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

[Minigiant]

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

The Rogue Scout sucks at doing actual rangery stuff.

 

[Vaalingrade]

My argument would be that 'necessary' should not be the deciding factor for a class existing, but whether people want it.

 

[Scott Christian]

One can always make a diminishing argument and make it sound rational.

• (Your argument) The ranger doesn't need to exist because we have rogues. Just make the ranger a rogue subclass.
• The rogue doesn't need to exist because we have fighters. Just make a rogue a fighter subclass.
• The paladin doesn't need to exist, just make it a cleric subclass.
• The cleric doesn't need to exist, just make it a fighter subclass.
• The monk doesn't need to exist, just make it a fighter subclass.

In the end, it is about what kind of system you want, not whether it needs to exist.

 

[lynnfredricks]

It all comes down to how you want to slice up the pie. What about looking at the 'pillars' of play as they apply to class: Exploration, Combat & Social?

 

[jerryrice4949]

I don’t know that it is necessary. But the game is poorer without it. Ranger is an iconic fantasy staple. It should definitely be in. Now if you want to argue Warlock and Sorcerer, then you have my attention.

 

[ECMO3]

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?

I really like the current 5E post-TCE Ranger design, it is probably what I play most often. I am not a fan of the new playtest Ranger as it dialed back much of the magic thematics.

In terms of archetype/stereotype Ranger and Rogue may fill a similar role, but the archtype Ranger is not what I generally play as a PC. I play much more of an Arcane Gish with some damage, mobility and out of combat utility and the mechanics (including subclasses) support that very well. I am also using all my feats in tier 1-3 to get more spells generally (and boosting Widsom on the half feats) to lean even further into an Arcane type Character. Just about every Ranger I play has Shadow Touched and the ones that don't have a misty-step like option through a race or subclass have Fey Touched.

I pretty much never play a "one with nature" type character even though some of the Primal Awareness free spells drive you that direction. I treat those spells pretty much as a ribbon, but my character is thematically and mechanically much more "high magic:" that the stereotype.

The current Ranger class because the Chassis and some of the subclasses let you do this very well and that is why I think it is necessary.

 

[mellored]

1 - Aragorn
2 - their inherent magic
3 - Beastmaster.

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.

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.

Don't take the option from those who do.

This however, is a perfectly valid reason to have a ranger.

Not that it has to be a class to be an option.

 

[ECMO3]

And, yes, if ranger were to be folded to some other class, it indeed should be a rogue. A rogue subclass could easily support what little mechanics the wilderness aspects require, and it works well for a mobile and stealthy archer.

My problem with the Rogue is as a class it is not magical enough to fill what I like about the Ranger. You can get some magic options through Rogue subclasses, but all Rangers get spells (lots of them with Primal Awareness), Favored Foe and Nature's Veil and they can get more magical stuff beyond that through their subclasses.

If we want to put it into a subclass of another class I think a Sorcerer works best, although you would be trading some Ranger abilities for spells that cover similar ground. Artificer could work too I think. Paladin and Cleric might work too, but they have a lot of extra baggage they bring to the table.

 

[ECMO3]

Aragorn had neither nature magic nor a beast.

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

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

Dungeons and Dragons is a game. Nothing in it is necessary; it's a frivolity. If you care about what's necessary get off the internet and do something more meaningful than whine about fantasy classes.