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

[Dire Bare]

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 haven't read all 9 pages so far, so forgive me if I cover ground already trod.

Is the ranger "necessary"? Well, no. Few of the classes are, really.

The ranger exists because early D&D classes were designed to emulate literary archetypes. The barbarian is Conan, the paladin comes from a Poul Anderson novel, the thief (later rogue) comes from Fritz Leiber's Fafrd and the Grey Mouser stories . . . . the ranger is Strider, Aragorn, the leader of the Rangers of the North.

Of course, that was 50 years ago. The classes have shifted in design and become more broad since then. The 5E ranger has evolved quite a bit from Aragorn.

How necessary are the ranger vs the rogue today? They overlap, I think, but still represent different archetypes. The ranger is a solitary warrior who roams the wilderness dealing with threats to civilization, is a woodsman and a bit of a mystic. The ranger acquired the two weapon fighting style and beast companions at some point. Various subclasses take the ranger in different directions, but the core is still there.

The rogue is urban, sneaky, lives by their wits and charisma, and isn't above breaking the law. The "thief" archetype is still well embodied by the core rogue class, even though its broadened since the White Box days. Again, subclasses take the rogue in different directions, but the core of the class remains thematically intact. IMO.

The scout subclass for rogue covers similar ground as the ranger class. It's almost a spell-less ranger, which is something a lot of fans like. But if we "have" to get rid of one, I'd rather ditch the scout than the ranger. Perhaps because I grew up on both old-school D&D and the Lord of the Rings.

IMO, the key to making any class relevant and "necessary" is to give it a meaningful place in your campaign. The ranger, out of context of the archetype its based on (Aragorn) might just feel unnecessary to some gamers. But if you create your own "Rangers of the North" in your campaign that players can be a part of . . . than the ranger becomes integral. Same with any class or subclass.

If you don't care for the ranger, you can always simply not use it in your campaigns. However, this creates the problem of your next player who wants to play a ranger and gets irritated with you for saying "no" to a core option.

What's the right way to handle it? That varies with the DM, the group, and the campaign. There is no right answer.

But I'm keeping the ranger in my games! I love the class!

 

[Dire Bare]

I disagree. The paragon of Rangers would be either Henrik Lundqvist or Ivan Rodriguez.

It's not about "should", it's about "what is".

The original ranger was created to emulate Aragorn from Lord of the Rings. This is documented fact.

Now, how well the original class did that is certainly up for debate. And the class has evolved considerably over 50 years. And of course you can model your rangers on any historical or literary figure you want to, you don't have to stick with Strider of the Rangers of the North.

 

[ECMO3]

my reading of that is Rangers get tracking skill for the first half of their levels (about a year of game time) and bonus v giants

Then they get use magic device - which was a 10th level Thief ability
And the 6 spells
Plus followers (a bonus every class got)

- This ranger would be better as a Rogue subclass

Sure but there is nothing at all they get that screams Nature Warrior like so many seem to associate with it today, and the magical bits, while coming late, are clearly magical, not mundane.

Also keep in mind the original Ranger was not a class, but a subclass and for the most part they were a fighter, wearing Plate Mail and Swinging a Two-handed sword or one of the 30 Pole Arms the game had.

 

[Clint_L]

It's not about "should", it's about "what is".

The original ranger was created to emulate Aragorn from Lord of the Rings. This is documented fact.

Well, I wouldn't say "emulate." Or if so, they did a terrible job. But there's no doubt Aragorn was the inspiration for having a class called "ranger," just as the hobbits were why we had halflings (who were originally just called hobbits).

 

[DEFCON 1]

The class is the class and is in the Player's Handbook. There's no reason to convince anyone of anything. A person either chooses to use the class or they don't.

 

[Aldarc]

The ranger class is clearly unnecessary because no one can agree what the ranger class should be; ergo, there should be no ranger.

 

[Gorck]

It's not about "should", it's about "what is".

The original ranger was created to emulate Aragorn from Lord of the Rings. This is documented fact.

Now, how well the original class did that is certainly up for debate. And the class has evolved considerably over 50 years. And of course you can model your rangers on any historical or literary figure you want to, you don't have to stick with Strider of the Rangers of the North.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say you aren’t familiar with the two people I mentioned (and I’m guessing you didn’t google them either).

 

[FrogReaver]

While all the comments on what the original ranger was meant to be are interesting they don’t really say anything about why it’s a good addition today.

If the Ranger concept was just magicaless wilderness warrior then a fighter subclass for that would work great! Probably better than a whole separate ranger class.

But once you try to tie nature themed abilities and beast companion together, a fighter subclass cannot hold all that. And definitely not nature theme, beast companion and magic. Now, while 5e’s implementation of the ranger generally isn’t so great - some combination of nature themed warrior, with nature magic and with beast companions is different/interesting enough and won’t fit into any other class via subclasses that it really does need to be a separate class.

Probably a better way to design ranger concepts would have been

1. Make ranger the beast companion + warrior class, adding in magic would be a subclass. Other subclasses could focus on making your beast stronger or you stronger.

2. Make a fighter subclass with a strong nature theme.

3. Make a Druid with a fighty subclass.

I think that covers the various ranger blends people want fairly well.

 

[mellored]

1. Make ranger the beast companion + warrior class, adding in magic would be a subclass. Other subclasses could focus on making your beast stronger or you stronger.

2. Make a fighter subclass with a strong nature theme.

3. Make a Druid with a fighty subclass.

Agreed. That's probably how I would do it too.

Though I would probably go with a Nature, Clockwork, Elemental subclass for the Beastmaster.

And make a Bow Barbarian viable. With Hunters Mark being a Rage. It's already nature themed.

Also, I would move Wild Shape away from the druid, and put it on the Barbarian as a Rage. Druid could still have Animal Form as a spell.

 

[Shardstone]

The ranger class is clearly unnecessary because no one can agree what the ranger class should be; ergo, there should be no ranger.

I probably disagree with most people on most classes and what they should be. Maybe we just shouldn't have RPGs at all anymore since no one can agree to share the same monolithic views! (I know you were being tongue in cheek)