy-standing warrior in fur speedos).

That's really about it.

Monk is a coin toss, I suppose. I, personally, would consider the supernatural powers (flavor as "spiritual" or "psionics" or however you want, they are outside the physical norms of possibility) disqualifying/put them in the "use magic/supernatural ability" classes.

Paladin, though their role is largely front-line "Fighter/warrior guy in armor swinging a sword," are indisputably "magical."

And from there you are in firm "uses magic/supernatural power" territory. Cleric, Druid, Mage (and all subclass specialities thereof), Bard ,Warlock, Sorcerer.... Witch, Psychic, Shaman, on and on and on with all the various fantastical ways to work with magic that the mundane classes simply don't have in terms of options.

So, again, yeah, Ranger has a (fairly important/"necessary") place.

Shardstone said:

So yeah, in 5E, anything that is an uncanny or supernatural spell is either a spell or a "Special Feature" (which is a spell in a trench coat). So, Aragorn literally recalling a woman whose body is hard with rigor mortis back from the Valley of Death via force of will is, in 5E, a spell.

Now that we're done wasting time with this completely inane and fruitless tangent, we can get back to the real meat of the matter: what would an AI trained exclusively on Gary Gygax's written communications say about the Ranger?

Click to expand...

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.

Shardstone said:

No one is squashing anything. Let me speak in more plain terms.

I really think you're a smart person and I like your thoughts, but you seem hellbent on presenting them in a way that I personally find abrasive, and I don't think you care, so I don't really see a way to actually communicate to you, because all I get back is passive-aggressiveness.

Click to expand...

You should check yourself. I match the tone of people I speak to, which is a flaw I admit. I even do it in real life and it makes the fact that I mostly worked customer service really damn hard.

But ultimately, I'm never the one whose bringing it first. (Most of the time anyway. Not like I've never run my mouth before lmao)

And certainly not here, where I corrected the misconception about LOTR and then got dragged into arguments over what is or isn't magic, only for you to come in and tell me to shut up, calling me inane for responding to the people arguing with me, and then acting like I'm the one whose being abrasive.

Vaalingrade said:

That's not what I did, terrifying Far Writing Wizard.

Click to expand...

It is. The internet, electricity, cell phones, etc are are explainable and don't actually resemble magic at all, unless of course you're a Hobbit who doesn't even have the sense to not light fires in the middle of the night when you're being chased by wraiths, nevermind the context to understand how a cellphone works isn't some esoteric supernatural quirk of the universe.

Horwath said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree. This led me to the idea that Rangers should have a feature that lets them ignore S and V components (but not M, aesthetic). I do hate the amount of Concentration spells, though.

Emberashh said:

You should check yourself. I match the tone of people I speak to, which is a flaw I admit. I even do it in real life and it makes the fact that I mostly worked customer service really damn hard.

But ultimately, I'm never the one whose bringing it first. (Most of the time anyway. Not like I've never run my mouth before lmao)

And certainly not here, where I corrected the misconception about LOTR and then got dragged into arguments over what is or isn't magic, only for you to come in and tell me to shut up, calling me inane for responding to the people arguing with me, and then acting like I'm the one whose being abrasive.



It is. The internet, electricity, cell phones, etc are are explainable and don't actually resemble magic at all, unless of course you're a Hobbit who doesn't even have the sense to not light fires in the middle of the night when you're being chased by wraiths, nevermind the context to understand how a cellphone works isn't some esoteric supernatural quirk of the universe.

Click to expand...

I based my responses to you based off your responses to other people on this forum. Indeed I have read many of your posts, because I often like your content, but I can safely say that from my perspective you are usually the one who keeps conflicts going, and you get abrasive, and you misread what people say to you, and you insist that what your read of what people say is objectively true while downplaying any explanation offered by them. That's why I haven't offered an expalnation yet, because I know you don't care, because I know its all about how you perceive the situation and nothing else.

It's ok though, I still like your content, so no hard feelings man. Your "Lore Bonus" idea was genius. Keep it up!

Shardstone said:

because I know you don't care

Click to expand...

Or perhaps I'm just not easily convinced, especially when one is deliberately refusing to have a conversation. It surely does occur to you that may be I actually like discussing these things and would rather see people try harder rather than circling the drain just reiterating the same points back at me like they'll somehow be more convincing if rephrased. If people don't like that, they should feel free to just not start trying to argue with me. Nobody has a right to tell me I can't respond to people who do, however.

And anyway, Horwath has the right of it, and as I noted, the issue goes to the heart of the question of this topic. When you eliminate that DND idiosyncrasy you have to address how you depict Martials, otherwise you can't justify the class. Nor, really, any of them at all, sans a return to the generic Fighting Man to convey all these different fantasies with dreadful, unthematic mechanics.

Emberashh said:

Or perhaps I'm just not easily convinced, especially when one is deliberately refusing to have a conversation. It surely does occur to you that may be I actually like discussing these things and would rather see people try harder rather than circling the drain just reiterating the same points back at me like they'll somehow be more convincing if rephrased. If people don't like that, they should feel free to just not start trying to argue with me. Nobody has a right to tell me I can't respond to people who do, however.

And anyway, Horwath has the right of it, and as I noted, the issue goes to the heart of the question of this topic. When you eliminate that DND idiosyncrasy you have to address how you depict Martials, otherwise you can't justify the class. Nor, really, any of them at all, sans a return to the generic Fighting Man to convey all these different fantasies with dreadful, unthematic mechanics.

Click to expand...

I do agree the Martial classes do have boring mechanics in 2014! They are my least favorite classes, factoring in the huge amount of great 3rd party and homebrew I have access to.

Shardstone said:

I agree. This led me to the idea that Rangers should have a feature that lets them ignore S and V components (but not M, aesthetic). I do hate the amount of Concentration spells, though.

Click to expand...

I do not have anything against Conc mechanic to prevent stacking, but losing it on damage should probably go on some classes.

Shardstone said:

I agree. This led me to the idea that Rangers should have a feature that lets them ignore S and V components (but not M, aesthetic). I do hate the amount of Concentration spells, though.

Click to expand...

Concentration is a bit of an overreaction to the spell stacking of 3E, as a way to cut down on the number of buffs or effects spellcasters could stack, and for this edition, throw bounded accuracy out of whack.

I do wish however, there was a better way to limit stacking but not require concentration to do so. Maybe certain long-term spells being treated as taking an attunement slot or a special "enmagiced" slot? Especially if you could allow for extra slots at the higher levels when players are more experienced with the complexity of a character.

Stormonu said:

Concentration is a bit of an overreaction to the spell stacking of 3E, as a way to cut down on the number of buffs or effects spellcasters could stack, and for this edition, throw bounded accuracy out of whack.

I do wish however, there was a better way to limit stacking but not require concentration to do so. Maybe certain long-term spells being treated as taking an attunement slot or a special "enmagiced" slot? Especially if you could allow for extra slots at the higher levels when players are more experienced with the complexity of a character.

Click to expand...

That attunement slot idea is grand! Stealing it, thanks.