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

CreamCloud0 · May 18, 2024

grimmgoose said:
That might have been the case in the 70s, but near 50 years later, 5E's ranger is not even in the same ballpark as Aragorn. The only similarity is the title "ranger".

i'd disagree, the execution of the themes might differ to how they were originally represented and additional sources of influence to the idea of 'ranger' might've been added but the core concepts aragorn brought to the table are still recognisable and shine through strong.

grimmgoose · May 18, 2024

CreamCloud0 said:
i'd disagree, the execution of the themes might differ to how they were originally represented and additional sources of influence to the idea of 'ranger' might've been added but the core concepts aragorn brought to the table are still recognisable and shine through strong.

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.

overgeeked · May 18, 2024

Shades of Eternity said:
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?

Nope. Because, as you say, the rogue and ranger are the same class with different specializations. Call them both scouts. The rogue is the dungeon/city scout. The ranger is the wilderness scout. If at least they'd split them between melee-focused rogue and ranged-focused ranger they could differentiate them. But nope. They're the same with fractionally different trappings.

ezo · May 18, 2024

overgeeked said:
Nope. Because, as you say, the rogue and ranger are the same class with different specializations. Call them both scouts. The rogue is the dungeon/city scout. The ranger is the wilderness scout. If at least they'd split them between melee-focused rogue and ranged-focused ranger they could differentiate them. But nope. They're the same with fractionally different trappings.

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...

Clint_L · May 18, 2024

grimmgoose said:
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.

Well, MMORPGs are all based more on D&D than on Tolkien. And then 4e took a lot of ideas from MMORPGs, some of which were retained for 5e, so it's become kind of a feedback loop.

To be honest, I can't recall playing a single RPG in any media that feels much like Tolkien, aside from the setting. And I started with MERPS in the early 80s. Tolkien's narrative is really hard to capture via consistent rules that promote class balance, etc. For example, how do you account for a wizard who has to hide in a tree from goblins, but can also go toe to toe with a Balrog?

Clint_L · May 18, 2024

ezo said:
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...

I don't like this. 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 have fewer classes but more subclasses.

grimmgoose · May 18, 2024

Clint_L said:
Well, MMORPGs are all based more on D&D than on Tolkien. And then 4e took a lot of ideas from MMORPGs, some of which were retained for 5e, so it's become kind of a feedback loop.

To be honest, I can't recall playing a single RPG in any media that feels much like Tolkien, aside from the setting. And I started with MERPS in the early 80s. Tolkien's narrative is really hard to capture via consistent rules that promote class balance, etc. For example, how do you account for a wizard who has to hide in a tree from goblins, but can also go toe to toe with a Balrog?

I did a Reroll (see: Film Reroll) of LOTR in Savage Worlds, and it fit the bill better than 5E would've, I imagine.

Aside from being more cinematic, SW let me turn the dials on the level of magic in the world, which is the biggest problem (IMO) with 5E feeling like LOTR. The player playing Gandalf had spells, but they were rare, powerful, and hardly used.

Balance felt great, and the swinginess of the SW dice meant that, yes - a goblin was just as deadly as a Balrog

Krachek · May 18, 2024

Veteran players don’t need class at all to implement a strong character concept.
But 5ed aim for new comer into the game.

mellored · May 18, 2024

Clint_L said:
To me, they feel like they should be a rogue subclass, just like sorcerers should be a wizard sub-class, druids should be a cleric sub-class, and paladins and barbarians should both be fighter sub-classes.

I would keep:
Fighter
Monk
Cleric
Bard
Warlock
Artificer
Rogue
Wizard

I would keep

Martial
Half Caster
Full Caster
Warlock
Psion

Then do a sort of 4e style, where you get a new subclass at higher levels.

Then you get a subclass at level 1 (fighting style or spell list).
A specialization at level 3 (scout, evoker, oath of vengeance).
And a master path at level 14 (harper legend, divine emissary, wizards three).

And you can mix and match them.
I.e. martial / monk / assassin / archlitch.

Micah Sweet · May 18, 2024

Shades of Eternity said:
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?

1. It's a cool fantasy archetype expressible in multiple ways, like many classes.

2. It's been around for a long time and would be jarring for a lot of people, myself and everyone I've ever gamed with included, if it were removed.

3. Fighter is too broad a concept already, and frankly so is rogue.

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

CreamCloud0

One day, I hope to actually play DnD.

grimmgoose

Adventurer

overgeeked

B/X Known World

ezo

I cast invisibility

Clint_L

Legend

Clint_L

Legend

grimmgoose

Adventurer

Krachek

Hero

mellored

Legend

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast

Similar Threads