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

mellored

Legend

• May 18, 2024

• #41

bedir than said:

As long as we ignore his magic he had no magic, yes

Click to expand...

"The hands of the King are the hands of a healer, and so shall the rightful king be known". That's not nature magic. It's divine.
And he gets a magic sword (Excalibur) that recognizes him as a king.
And he has high Charisma, boosting the moral of those around him, especially against frightened condition.

How is he not a Paladin?

 

log in or register to remove this ad

mellored

Legend

• May 18, 2024

• #42

MoonSong said:

Yes, but if it takes all of your customization options just to get a generic ranger, it is not much of an option.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't simply drop it from 5e, even the 2024 version. I agree it would be hard to recreate with the current structure.

But in 6e, I could see it redone as a rogue / paladin / druid subclasses. Depending on how much magic you want.

 

E

ECMO3

Hero

• May 18, 2024

• #43

Tonguez said:

can I ask why you think the Ranger needs magic? as it is half the spells on the ranger list could be done with a better Skill system or as basic class abilities (Hunters Mark!)

Click to expand...

For me that is what defines the class and always has, all the way back to 1E. They had some tracking abilities, the ability to use Wizard (magic-user) and Druid spells and bonuses for fighting certain monsters (which in 5E is bonuses for just fighting period).

I don't really care much about skills on a Ranger.

 

bedir than

Full Moon Storyteller

• May 18, 2024

• #44

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".

Click to expand...

Is 5e more magical and mystical than 1975 D&D? Absolutely!
Is the inspiration for what a Ranger is in doubt? No. Not at all.

I forgot the handy link earlier

https://annarchive.com/files/Strv102.pdf

There's no doubt whatsoever that the first Ranger was inspired by the hero that leads a group called Rangers (also Ivan Rodriguez)

 

Shardstone

Hero

• May 18, 2024

• #45

Ranger needs even more customization options. It should be the warlock of martials imo

 

T

TiQuinn

Registered User

• May 18, 2024

• #46

I don’t see any point in cutting classes due to extraneousness. The objective of a game system is not to eliminate everything that has a bit of redundancy. There may be systems that try to do this as a goal but it doesn’t make them superior or more fun to play.

 

S

Senior_WotC_Janitor

Explorer

• May 18, 2024

• #47

Mind of tempest said:

explain how it is necessary then?

Click to expand...

Nothing is necessary. Take a dump on the PH and throw it out the window. Maybe you'll feel better.

 

S

Senior_WotC_Janitor

Explorer

• May 18, 2024

• #48

Insulting other members

Tonguez said:

The Rogue Scout is a much better Ranger than the entirely unnecessary Ranger class

and even though people will point at Aragorn as the inspiration, the Ranger class doesnt look much like that either

Click to expand...

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

 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way

• May 18, 2024

• #49

It's not necessary.

Neither is any other class.

Your standard is one that would result in a classless game, because no class is necessary. Full stop.

The actually meaningful questions to ask are:

• Is the ranger class useful? Does it fill a player desire or interest?
• What archetypes can be found in the ranger? Does it bring them to life?
• What mechanics does the ranger use? Are they well-made for the purpose they serve?

Those are actually worth answering. And I'm afraid you'll find that the answers are not to your liking--because they indicate the ranger very much has a place in D&D, for a variety of reasons.

 

Clint_L

Legend

• May 18, 2024

• #50

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

Even though Aragorn is a ranger on Middle Earth, if I was trying to build him in 5e I would definitely be using a fighter chassis, not a rogue one or a ranger one. Robin Hood is easy to achieve with a rogue build already.