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

[Micah Sweet]

This is why I feel classes are an outdated concept. Role that the character focuses on should be the defining "thing".

Scout (choose urban or wild), for example, as well as
Tank/Front-liner
Support Caster
Combat Caster
Infiltrator
and so on...

So what non-D&D fantasy game do you champion, if you don't like classes? GURPS Fantasy? Dungron World? Genisys?

 

[ezo]

I don't like this.

Ok. It isn't for everyone.

This is the MMORPG approach and it promotes homogeneity, in my experience. What actually happens is that you get a few optimized builds and everyone congregates towards them.

I would not know as I have never, once, played an MMORPG.

I think it would really depend on how it is developed, but I can easily imagine a few options for each role, as a specialty (so to say) for that role. For example, "Tanking" is done through either huge hit points and simply taking damage for others, or having great AC so you never get hit. Either method works to accomplish the main task of the role, however part of that role is also stopping attackers from just ignoring you to attack someone else! So, being able to lock-down an opponent is also part of the role and would also have to be developed.

What is the point of being a "Sniper/Ranged Weapon support" role if you cannot effectively escape/evade foes who constantly move to melee you? Your role is to provide that ranged damage, but also to be mobile and elusive.

Some roles will naturally overlap to one degree or another, such as the sniper and scout roles. Those examples were just rattled off of the top of my head, and developing roles which are very distinct to prevent as much overlap as plausible would take real development.

I would have fewer classes but more subclasses.

Me, too, but subclasses would have to be more robust otherwise the homongeneity you dislike would run rampant IMO. Right now, class comprises 80% or so of a character's progression, with subclass being "defining" (in theory) but in many cases lackluster. With fewer classes and more subclasses, class would need to be regulated back to 50-60% (or lower!) and allow subclass to truly develop the rest in order to make the distinction stand out.

 

[ezo]

So what non-D&D fantasy game do you champion, if you don't like classes? GURPS Fantasy? Dungron World? Genisys?

You misunderstand. I am perfectly happy with classes, I just feel they are outdated. The best thing about a class-structured system IMO is that it provides a framework for character growth. In class-less games, like Vampire and Shadowrun, growth is harder to measure in many ways, but is also so open in choice that it can be daunting for new players, especially.

Overall, I like a blended system where initially characters are build following or around an archetype, but quickly allow for open growth without following any structure necessarily. It's fine if you had the archetype "go on" so a player could follow it and not bother with those choices, but leaving it open is nice, too, IME.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You misunderstand. I am perfectly happy with classes, I just feel they are outdated. The best thing about a class-structured system IMO is that it provides a framework for character growth. In class-less games, like Vampire and Shadowrun, growth is harder to measure in many ways, but is also so open in choice that it can be daunting for new players, especially.

Overall, I like a blended system where initially characters are build following or around an archetype, but quickly allow for open growth without following any structure necessarily. It's fine if you had the archetype "go on" so a player could follow it and not bother with those choices, but leaving it open is nice, too, IME.

I could get behind that. Any examples of games that work that way?

 

[mellored]

So what non-D&D fantasy game do you champion, if you don't like classes? GURPS Fantasy? Dungron World? Genisys?

Asheron's Call had the best non-class system IMO. The skills where a combination of attributes.

Swords = Str + Dex + skill points.
Summoning = Con + Wis + skill points.

So you could focus on a single skill, but you would end up being kinda good at secondary stuff, but couldn't both be a fighter and a summoner.
Or something like that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Asheron's Call had the best non-class system IMO. The skills where a combination of attributes.

Swords = Str + Dex + skill points.
Summoning = Con + Wis + skill points.

So you could focus on a single skill, but you would end up being kinda good at secondary stuff, but couldn't both be a fighter and a summoner.
Or something like that.

Is that a video game?

 

[CreamCloud0]

I've had people get into D&D expressly in the desire that, "it'll feel like LOTR!" only to come away disgruntled because it's designed more like World of Warcraft than anything Tolkien wrote (and I'm talking 5E, not 4E).

So I mean, I still feel like outside of the flavor text WOTC writes at the beginning of the class, I don't see much of a similarity.

edit: but I mean, you know, your mileage may vary.

if people get into DnD explicitly for the reason 'it'll feel like LOTR' then how the ranger specifically plays is going to be one issue quite far down the list behind many many others.

 

[mellored]

Is that a video game?

Yes. And old MMO.

The world wasn't that great, and the magic system was terrible, but I liked the class-less skill system.

 

[Morrus]

According to you anyway. And very few people care about what you think.

That was just rude. Was that entirely necessary?

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Ultimately no class is 'needed' apart from fighter, thief, and magic user. So I'm not going to try to argue that ranger is 'needed'. However, ranger is 'desired' by a large amount of DnD players because:

A: It's a very famous and popular fantasy archetype.
B: It has a long history across multiple editions of DnD, all the way back to ADnD.
C: Having ranger as a class can provide a unique set of mechanics to allow a player to theme their character as a skirmishing survivalist who augments their abilities with primal magic.

Even if you did decide that ranger's survival mechanics were better off as feats and skills for any class, you would still end up with a thematic and mechanical gap, as there would no longer be a primal themed half caster, such as the shaman, warden, or seeker.

We've seen what happens when you delete classes people like. There has been a thread asking for a warlord, psion, or swordmage practically every week for the last ten years.