Ranger should be a Rogue or Fighter Subclass. Change my mind.

[Galithar]

I am forever seeing people trying to figure out "what the Ranger is". And I think the problem is that the Ranger isn't really a full class, it's a Subclass.

Rangers are good at tracking and surviving off the land.
Level 3 - One with Nature - You gain proficiency in the Nature and Survival skills. Choose one of these skills and add double your proficiency bonus to checks.

This gives them baked in ability for these skills and expertise in one of them, granted at level 3 instead of one, but such is the drawback of making it a Subclass.

Level 3 - 1/3 caster progression using the current ranger spell list. Wisdom is your casting ability.
You know the spell Speak with Animals and can cast it as a ritual. This does not count against your spells known.

Level 7 - Chosen Enemy (you could still call it favored enemy, I just wanted use a different name for clarity when discussing) Choose one of Abberations, Beasts, Celestials, Fiends, Fey or Monstrosities. You get a bonus equal to half your proficiency bonus (rounded down) to damage rolls against your chosen enemy type. You may choose a second type at level 10 and a third at level 15.

Level 10 - You may cast Speak with Plants once per day without expending a spell slot. And you have advantage on any persuasion, deception, or intimidate checks against beasts and plants.

Level 15 - When you take the Attack action you may cast a cantrip as a bonus action.

Level 18 - Choose one level 4 spell from the Ranger list, it does not count against your soells known and you may cast this spell once per long rest without expending a spell slot.



Okay so I didn't intend to get into the process of actually homebrewing it, but I wanted to give an idea of some of the off the top of my head ideas for what I would give the Subclass. Some of the abilities are on the strong side (level 15 ability) and some are just filler because I had nothing (level 18). But the exact mechanics aren't what I'm worried about right now. The real question is do you think (once balanced properly) this Subclass would see more play then current as written rangers (if it were official of course .. as my Homebrew it will never see play anywhere but my own table :P )

Rangers, especially in 5e to me, just feel like fighters with a little spellcasting and the ability to negate a large portion of the exploration pillar (the part most groups I've seen just ignore any ways, finding food, getting lost, etc). This would buff them in combat and still allow them to feel naturey.

Edit: I've been convinced that it would be slightly better as a Rogue subclass rather than a Fighter subclass. Though I still think either could work (and like Homebrew enough I might make one of each at some point)

[loki_ragnarock]

The fighter is a guy who fights; it's his title, his job, his methodology.

The Ranger is the slightly more martial, slightly less casty bard. He's a jack of all trades. Able to carry himself in a fight. Able to apply his skills to a task. Able to accumulate useful spells to round him out.

If anything, it should be a bard subclass.

But probably, it should just be the Ranger, it's own class, and their abilities should reflect that design space of "generic adventurer" a little better.

[Galithar]

The fighter is a guy who fights; it's his title, his job, his methodology.

The Ranger is the slightly more martial, slightly less casty bard. He's a jack of all trades. Able to carry himself in a fight. Able to apply his skills to a task. Able to accumulate useful spells to round him out.

If anything, it should be a bard subclass.

But probably, it should just be the Ranger, it's own class, and their abilities should reflect that design space of "generic adventurer" a little better.

A Ranger has no where near the casting or skills ability as a Bard and they are FAR more Martial so that's right out.

If you want a Bard with a nature feel you don't need a subclass for it. Just grab Ranger/Druid spells with magical secrets and put expertise in Nature/Survival. A subclass for it there wouldn't add anything.

A Ranger fights too... And so does a wizard and a Bard and a Cleric and a... I could keep going but I think you get my point. The fact that a fighter is only good at fighting is one of the reasons why things like a Ranger as a Subclass would be a boon.

First, you can easily drop beastmaster. It's never been a good idea. Done in a balanced way it feels awful to play and done in a way that makes it fun blows balance right out of the water. Second it gives another 'more then a dumb brute' subclass for fighters. And I get the impression that's what you think they should be, and that's fine. They made the Champion subclass for that.

Generic Adventurer? The only thing that makes the ranger feel generic is that it doesn't have an identity at all. That's the exact thing I'm trying to fix. If you want a Generic Adventurer this doesn't take that away from the identity if the class/subclass. If anything it makes it a little more generic since it's taking the biggest features of a Ranger and slapping them in a fighter. The truly generic class.

[Spore]

Seeing the success of Pathfinder's Magus, I'll just turn this topic on its head and say, the Eldritch Knight should be its own class.

[JellyPooga]

Personally, I'd make it a Rogue subclass. Ranger really shares more with Rogue than Fighter anyway (skills, psuedo-Expertise, hidy-hidy stuff, etc.) and I see no reason why a Ranger requires martial weapon proficiency and/or d10 HD outside of sacred cows.

Hell, while we're at it, if we want to preserve Ranger spellcasting, why not make it Rogue subclass with AT casting progression and the Ranger spell list?

Thieves Cant can be substituted for "Ranger Sign" or some other secret Ranger language (change the name of the core ability to Secret Sign, or somesuch, perhaps and make the specific langiage modular).

Sneak Attack is a good "hunter" ability; fits the hunter/sniper mould. Also good for TWF, to preserve that particular sacred cow.

[Galithar]

Seeing the success of Pathfinder's Magus, I'll just turn this topic on its head and say, the Eldritch Knight should be its own class.

It's not really turning on it's head as much as it's just trying to hijack it :P

But I could honestly see the Eldritch Knight as a class if it's own better then a Ranger. Eldritch Knight has an identity. Ranger doesn't.
As you see above the perceived identity of the ranger is "generic adventurer" which is just a nice way of saying it doesn't have one. The Eldritch Knight for example has the identity of an Arcane Gish. Firing spells in between hacking away at the enemy with a sword(axe/hammer). There is a visual of what they are and a general consensus of what kinds of abilities they have. The Ranger on the other hand is some bastard of a Druid a Rogue and a Fighter. They aren't particularly the best at anything so they don't feel good to play. You want nature skills to be good? Bard or Rogue. You want to be a good Archer? Fighter Rogue or Bard (if you really commit everything to it.) You want to be a decent spell caster and both of the previous? Bard.
The only thing a Ranger is the best at is negating a big chunk of the exploration pillar at tables that actually use that part. If your table doesn't track rations and travel time as important things to begin with then the ranger is best at nothing.


Personally, I'd make it a Rogue subclass. Ranger really shares more with Rogue than Fighter anyway (skills, psuedo-Expertise, hidy-hidy stuff, etc.) and I see no reason why a Ranger requires martial weapon proficiency and/or d10 HD outside of sacred cows.

Hell, while we're at it, if we want to preserve Ranger spellcasting, why not make it Rogue subclass with AT casting progression and the Ranger spell list?

Thieves Cant can be substituted for "Ranger Sign" or some other secret Ranger language (change the name of the core ability to Secret Sign, or somesuch, perhaps and make the specific langiage modular).

Sneak Attack is a good "hunter" ability; fits the hunter/sniper mould. Also good for TWF, to preserve that particular sacred cow.


I could see that too, but I personally think they have more in common with Fighters. There are some things that don't work well with fighter though and would be better on a rogue. A Ranger doesn't need heavy armor or two handed weapons for example.

I just envisioned them as a fighter when I first thought to make them a subclass. The 'thief/assassin' image I get even I think of a rogue just doesn't mesh well with the Ranger to ne.

[JellyPooga]

I could see that too, but I personally think they have more in common with Fighters. There are some things that don't work well with fighter though and would be better on a rogue. A Ranger doesn't need heavy armor or two handed weapons for example.

I just envisioned them as a fighter when I first thought to make them a subclass. The 'thief/assassin' image I get even I think of a rogue just doesn't mesh well with the Ranger to ne.

The question is "What is a Ranger?"

Are they defined by their skills as a woodsman or their combat prowess?

Is being a Ranger more about how they're a stand-up brawler or a cunning skirmisher?

Connection to nature? As suggested, half-or-third-caster progression and the Ranger spell list accomodates that, either way.

The Rogue as a criminal , thief or assassin is a stereotype as banal as the White Knight Paladin or Pointy Hatted Wizard. Subclasses make all the difference. If Ranger was a Rogue subclass, it would not be out of place and there are many aspects beyond those I mentioned before that just make sense. Take Senak Attack; the archetypical Ranger is a hunter and as such shoukd be able to, you know, hunt. Sneak Attack as a (typically) ambush/advantage based ability...just fits.

There's no reason why a Ranger subclass of Rogue couldn't add more martial abilities; Fighting Style, martial weapon proficiencies, etc. if you want. One idea might be something akin to the Champions increased crit range, but for Favoured Enemies only (careful balance might be required, however).

[Galithar]

The question is "What is a Ranger?"

Are they defined by their skills as a woodsman or their combat prowess?

Is being a Ranger more about how they're a stand-up brawler or a cunning skirmisher?

Connection to nature? As suggested, half-or-third-caster progression and the Ranger spell list accomodates that, either way.

The Rogue as a criminal , thief or assassin is a stereotype as banal as the White Knight Paladin or Pointy Hatted Wizard. Subclasses make all the difference. If Ranger was a Rogue subclass, it would not be out of place and there are many aspects beyond those I mentioned before that just make sense. Take Senak Attack; the archetypical Ranger is a hunter and as such shoukd be able to, you know, hunt. Sneak Attack as a (typically) ambush/advantage based ability...just fits.

There's no reason why a Ranger subclass of Rogue couldn't add more martial abilities; Fighting Style, martial weapon proficiencies, etc. if you want. One idea might be something akin to the Champions increased crit range, but for Favoured Enemies only (careful balance might be required, however).

Yes the thief/assassin is indeed a stereotype, but it is what gives a class it's identity. The 'white Knight' Paladin didn't used to be a sterotype. It was actually a requirement (Lawful Good alignment). But I do agree with most of what you're saying.

I can still see it going for either one though. But you did indeed change my mind from "It should be a fighter subclass" to "It should be a Rogue or maybe Fighter Subclass"

[Spore]

But I could honestly see the Eldritch Knight as a class if it's own better then a Ranger. Eldritch Knight has an identity. Ranger doesn't.


I disagree. More often than not, Rangers - in other RPGs - are archery or physical range combat specialists.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Ranger could be a Rogue or Fighter subclass, just like Bard could be a Rogue or Sorcerer subclass and Paladin could be a Cleric or Fighter subclass. Not to mention that Barbarian and Monk could be Fighter subclasses, Druid could be a Cleric subclass, and Warlock could be a Wizard subclass.
But Bard, Paladin, and Ranger all have archetypes associated with them that are common, diverse, and powerful enough that they deserve their own classes with their own subclasses and 20 levels of their own (hopefully) unique mechanics to express what A Ranger or what-have-you is.

This is all a value judgement, of course. If you wanted, you could make all classes in D&D subclasses of a few generic classes. 3.5 and Pathfinder have optional rules that allow basically that, and such rules would be an even better fit for 5e, with its modular normal classes. But if I wanted to play a game where different archetypes were portrayed by choosing different options in a vague class framework, I'd ditch the framework entirely and play GURPS. Classes are something you should embrace or reject; going somewhere in the middle isn't going to help anyone make a better game.

[Galithar]

I disagree. More often than not, Rangers - in other RPGs - are archery or physical range combat specialists.

But in D&D they are not. I'm not saying that all Rangers every where in every game should be fighters. I'm saying the mechanics of a Ranger in D&D are generally seen as not fun and lacking identity. The Ranger is not an Archery specialist in D&D. Fighters are far superior at that. So if you want to MAKE them that all the more reason to fold them in the Fighter Chassis.

Maybe if you want to focus on the ranged combat they could get a small boost to using a bow on top of the already fantastic for it Fighter Chassis. At level 3 once per short rest you may add a bonus equal to your Fighter level to a damage roll with a ranged weapon. Or if you want to go a little more power heavy and potentially unbalance them, whenever you take the attack action and make a ranged attack you may make another ranged attack as a bonus action. Basically let's them get the best part of Xbow Expert, but with any ranged weapon. You'd need to take something away to give this much power though I think.
Now the Ranger would truly be the king of ranged combat.

The point is that as written they don't feel like they have any identity. Does the word Ranger have that identity in other systems? Sure. But they aren't D&D 5e in which they are sorely lacking for a good identity and solid mechanics THAT FEEL GOOD TO PLAY. Now I understand that last bit is subjective, but look at statistics on least played, least liked, least powerful class and the Ranger is usually a run away for being the most generally disliked/least played etc class. Saying they're experts in ranged combat in X other system doesn't change that. Removing them and adding the bits that people actually DO enjoy about them onto a fighter or rogue will make the concept more appealing to D&D players.



Ranger could be a Rogue or Fighter subclass, just like Bard could be a Rogue or Sorcerer subclass and Paladin could be a Cleric or Fighter subclass. Not to mention that Barbarian and Monk could be Fighter subclasses, Druid could be a Cleric subclass, and Warlock could be a Wizard subclass.
But Bard, Paladin, and Ranger all have archetypes associated with them that are common, diverse, and powerful enough that they deserve their own classes with their own subclasses and 20 levels of their own (hopefully) unique mechanics to express what A Ranger or what-have-you is.

This is all a value judgement, of course. If you wanted, you could make all classes in D&D subclasses of a few generic classes. 3.5 and Pathfinder have optional rules that allow basically that, and such rules would be an even better fit for 5e, with its modular normal classes. But if I wanted to play a game where different archetypes were portrayed by choosing different options in a vague class framework, I'd ditch the framework entirely and play GURPS. Classes are something you should embrace or reject; going somewhere in the middle isn't going to help anyone make a better game.


The thing is that the Ranger, as written in 5e, is NOT powerful and diverse enough to make people want to play it. There is a reason it's constantly at the bottom of all metrics. There's a REASON so many people don't like them and they have been rewritten in UA. What is so unique about a Ranger that means it needs it's own class? They don't have anything! Favored enemy/terrain? Easily a subclass feature that would probably feel better being added to an already good class. Spellcasting? That's not unique. The problem with them is that they DON'T have that unique thing. If they did I couldn't just fold them into a subclass.

Paladins have Smite. Put that on an already powerful class and you have broken (or as broken as 5e gets. See Sorcadins) They also have Auras.
Bards have inspiration and Jack of All Trades and Magical secrets. They have something unique and powerful.
Rangers just don't have anything like that.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Personally, I'd make it a Rogue subclass. Ranger really shares more with Rogue than Fighter anyway (skills, psuedo-Expertise, hidy-hidy stuff, etc.) and I see no reason why a Ranger requires martial weapon proficiency and/or d10 HD outside of sacred cows.
Aragorn/Strider is one of the classic Ranger characters, and he's a warrior. Another is Drizzt Do'Urden, and he is as well. Both of them use martial weapons (longswords, longbows, and scimitars).



But I could honestly see the Eldritch Knight as a class if it's own better then a Ranger. Eldritch Knight has an identity. Ranger doesn't.
As you see above the perceived identity of the ranger is "generic adventurer" which is just a nice way of saying it doesn't have one.
What are you talking about?
The Ranger is a hunter. The Ranger is a warrior and a woodsman. The Ranger is skilled in woodcraft, in navigating and exploiting the natural world; they are also skilled at combat, in bringing down whatever foes they seek.
If you want to pick on a class for not having an identity, pick the Fighter. They fight stuff. Fighter isn't so much an archetype or identity as it is a skillset shared between several different archetypes which are apparently hard to make mechanically distinct.



Sneak attack fits rangers.
Eh...it doesn't not fit, the way it would not-fit for a wizard or a barbarian, but it's not a perfect fit. Certainly, the other rogue abilities (aside from Expertise) aren't. Rangers use stealth and trickery, but they aren't reliant on it the way rogues are. At the end of the day, Rogues are sneaky and slippery at their core, and you can't just bolt on a few combat abilities and call it a warrior. Especially if you're leaving space for all the nature-related abilities you need to make the subclass feel like a "ranger" and not just a "thug".
There's absolutely room for a subclass (of either Rogue or Ranger) that straddles the line between Grey Rat and Drizzt, but you shouldn't cram the entire Ranger archetype into that subclass. There's just too much in there.



But in D&D they are not. I'm not saying that all Rangers every where in every game should be fighters. I'm saying the mechanics of a Ranger in D&D are generally seen as not fun and lacking identity.
...
The thing is that the Ranger, as written in 5e, is NOT powerful and diverse enough to make people want to play it. There is a reason it's constantly at the bottom of all metrics. There's a REASON so many people don't like them and they have been rewritten in UA.
I'm not saying the 5e Ranger is well-written. I'm saying a Ranger should exist as its own class, that the archetype is established and broad enough that it doesn't fit into a subclass.
Ranger shouldn't be a Rogue or Fighter subclass. Ranger should just be rewritten.

[Galithar]

Aragorn/Strider is one of the classic Ranger characters, and he's a warrior. Another is Drizzt Do'Urden, and he is as well. Both of them use martial weapons (longswords, longbows, and scimitars).



What are you talking about?
The Ranger is a hunter. The Ranger is a warrior and a woodsman. The Ranger is skilled in woodcraft, in navigating and exploiting the natural world; they are also skilled at combat, in bringing down whatever foes they seek.
If you want to pick on a class for not having an identity, pick the Fighter. They fight stuff. Fighter isn't so much an archetype or identity as it is a skillset shared between several different archetypes which are apparently hard to make mechanically distinct.



Eh...it doesn't not fit, the way it would not-fit for a wizard or a barbarian, but it's not a perfect fit. Certainly, the other rogue abilities (aside from Expertise) aren't. Rangers use stealth and trickery, but they aren't reliant on it the way rogues are. At the end of the day, Rogues are sneaky and slippery at their core, and you can't just bolt on a few combat abilities and call it a warrior. Especially if you're leaving space for all the nature-related abilities you need to make the subclass feel like a "ranger" and not just a "thug".
There's absolutely room for a subclass (of either Rogue or Ranger) that straddles the line between Grey Rat and Drizzt, but you shouldn't cram the entire Ranger archetype into that subclass. There's just too much in there.



I'm not saying the 5e Ranger is well-written. I'm saying a Ranger should exist as its own class, that the archetype is established and broad enough that it doesn't fit into a subclass.
Ranger shouldn't be a Rogue or Fighter subclass. Ranger should just be rewritten.

The Ranger is a Woodsman that fights. That's your description of their identity. That is EXACTLY why they should be a Fighter subclass. They are a fighter with a few skills. D&D gives them Magic though your first example (Aragorn) doesn't use any. A Rangers identity is being a good fighter that is at home in nature. That is best represented in a fighter subclass because their is nothing unique about it.

What is there so much of that it doesn't fit in a subclass? There isn't anything more to a Ranger other than a fighting woodsman.

[Hail Tempus]

The Ranger is a Woodsman that fights. That's your description of their identity. That is EXACTLY why they should be a Fighter subclass. They are a fighter with a few skills. D&D gives them Magic though your first example (Aragorn) doesn't use any. A Rangers identity is being a good fighter that is at home in nature. That is best represented in a fighter subclass because their is nothing unique about it.

What is there so much of that it doesn't fit in a subclass? There isn't anything more to a Ranger other than a fighting woodsman.So, which of the ranger subclasses would you turn into a fighter subclass? Would every ranger have to be a Beastmaster?

Your complaint seems to be that, as written, the ranger is a pretty meh class. That’s not an unreasonable position. But, turning it into one subclass of the fighter doesn’t solve that problem.

If someone wants to play a woodsy fighter, they can. But, that’s different from the historic role of the ranger in D&D.

[Morty]

I agree and disagree. Rangers can't stand on their own two feet as a class and never could, that much is true. But I don't think they'd fit as a fighter subclass either... simply because the fighter is a bad class as well, just in the opposite direction, as it were.

[Galithar]

So, which of the ranger subclasses would you turn into a fighter subclass? Would every ranger have to be a Beastmaster?

Your complaint seems to be that, as written, the ranger is a pretty meh class. That’s not an unreasonable position. But, turning it into one subclass of the fighter doesn’t solve that problem.

If someone wants to play a woodsy fighter, they can. But, that’s different from the historic role of the ranger in D&D.

You don't make a subclass into the subclass. I personally would drop beastmaster. As I stated in an eariler post, when balanced it's not fun and therefore when fun it's not balanced.

What important identity needs to be preserved in the subclasses? Beastmaster would be cool if they actually worked in play, but I've never seen a group that was happy about a beastmaster Ranger. Either the player didn't like the class or the group didn't like that the Ranger had essentially two characters (revised ranger).

Gloomstalker? That's your sneaky Ranger. It's the Rogue subclass one.

The Fighter would be a combo of Hunter and Monster Slayer.

I'd drop Horizon Walker also though I might give some of it's abilities to the Eldritch Knight in lieu of some of their less useful abilities. It's a more Arcane subclass and doesn't mesh as well with the others from a narrative viewpoint. Though it is actually probably my favorite Ranger subclass. Maybe drop a few of it's abilities into the Rogue subclass though. It would depend on if there was room in the class after it was made to feel appropriately rangery or not.

[JellyPooga]

Aragorn/Strider is one of the classic Ranger characters, and he's a warrior. Another is Drizzt Do'Urden, and he is as well. Both of them use martial weapons (longswords, longbows, and scimitars).

Fun fact. Aragorn was introduced to the party as the shady guy in the corner of the tavern. To the common folk he was the outsider, the "one we don't trust"...aka the rogue. He was the OG "Rogue with a dark and edgy backstory", that just so happened to be that he was the King of Gondor.

As for longswords and scimitars...well, Rogues are proficient with the former and a subclass could grant profiency with the latter. It could also allow Sneak Attack with longswords, giving relevance to the profiency.

Again, I'll ask the question of what defines a Ranger; is it their proficiency at combat, or is ot their proficiency at exploration? I'd argue it's the latter and that being the case, Rogue is a better fit, assuming we're to make it a subclass at all.

[Galithar]

Fun fact. Aragorn was introduced to the party as the shady guy in the corner of the tavern. To the common folk he was the outsider, the "one we don't trust"...aka the rogue. He was the OG "Rogue with a dark and edgy backstory", that just so happened to be that he was the King of Gondor.

As for longswords and scimitars...well, Rogues are proficient with the former and a subclass could grant profiency with the latter. It could also allow Sneak Attack with longswords, giving relevance to the profiency.

Again, I'll ask the question of what defines a Ranger; is it their proficiency at combat, or is ot their proficiency at exploration? I'd argue it's the latter and that being the case, Rogue is a better fit, assuming we're to make it a subclass at all.

First, Strider is basically just Aragorn going Incognito. I don't think that should be the scene you make a basis off of. Aragorn is an incredible swordsman and knowledgeable of the land around him (using herbs to keep Frodo alive until they get him to the Elves and tracking the Uruk-Hai to try to save Merri and Pippin). Which to me is best represented by a fighter with a few nature themed features like Nature and Survival proficiency. Although to be honest if I was going to build Aragorn in D&D I'd probably make him a Battlemaster Fighter with Commanders Strike and dip Rogue just for Nature and Survival Expertise. That's far more representative of his skill set then any form of Ranger ever could be.

[Vorpalchicken]

I think the Ranger word work well as a fighter subclass. We already have the Rogue Scout, and that's fine if you want to go that direction- and I feel it doesn't need any additional work. So I'll just discuss the Fighter subclass idea.

The best reason to roll the Ranger into fighter is so the ranger doesn't outfight the fighter. In past editions Rangers have been a sort of superior fighter- the fighter having very little beyond it's simplicity to compete with it. In other editions- this one included, Rangers have been weaker- probably as a reaction to the overpowered version in the previous edition. So making the Ranger a Fighter again at least tempers the Ranger-Fighter arms race.

A sort of Eldritch Knight style chassis sounds fine to me. The ranger can also be given options like a Hunter Ranger to choose different features- an animal companion (of similar power to the current Beast Hunter) is a fairly modest feature and could be on a par with an alternative choice of having, say, a small damage bonus to certain enemies. (All humanoids is too broad but maybe the classic list of goblinoids, giants and trolls wouldn't be)

The spell selection would be Ranger spells, excluding of course 5th level Ranger spells- but those are all pretty disappointing and I don't feel would be greatly missed. Even Swift Quiver is pretty mediocre with it's limitations and having more Fighter attacks should more than make up for its loss.

So I'd probably have something like:
Level 3 Features- Spellcasting (1/3 caster- Ranger Spells. No cantrips), Natural Explorer (Advantage on Wisdom and Intelligence based checks pertaining to (any) natural environment)
-- edit. Could allow Druid cantrips if this is a cardinal rule of 1/3 casters but this would make the Ranger a fair bit stronger, especially with Guidance.

Level 7 Feature- Choice of Animal Companion (I say similar to PHB version but with it's own action) or Favoured Enemy Damage Bonus (maybe 1d6?)

Level 10 Feature- Fleet of Foot (ignore difficult terrain, dash as a bonus action)

Level 15 feature- Vanish (Hide with bonus action, can't normally be tracked)

Level 18 feature- Choice of Evasion or Uncanny Dodge or Foe Slayer

I think something like this would capture the Ranger and not overshadow the other Fighter Archetypes.

I'm sorta OK with the old PHB Ranger too though..

[JellyPooga]

First, Strider is basically just Aragorn going Incognito. I don't think that should be the scene you make a basis off of. Aragorn is an incredible swordsman and knowledgeable of the land around him (using herbs to keep Frodo alive until they get him to the Elves and tracking the Uruk-Hai to try to save Merri and Pippin). Which to me is best represented by a fighter with a few nature themed features like Nature and Survival proficiency. Although to be honest if I was going to build Aragorn in D&D I'd probably make him a Battlemaster Fighter with Commanders Strike and dip Rogue just for Nature and Survival Expertise. That's far more representative of his skill set then any form of Ranger ever could be.

Aragorn aside, take a look at the core features of the Ranger and what sets it aside from other classes. Is it fighting? No. Is it exploration? Yes. Exploration is based in skill checks. What's a Rogue good at? Skill checks. Deduction; if Ranger were to be a subclass, would it be a Fighter with a couple of skills tacked on, or a Rogue with some extra combat tacked on?

It comes down to opinion, of course, but for me if I want to build a Ranger style character, I always head for Rogue with an appropriate Background (e.g. Outlander), because for me a Ranger is about being a woodsman before a combat guy, a dude who can guide you through the woods, tame animals and find you food, who knows the secrets of both flora and fauna, which mushrooms will harm and which herbs will heal...and Rogue (as written) does that better than the Ranger class does, let alone a Fighter with a couple of concilliatory skill proficiencies. A Ranger should be at his best doing the exploration thing; it's what makes him a Ranger as opposed to anything else. What, if nothing else, is Expertise in Survival and Nature? It's being the best at those things.

Hell, Ranger (as written) doesn't get heavy armour, so adding medium armour proficiency to Rogue is easier than taking ot away from a Fighter.

[gkathellar]

I see no reason why both the fighter and the rogue couldn't both have discrete nature focused/druid-lite subclasses to accommodate both the skillful and fighting man interpretations of the ranger.

[Bjarkmundur]

I see no reason why both the fighter and the rogue couldn't both have discrete nature focused/druid-lite subclasses to accommodate both the skillful and fighting man interpretations of the ranger.

Can't argue with this thread, and I agree. If I get a player who wants to ranger, I'll ask "the skill-y sneak-y ranger or the tough fighting ranger", and then make either a rogue or fighter for him.

If he REALLY wants something more, I'll give him one of the homebrewed rangers that have multiple abilities using a single resource. I think those takes on the ranger do a good job and give the player a lot of freedom on which of the abilities to use primarily. That way you can keep the identity crisis of the ranger, but leave it in the hands of the player to spend the resource on what he thinks is the iconic ranger trait.

[Dork_Forge]

Rangers have a discrete identity in fantasy, they're the men that live in the wilds patrolling the edges of civilisation to keep them safe. Could you build something out of another class that represents that? Sure, but you can do the same with other classes, it doesn't detract from the fact that identity is there. The 5e Ranger isn't well done at all (personally I'm a fan of the Revised Ranger) but it directly as a class addresses that identity rather than trying to fit it by assigning skills to certain places. Take their half casting for example, neither Rogue nor Fighter have anything in the main chassis to address that (and if you make a third caster sublass then there wouldn't really be any room left in the features to address the identity...).

You may not like how the PHB version is written, but your argument is essentially along the lines of: Paladin should be a Fighter/Cleric subclass! Yes, it could be... But like other have said there's enough there that warrants a full representation in the game. The Ranger is the same way, if you reduce it to a subclass you end up with a Ranger Flavored Rogue or Fighter not a full Ranger with their own specialty.

[Tanarii]

Agreed. Rangers and Paladins should be a Fighter subclass. Assassins should be a Thief subclass. Druids should be a Cleric sub-class. And Bards should have to be multiclass Fighter/Thief first then start taking Bard levels, which should use Druid spell casting.

[TheUser]

I had a thread about this too!

Here's my ranger as a fighter subclass:

https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/HJWcMSZad4

[Kane0]

I am forever seeing people trying to figure out "what the Ranger is". And I think the problem is that the Ranger isn't really a full class, it's a Subclass.

Rangers are good at tracking and surviving off the land.
Level 3 - One with Nature - You gain proficiency in the Nature and Survival skills. Choose one of these skills and add double your proficiency bonus to checks.

This gives them baked in ability for these skills and expertise in one of them, granted at level 3 instead of one, but such is the drawback of making it a Subclass.

Level 3 - 1/3 caster progression using the current ranger spell list. Wisdom is your casting ability.
You know the spell Speak with Animals and can cast it as a ritual. This does not count against your spells known.

Level 7 - Chosen Enemy (you could still call it favored enemy, I just wanted use a different name for clarity when discussing) Choose one of Abberations, Beasts, Celestials, Fiends, Fey or Monstrosities. You get a bonus equal to half your proficiency bonus (rounded down) to damage rolls against your chosen enemy type. You may choose a second type at level 10 and a third at level 15.

Level 10 - You may cast Speak with Plants once per day without expending a spell slot. And you have advantage on any persuasion, deception, or intimidate checks against beasts and plants.

Level 15 - When you take the Attack action you may cast a cantrip as a bonus action.

Level 18 - Choose one level 4 spell from the Ranger list, it does not count against your spells known and you may cast this spell once per long rest without expending a spell slot.


You could most definitely split the aspects of ranger into multiple subclasses (the scout rogue, the ancients pally, the feylock, a new bladesinger counterpart for the druid, etc) but what you can't do is get it all in one package. Your ranger for example, can you fit in the animal companion? Stealthy ambushes? Bonuses to senses? Reading thy enemy?

You can take parts of the ranger but you will always have to leave bits behind. Bits that you don't consider important or core to their 'identity' but others do. The same problem applies to making the paladin or barbarian a fighter subclass, or the druid a cleric subclass.

[Galithar]

You could most definitely split the aspects of ranger into multiple subclasses (the scout rogue, the ancients pally, the feylock, a new bladesinger counterpart for the druid, etc) but what you can't do is get it all in one package. Your ranger for example, can you fit in the animal companion? Stealthy ambushes? Bonuses to senses? Reading thy enemy?

You can take parts of the ranger but you will always have to leave bits behind. Bits that you don't consider important or core to their 'identity' but others do. The same problem applies to making the paladin or barbarian a fighter subclass, or the druid a cleric subclass.

I'll address this tonight and some others tomorrow.

Animal Companion - As I have repeatedly said never works in practice. But if you must have it it's easy to add in. Level 3 when you get spell casting you also choose an animal Companion. It has its own turn and can never use multiattack even if it's stat block says it does. A small list of creatures that are relatively weak. It's going to be a decent power boost on levels 3 and 4 but after 5 will fall off. It's not as good a scout as a familiar or a wildshape and it's combat potential will drop off. Done.

Stealthy ambushes? Using the rogue chassis you have sneak attack and proficiency in sneak. On a fighter add stealth proficiency and mayyybe give them a slight damage boost on the first attack against a surprised enemy. Maybe a d8? Check.

Bonuses to senses. Something like at level 7 you can detect creatures within [random distance] wisdom modifier times per long rest. Done.

Reading the enemy? Wouldn't that be part of a favored enemy feature? I already included that in my super rough made it up as I went draft in my first post.

But honestly other than the animal Companion you basically described an inquisitive Rogue.

The reason I'm 'leaving bits behind' is because none of those things are actually what makes a Ranger. The ONLY thing anyone has said that is 'Ranger exclusive' is that they have nature and exploration skills. And those are very easy to graft onto a Fighter or Rogue. Every other part of what a Ranger is always comes down to characterization or isn't unique to them.

They use bows... Not the only ones. Not even the best, but could easily be made the best on a fighter chassis.
They are stealthy... So are rogues, and Dex based fighters can be too. They certainly aren't the best at this, but give them double proficiency bonus when hiding in natural terrain and they get better then most.
They have keen senses... Well as a Wisdom based caster that's kind of implied by the rules and it's easy to add a 'detect all the surprises' ability if you think that's what they need. Or simply give them advantage on perception checks to notice something watching them (which would be a passive check so a always on +5 to avoid ambushes)

So what is it that makes a Ranger? Exploration? As said by others that's best played in game with expertise on those skills. Not the Ranger and Revised Rangers "I get to ignore this list of exploration obstacles... Oh and so does everyone travelling with me"
Ranged Combat? They would get better at this by being part of a class that's already better at it then them.
Animal Companion? Okay, I'll give you that this is almost unique. But it's honestly not much different then a familiar. Give them an enhanced familiar (Like Warlock but different :P maybe give them the attack option and allow small and/or medium beasts instead of tiny)

Ranger really is an archetype of a fighter, though mechanically what they 'should be' shares a lot with rogues. Though it would require refluffing a bit and that's not really a good thing to refluff the main class with the subclass.

The great part about making them a fighter or rogue is that both of those classes are strong. This leaves a lot of room to add the Ranger fluff without making them feel weak. Just avoid abilities that are made obsolete by later class features (Eldritch Knights bonus action attack after casting is mostly outclassed after you get a third attack. Though is still useful on some builds. Notably sword and shield where you actually increase your combat potential with an attack and cantrip instead of 3 attacks with GWM or SS.)

Basically I'm still not seeing what Ranger has that is so unique that it can't be added to a subclass.

[Kane0]

Okay, so what is a ranger to you? What are the mechanical and thematic elements you find important? If you could fix the class to fulfil those requirements, would you still want to remove it in favor of a series of subclasses?

[Sigreid]

Ranger was a fighter subclass. Eventually it became popular enough with enough people wanting to play it that they made it it's own thing in 3.5. It's been its own thing for while now. I doubt they'll change it back in any edition soon.

It did work fine as a fighter subclass, its popularity just outgrew subclass status. Make no mistake about it, from what I see what determines whether something is a class or subclass depends entirely on its popularity.

[Tanarii]

Key components to the ranger, since AD&D:
1) favored enemies (originally giant-class)
2) ambush, anti-ambush, and stealth.
3) tracking
4) spells & special followers. (animal companions originally came from a spell at very high/name level or special followers)

Added in AD&D UA:
5) required woodsman weapon skills (primarily archery & light weapons, the latter resulting in TWF being common)

Added in AD&D wilderness/Dungeoneering survival guides:
6) no weapon proficiencies, with Rangers being good at Wis abilities due to ability score minimums.

The 5e ranger hits on all of these pretty well. They're true to the core D&D ranger identity.

[paladinn]

The ranger started as a fighter subclass, and there it should return. Originally it only had tracking and multiple "favored enemies" (all giants and other humanoids), increased surprise chances and limited spellcasting (MU/cleric, then MU/druid). By 2e it was given more rogue-ish abilities (silence and hiding), 2-weapon fighting and animal handling, and the "favored enemy" thing was nerfed. Spellcasting was limited to nature-oriented divine spells.

Personally I prefer losing the spellcasting, changing the "favored enemies" back to the original Or changing to more of a hunter's mark feature, keeping surprise and hide and animal handling, and possibly incorporating a "danger sense" like the barbarian. IF spellcasting is needed, make it 1/3 casting like the EK, using the druid list.

If done right, ranger could replace the barbarian class; barbarian is a background, not a class, IMO.

[Sigreid]

The ranger started as a fighter subclass, and there it should return. Originally it only had tracking and multiple "favored enemies" (all giants and other humanoids), increased surprise chances and limited spellcasting (MU/cleric, then MU/druid). By 2e it was given more rogue-ish abilities (silence and hiding), 2-weapon fighting and animal handling, and the "favored enemy" thing was nerfed. Spellcasting was limited to nature-oriented divine spells.

Personally I prefer losing the spellcasting, changing the "favored enemies" back to the original Or changing to more of a hunter's mark feature, keeping surprise and hide and animal handling, and possibly incorporating a "danger sense" like the barbarian. IF spellcasting is needed, make it 1/3 casting like the EK, using the druid list.

If done right, ranger could replace the barbarian class; barbarian is a background, not a class, IMO.

Well, barbarian is a slur to be technical about it, having it's foundation in Romans making fun of the way other people's speak. It's literally claiming that they sound like they're just say bar bar bar bar...

That said, I'm kind of amused by all the theory crafting of classes into and out of existence on this board. :D

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The Ranger should be a background and not a class at all.

Their whole "thing" is being an explorer. Sorry, but any class is an explorer, thats just how the game goes.

Their main feature is a ribbon, I can't recall any other class that has their main defining feature as a ribbon!

The Ranger is really close to just being an Outlander type background.

You could also make "ranger" a feat. Make natural explorer and favored enemy as some sort of feat. Slap it on a fighter, rogue, druid, cleric, or whomever else and you got a ranger of different capacities.

[Tanarii]

Their main feature is a ribbon, I can't recall any other class that has their main defining feature as a ribbon!Unless you're actually in your Natural Explorer environment, at which point it's incredibly powerful and useful.

Just the ability to Navigate or Forage or Track without being automatically surprised by ambushes is amazing.

[Tawmis]

I am forever seeing people trying to figure out "what the Ranger is". And I think the problem is that the Ranger isn't really a full class, it's a Subclass.

(And... Snip)


Then why isn't Paladin a Sub-Class of Fighter. Isn't it just a Fighter who has found Religion as a means of fighting? Or it could be a sub-class of Cleric. A cleric who doesn't want to sit back and heal, but wants to punch evil in the face.

Because if you really wanted to, it really breaks down to:

Fighter
Rogue
Wizard
Cleric

Everything else... a sub-class with how you're viewing it. Warlocks and Sorcerers could be a sub-class of Wizards, who get their magic differently, for example.
Bards? Just a sub-class of Rogues, who use performance and charisma rather than Dexterity.
Druid? They're just a Cleric who loves nature and gets their magic from nature.
So on and so on.

I think some "potential sub-classes" are great when broken out, like the Ranger. Because you have someone who is a mix of something else (fighter/druid type), and you can develop other sub-classes beneath it (or schools, colleges, etc., whatever that class calls for at Level 3).

[Arkhios]

Ranger as a class has its place on its own. Hands down.

However, I can see some value in experimenting over an idea to make ranger-ish sub-class for either Fighter or Rogue. Still, I do believe that Fighter isn't the right class for it. A fighter (any subclass) can already do nearly everything an actual ranger does, and arguably even better, at least when it comes to pure combat prowess.

So, if I had to do it, I'd go with Rogue instead. Rogues already have the necessary skills and tools from the class, and arguably ranger-like rogue would prefer to use light armor anyway.

What if this rogue sub-class had the option to use Cunning Action to make another attack with a finesse or ranged weapon if they hit with a weapon attack using the Attack Action on their turn.
I'm aware this would mean that you can't use the Two-Weapon Fighting as is. But, nothing is stopping you to make the other attack with a weapon in your off-hand, and you might even make the initial attack using a one-handed weapon and make the "off-hand" attack with a light weapon (kinda like as if you had the Dual Wielder feat and were dual wielding Rapier and Dagger for flavor), plus you'd add your ability modifier to the attack's damage roll as if you had the Two-Weapon Fighting Style.
This could be their only sub-class feature at 3rd level.

Yes, yes, I know. Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights get spellcasting at that level, but honestly, I don't think this sub-class should have the spellcasting ability. If anything, at the very least, it might get the ability to cast some appropriate spells as rituals, but probably at a later level.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Unless you're actually in your Natural Explorer environment, at which point it's incredibly powerful and useful.

Just the ability to Navigate or Forage or Track without being automatically surprised by ambushes is amazing.

Natural Explorer is never "incredibly powerful". An ability check, first level spell (goodberry), or expertise (Survival) does the trick while giving you so much more.

Natural Explorer is a joke. If you want to forage for food, Outlander doesn't care what environment you're in, as long as it has something to eat/drink, you can keep 5 people going.

Plenty of ways to counter surprises or ambushes, I prefer expertise or class that can focus on wisdom... Maybe grab V Human and a feat.

Natural Explorer is a joke.

[Mordaedil]

Then why isn't Paladin a Sub-Class of Fighter. Isn't it just a Fighter who has found Religion as a means of fighting? Or it could be a sub-class of Cleric. A cleric who doesn't want to sit back and heal, but wants to punch evil in the face.

Because if you really wanted to, it really breaks down to:

Fighter
Rogue
Wizard
Cleric

Everything else... a sub-class with how you're viewing it. Warlocks and Sorcerers could be a sub-class of Wizards, who get their magic differently, for example.
Bards? Just a sub-class of Rogues, who use performance and charisma rather than Dexterity.
Druid? They're just a Cleric who loves nature and gets their magic from nature.
So on and so on.

I think some "potential sub-classes" are great when broken out, like the Ranger. Because you have someone who is a mix of something else (fighter/druid type), and you can develop other sub-classes beneath it (or schools, colleges, etc., whatever that class calls for at Level 3).
Technically bards are a sub-class of every class, which is why it was so difficult to achieve in AD&D.

[Morty]

To elaborate on my earlier position a bit - I could see rangers as a subclass of some hypothetical better martial class. Or folded with druids and possibly barbarians into a "wilder" class. But I don't think they'd work as a subclass of the existing fighter or rogue, because those classes aren't good either.

If we're not going to replace fighters and rogues with something better, slapping a ranger subclass on them won't be a good solution, because they're juggling too many balls as it is. Thus the thread's premise is a bit of a false dilemma.

[paladinn]

Then why isn't Paladin a Sub-Class of Fighter. Isn't it just a Fighter who has found Religion as a means of fighting? Or it could be a sub-class of Cleric. A cleric who doesn't want to sit back and heal, but wants to punch evil in the face.

Paladin started as a fighter subclass. It didn't become "its own thing" until 3e, when the "smite" concept was introduced. It could easily still be folded back into the fighter, especially if it didn't have casting. Or make it 1/3 casting with access to the cleric list. It's all about the smites now, which is the paladin's "thing", something that no other class does (or as well - looking at you, hexblade).

[PeteNutButter]

D&D classes are entitlements. You can't take them away, only add to them. The ranger will exist as long as D&D exists. I expect 6e to have 15 base classes at launch.

Half the D&D classes don't have enough fluff to justify their existence, while the generic fighter is so all encompassing that it can make all martials fighter subclasses. The reality is, the reason Ranger is receiving hate at the moment is because 5e ranger doesn't have the mechanical differences that justify it.

There isn't much fluff behind any of these classes: Angry Fighter, Holy Fighter, Punchy Fighter, Sneaky Fighter. Nature fighter is just as unique. But Barbarians have rage mechanic which makes playing them feel distinct, same for the paladin's smite, rogue's SA, and monk's ki kit.

Rangers just need more mechanical uniqueness and they'd be fine.

[Spore]

D&D classes are entitlements. You can't take them away, only add to them. The ranger will exist as long as D&D exists. I expect 6e to have 15 base classes at launch.


You can positively take away from them. Tell that to the classes Halfling, Dwarf and Elf from 1st edition. Yes it is easier to add than to subtract in those games. But Pathfinder 2e did away with Paladins (as in broadening their scope).

[PeteNutButter]

You can positively take away from them. Tell that to the classes Halfling, Dwarf and Elf from 1st edition. Yes it is easier to add than to subtract in those games. But Pathfinder 2e did away with Paladins (as in broadening their scope).

I'm not sure that counts as taking them away. They just cleaned up the distinction between race & class. That is more adding options as they realized not every elf, dwarf, or halfling has to do the same thing. Also that was before D&D was as big. The bigger any franchise gets, the harder it is to make change without upsetting fans. The trend in recent editions has been to add to them.

As for the pathfinder thing, that's a naming thing which in a way is actually restoring the paladin to its original LG type.

[paladinn]

I'm not sure that counts as taking them away. They just cleaned up the distinction between race & class. That is more adding options as they realized not every elf, dwarf, or halfling has to do the same thing. Also that was before D&D was as big. The bigger any franchise gets, the harder it is to make change without upsetting fans. The trend in recent editions has been to add to them.

As for the pathfinder thing, that's a naming thing which in a way is actually restoring the paladin to its original LG type.

D&D actually trimmed down the number of classes from 4e to 5e. What happened to the Warlord, Invoker, Shaman, Swordmage and Avenger?

You can argue that they were actually made into subclasses; but that's what we're suggesting for the Ranger as well. Which they kind of did with the Scout subclass for Rogue (although I think it should be a Fighter).

[PeteNutButter]

D&D actually trimmed down the number of classes from 4e to 5e. What happened to the Warlord, Invoker, Shaman, Swordmage and Avenger?

You can argue that they were actually made into subclasses; but that's what we're suggesting for the Ranger as well. Which they kind of did with the Scout subclass for Rogue (although I think it should be a Fighter).

Fair enough. I feel there is another excuse in there (about how 4e is largely considered a blot), but at this point I'm just making excuses for being wrong. I doubt they'd ever do away with ranger, but I suppose it is possible. I'm still in the camp that says they should either simplify all classes or just be more creative with their mechanics.

[Hail Tempus]

You don't make a subclass into the subclass. I personally would drop beastmaster. As I stated in an eariler post, when balanced it's not fun and therefore when fun it's not balanced. Well, that's a purely subjective opinion. In my experience, I've seen people play both the US and non-UA versions of the ranger, and they both had fun with it.

The Beastmaster ranger is a well-established part of the D&D canon. It's the basis for one of the most popular characters in the game's history. Getting rid of it is a terrible idea.


What important identity needs to be preserved in the subclasses? Beastmaster would be cool if they actually worked in play, but I've never seen a group that was happy about a beastmaster Ranger. Either the player didn't like the class or the group didn't like that the Ranger had essentially two characters (revised ranger).

Gloomstalker? That's your sneaky Ranger. It's the Rogue subclass one.

The Fighter would be a combo of Hunter and Monster Slayer.

I'd drop Horizon Walker also though I might give some of it's abilities to the Eldritch Knight in lieu of some of their less useful abilities. It's a more Arcane subclass and doesn't mesh as well with the others from a narrative viewpoint. Though it is actually probably my favorite Ranger subclass. Maybe drop a few of it's abilities into the Rogue subclass though. It would depend on if there was room in the class after it was made to feel appropriately rangery or not. I don't see any benefit in reducing the number of options of classes for character to play.

Furthermore, if you were to move the ranger subclasses into other classes, you'd have to change them significantly. If the Hunter subclass became a part of the fighter, you'd need to turn it into a third-caster rather than a half-caster, to make up for all of the fighter abilities it was getting. And, once you strip away the ranger-related abilities (and restrictions, such as no heavy armor proficiency and only having access to some of the fighting style), you've basically got just another Eldritch Knight.

Rangers have a well-established flavor based on the fluff for the class. Watering that down takes away the class's uniqueness.

[Willie the Duck]

You can positively take away from them. Tell that to the classes Halfling, Dwarf and Elf from 1st edition. Yes it is easier to add than to subtract in those games. But Pathfinder 2e did away with Paladins (as in broadening their scope).

I'm working on a longer write-up for the OP, but I wanted to mention that race-as-class was part of the Moldvay-Cook and Mentzer versions of the basic/classic version of D&D, not 1st edition AD&D.

[FilthyLucre]

...when balanced it's not fun and therefore when fun it's not balanced.

This is an invalid argument.

[If P then Q] does not mean that [If Q then P].

[If I am eating Then I am happy] does not imply that [If I am happy Then I am eating].

[T.G. Oskar]

I am forever seeing people trying to figure out "what the Ranger is". And I think the problem is that the Ranger isn't really a full class, it's a Subclass.

Rangers, especially in 5e to me, just feel like fighters with a little spellcasting and the ability to negate a large portion of the exploration pillar (the part most groups I've seen just ignore any ways, finding food, getting lost, etc). This would buff them in combat and still allow them to feel naturey.

Alright, let's go with the elephant in the room - the title. You don't seem to want to change your mind, and you seem pretty set on what you're thinking, so attempting to change your mind seems futile. Notice the reason I place "seems" in italics; I might be wrong, but everything points to "I'm not gonna change my mind", so a clarification would be nice.

That said - I support the Ranger as a class because of mechanical reasons, so here's a start. While you already discussed the method of how you'd downgrade the Ranger into a subclass, here's an interesting conundrum: you're indecisive in whether the Ranger should be a Fighter subclass with Druid spells or a Rogue subclass with Druid spells. How about...the Ranger is mechanically in-between a Fighter and a Rogue, WITH some Druid spells on top, and subclasses that emphasize some of its aspects?

Once you notice this, you'll see a bit of a problem. You mention the Beastmaster has an issue in that it can't ever be balanced, because it's not fun when "balanced" and it's not balanced when it's fun. I'll take that and turn it around - a Ranger won't be balanced to be fun, and if you want to balance it, it won't be as fun as another class (and in fact, it'll require multiclassing just to approach what mechanically it should do!)

Let's go with the mechanics of the Ranger as it stands now. The Ranger has a chassis similar to the Paladin, where it has many of the Fighter trappings: it has a Fighting Style, it has proficiency with martial weapons, and it has Extra Attack. Traditionally, the Ranger has always been tied to what a Fighter can do, so any prospective Ranger "subclass" has to respect that. For one, the Fighter itself could handle that (and probably more), which leads to your idea of why the Ranger fits so well as a Fighter subclass. However, here's where the Rogue kicks in - also traditionally, the Ranger has had features that make it more of a skill-related class. For one, it had a superior skill with ambushes and tracking, which are essentially part of their thing. They're also the one class that canonically has an animal companion, although it didn't progress (though that was sorta a Fighter thing; the Ranger had followers as a Fighter did, except that Rangers could get animals as followers aside from some humans. It was handwaved as a thing; the Ranger didn't knew why the bear followed him/her; s/he just shrugged and said "it's with me"). As you mentioned, this could either be resolved as a Rogue subclass or weld it into the Fighter subclass...now you see the issue?

Basically, you're forcing a Fighter to get many of the Rogue features that would fit the Ranger conception, or viceversa - and that makes a really unbalanced mechanical construct. What should the Ranger has at a minimum to work?

Proficiency with all martial weapons: the Fighter has it, but the Ranger doesn't. Not everybody uses every weapon, and the Ranger has an inclination towards a longbow or a combination of a longsword/shortsword or similar aspect (battleaxe/handaxe), so it's not exactly a thing to be worried about, but it skews things towards the Fighter side.
Fighting Style: this is primarily a Fighter thing. Only one subclass has this distinction, and that's the College of Swords (the Blade Bard), which allows you to take ONLY Dueling or Two-Weapon Fighting. Ranger also considers Archery and Defense; that'd be stretching it too far. Thus, while it has precedent, it skews the prospective subclass into Fighter.
Extra Attack: yet another reason why you believe it fits well the Fighter as a subclass. Rangers have traditionally been good at combat; they use the "number of attacks" or "base attack bonus" of the Fighter in any case.
Skill amount: the Ranger has one more skill than the Fighter from a pretty diverse list. Rangers lack the Fighter's Acrobatics, History and Intimidation skills, and instead have Investigation, Nature and Survival as their skills. Now, saying you could add an extra skill "slot" that could be filled with either of these three skills is an "easy" fix.
Extra damage: now, this is more implicit, but notice that every Ranger subclass has a way to deal more damage to an enemy. Hunter? Colossus Slayer deals 1d8 damage to an enemy once per turn. Gloom Stalker? Dread Ambusher allows you to deal 1d8 damage on an extra attack in the first turn of combat. Horizon Walker? Spend bonus action, deal 1d8/2d8 force damage on next attack. Monster Slayer? As bonus action, deal 1d6 damage on first successful attack against one creature. The Beastmaster lacks this, but that's basically because the beast companion deals extra damage equal to your proficiency bonus with every one of its attacks. Oh, and if you get all 20 levels, Foe Slayer lets you add your Wisdom modifier to damage against your favored enemies. As you can see, Rangers are pretty heavy on the idea of extra damage, but do it in very awkward ways. They'd do well with a "tag/damage die" concept, where they get an increasing damage die (just like Sneak Attack, except slow-increasing) against a "tagged' creature; from there, Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer would allow you to bypass that "tag" feature and just deal extra damage to the opponent if it's one of your favored enemies or is native to your favored terrain. This inclines it towards Rogue territory.
Skill ease/Expertise: alright, so Rangers don't technically have the latter, but they do have the former...eventually. See, Vanish is basically Cunning Action, but only for Hide, and gained later on. That said, they're meant to be better at hiding than Rogues, except they're not numerically better unless they spend 10 minutes creating a single-use camouflage (seriously, that class feature is broken, and not in the good yet annoying way!). Natural Explorer essentially grants Expertise on all Int (Arcana, History, Investigation, Nature and Religion) and Wis (Animal Handling, Insight, Medicine, Perception and Survival) skills, provided you already have proficiency AND are in your favored terrain. This could be resolved by granting at least one use of Expertise instead, since, traditionally, Rangers have been a bit of a skill-monkey (comparable to a Bard at least). This makes it sit just as firmly in the Rogue territory, since Cunning Action and Expertise solve this.


A prospective Ranger "subclass", IMO, needs to deal with all six of these issues to work, and that's before we deal with the Ranger subclasses per se. It doesn't even deal with the spellcasting ability of a Ranger, which is something not everybody's in line with (though, informally, it seems everyone's agreeing that the Ranger should have spells, which is pretty impressive). So, at a bare minimum, a Ranger subclass for the Fighter should have access to more skills, a minor form of extra damage (and how that works out is beyond me, since it could be in the same way as the Hunter's Colossus Slayer, the Gloom Stalker's Dread Ambusher, the Horizon Walker's Planar Warrior, or the Monster Slayer's..Slayer's Prey), access to Stealth as a bonus action (hence, some sort of Cunning Action) and some sort of Expertise, as well as minor spellcasting; conversely, a Ranger subclass for the Rogue needs to have proficiency with more martial weapons, a Fighting Style and Extra Attack, in addition to minor spellcasting. And all of this before adding the class features that could be considered iconic to the Ranger (the Ranger since AD&D 2nd has ALWAYS had Favored Enemy in one way or another ...alright, so 4e Ranger doesn't have it...), or the subclass features that would be considered iconic to the Ranger. That last one I leave to Hail Tempus to explain better.


So, which of the ranger subclasses would you turn into a fighter subclass? Would every ranger have to be a Beastmaster?

Your complaint seems to be that, as written, the ranger is a pretty meh class. That’s not an unreasonable position. But, turning it into one subclass of the fighter doesn’t solve that problem.

If someone wants to play a woodsy fighter, they can. But, that’s different from the historic role of the ranger in D&D.

Handling the Ranger's subclasses to extract what you consider is iconic to a sufficiently broad concept is where the exercise finds its biggest issue. While that doesn't mean you can't do it "easily", it does mean some things will be easily lost, or forced to be turned into other subclasses just to exist, rather than distilling all of that into a single class. Trust me, it's harder than it sounds.

Now, consider that the Fighter has five subclass slots. The Rogue only has four. Spreading out those class features won't work, because most games are often in the 5-10 level range, meaning that those subclass features that will be seen the most are either the 3rd, 7th and 10th level ones for Fighter, or the 3rd and 9th level ones for Rogue. Everything from 11th level onwards won't see much action, so those features have to be decent, but not subclass-defining. Now, define a Ranger as either a Fighter or a Rogue in 10 levels, with what you consider is quintessential to the class.

To me, a Ranger is a hunter and woodsman. GreatWyrmGold expressed it earlier, and it merits quoting because it explains it a bit more succinctly:


The Ranger is a hunter. The Ranger is a warrior and a woodsman. The Ranger is skilled in woodcraft, in navigating and exploiting the natural world; they are also skilled at combat, in bringing down whatever foes they seek.
If you want to pick on a class for not having an identity, pick the Fighter. They fight stuff. Fighter isn't so much an archetype or identity as it is a skillset shared between several different archetypes which are apparently hard to make mechanically distinct.

Hunter is what the class' combat tactics rely on - stealth, ambush, precise attacks, holding off their ground against huge monsters, and learning so much from them that they fight a handful of them unlike anybody else. Now, sure...that's mostly describing a stealthy Fighter, aside from the last one (which is literally Favored Enemy). Woodsman is what they do when they're not fighting - they routinely live in the wild and in the move, foraging all they need, taking advantage of their surroundings, etc. Now, these are very broad observations, but they can be interchanged: as a hunter, the Ranger could see itself as the custodian of nature, culling the ranks of predators when prey is scarce, and culling the ranks of prey when predators are scarce. (And consider that other hunters are predators, that means they'll fight hunters just as well as they'll fight beasts.) As a woodsman, the Ranger will use their surroundings to assist them in combat; in fact, Rangers should be able to focus on placing and creating traps, since that's kind of both a hunter and a woodsman theme. (Except that traps are time-consuming, for one, and also hard to place while on the move.) I consider the mixture of Fighter and Rogue, through the lens of a hunter and a woodsman, pretty much define the Ranger as they should be (but again, that's just me). Collapsing ALL of that into essentially 10 levels, of which only 2 or 3 of them actually serve to define the Ranger's theme, while heavily relying on one class or the other to do the heavy lifting, is just absurd. IMO, Rangers are served better as their own class, taking from the Fighter AND the Rogue, and keeping what defines them within the first 10 levels. I mean...isn't that what every other class does?

Barbarians get Rage at 1st level, which is their defining feature. The rest of what they get are essentially meant to reinforce their melee offense (Reckless Attack, Brutal Critical) or aid in their defense (Danger Sense, Unarmored Defense) or make them more agile (Fast Movement, Feral Instinct), but they're actually pretty minor.
Bards get their spellcasting and Bardic Inspiration at 1st level, Expertise at 3rd level, and their first Magical Secrets at 10th. That makes them casters with a support bent, which are also exceptional at skills, and eventually able to snatch spells from other classes as they desire.
Clerics get spellcasting and Channel Divinity at 1st level. Even the class feature that's essentially their capstone is gained at 10th level.
Druids get spellcasting at 1st level, and Wild Shape at 2nd level. Everything else is an improvement to Wild Shape, essentially.
Fighters get Fighting Style and Healing Surge at 1st level, Action Surge at 2nd level and Indomitable at 9th. They also get one more ASI than other classes, which if you add feats, makes them able to define their specialty in combat without losing your ability to get your main attack stat higher ASAP.
Monks get Martial Arts at 1st level, the ability to use Ki at 2nd, and their Monastic Tradition at 3rd (just like everybody else). The rest of the features are a bit less jumbled than in their 3.x version.
Paladins get to Lay on Hands since 1st level, their Fighting Style, spellcasting AND their ability to Smite at 2nd, and their Aura of Protection at 6th.
Rogues get Sneak Attack and Expertise at 1st level, Cunning Action at 2nd, and another ASI at 10th, making them slightly better than other classes at getting their ability scores higher. They're still the only class that gets good stuff beyond 11th level, such as Reliable Talent and Blindsense. (The Monk is the other one.)
The Sorcerer gets spellcasting at 1st level, Font of Magic at 2nd, and Metamagic at 3rd. After that, they get little else, aside from their Sorcerous Origin.
Warlocks get their Pact Magic (and their Pact) at 1st level, Invocations at 2nd level, and their Pact Boon at 3rd. It's only when they reach 11th level that they get Mystic Arcanum, and that's basically to make them pseudo-full casters.
Wizards get their spellcasting at 1st level. That's it. Oh, you think Arcane Recovery is a nice class feature? Well...sure, but it's not that defining. Spell Mastery and Signature Spell are nice goodies if you manage to get to very high levels, but few people actually see them.

Now: the Ranger suffers because they don't have class features that are as good, or as class-defining, at early levels. If we do the same analysis, the Ranger gets Favored Enemy (which isn't combat based, but exploration-based, on account that the developers explicitly mentioned they hated the idea of limiting extra damage to what's essentially species-ism) and Natural Explorer (again, supportive of the exploration tier) at 1st, their Fighting Style and spellcasting at 2nd, and if you stretch it, Hide in Plain Sight at 10th. Now, if you were to replace this with "they get Hunter's Quarry (essentially their tag and extra damage feature) at 1st level, Fighting Style and spellcasting at 2nd, and Expertise at 3rd), you'd probably see a much different class, as its ancillary features would rely on improving one of these three aspects (Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer would tie to Hunter's Quarry, Hide in Plain Sight would probably eat up Vanish and tie with the Ranger's skill focus, and eventually you could run down Feral Senses to an earlier level and give them a better capstone. Rangers actually rely a LOT MORE on their subclass features, which is why people feel so bad about the Beastmaster (cool concept, poor execution), why people overwhelmingly choose Colossus Slayer for the Hunter (for the extra damage), and why the newer Ranger archetypes essentially grant more spells and ways to deal extra damage.

You could definitely take ideas from this (as I said earlier on, I really don't believe you'll change your mind), but at least allow me to warn you that the idea won't be sound because the Ranger is more complex than you might think, and the real issue here is that WotC did them a big disservice by trying to anchor them to the exploration tier(making class features that essentially trivialize it) while drowning the few class features that defined their combat aspect. This has seeped into their subclasses, which serve more to fix the Ranger's issues than to give them distinct ways to see the Ranger.

This is where I'll end up: a class in 5e is defined by how well it stands within the "broad/narrow" spectrum of its concept. If a class is TOO narrow (Assassin, Swashbuckler, Spellthief, Warden, etc.) that you can't see more than one working concept for it, it's best as a subclass. (You can't see different kinds of Assassins, or Swashbucklers; those name define too narrowly what they can actually do.) On the other hand, you have the Fighter (generic fighting person), the Rogue (generic skilled person, though its flavor leans it towards larceny) and the Wizard (generic spellcasting person), which are TOO broad and thus perfect for being a chassis for multiple subclasses that would otherwise be unable to exist. The Ranger has at least the Hunter (a "one against many" concept) and the Beastmaster (woodsman with its trusty beast partner), with the Horizon Walker (a planar explorer) as a fair third. I can envision three distinct variants of a unifying concept (a hunter and woodsman; the actual Hunter focuses on the Hunting aspect, the Beastmaster on the natural aspect, and the Horizon Walker expands the concept of Exploration beyond the Material Plane), and the two others are also fairly good at envisioning different concepts that fit the Ranger; the Gloom Stalker is very strongly themed in the exploration of the Underdark, which is starkly different from other locations because of its inherent darkness, and the Monster Slayer has a misleading name because it's basically a Mage-Killer.

In short, I'll quote GWG to express my conclusion:


I'm not saying the 5e Ranger is well-written. I'm saying a Ranger should exist as its own class, that the archetype is established and broad enough that it doesn't fit into a subclass.
Ranger shouldn't be a Rogue or Fighter subclass. Ranger should just be rewritten.

Now, to address some minor issues:


Eh...[the Ranger as a Rogue] doesn't not fit, the way it would not-fit for a wizard or a barbarian, but it's not a perfect fit. Certainly, the other rogue abilities (aside from Expertise) aren't. Rangers use stealth and trickery, but they aren't reliant on it the way rogues are. At the end of the day, Rogues are sneaky and slippery at their core, and you can't just bolt on a few combat abilities and call it a warrior. Especially if you're leaving space for all the nature-related abilities you need to make the subclass feel like a "ranger" and not just a "thug".

I'd support for some sort of Sneak Attack on the Ranger as a feature. And Vanish is already Cunning Action gained 12 levels later. And Feral Senses is basically super-Blindsense. The Hunter also has Evasion or Uncanny Dodge as part of their final subclass feature, which is too little, too late. So yeah: the Rogue class features do fit in a way. That said, the broadness of the Ranger's concept (yes, it's pretty broad if you think about it, even if it appears narrow; the Paladin is more narrow, and they managed to conjure the Warden, the Dark Knight, the Hellknight and the Blackguard from its subclasses) makes it ill-fitting for a class.

The amount of extra damage they should deal is an issue, though, considering they ALSO have Extra Attack. The Paladin has Improved Divine Smite quite later on, which works for all attacks. Rogues get Sneak Attack, which deals a ton of damage but only once per turn (the thing is, they can do it outside their own turn), and only if they meet some criteria (the Swashbuckler and the Scout provide ways to create more of these openings, or even make MORE Sneak Attacks). The Ranger should be somewhere in the middle: deal much less damage than a Rogue using SA, with similar restrictions (hence, the "tag" option; just make it deal damage against one target, tagged as a bonus action, until the encounter ends, the creature is killed, or you tag someone else with a different bonus action), but taking advantage of the Ranger's extra attacks (which, I'd say, includes Swift Quiver).


The ranger started as a fighter subclass, and there it should return. Originally it only had tracking and multiple "favored enemies" (all giants and other humanoids), increased surprise chances and limited spellcasting (MU/cleric, then MU/druid). By 2e it was given more rogue-ish abilities (silence and hiding), 2-weapon fighting and animal handling, and the "favored enemy" thing was nerfed. Spellcasting was limited to nature-oriented divine spells.

Personally I prefer losing the spellcasting, changing the "favored enemies" back to the original Or changing to more of a hunter's mark feature, keeping surprise and hide and animal handling, and possibly incorporating a "danger sense" like the barbarian. IF spellcasting is needed, make it 1/3 casting like the EK, using the druid list.

If done right, ranger could replace the barbarian class; barbarian is a background, not a class, IMO.

Hmm. Name doesn't check out. But then again, you expressed the idea that the Paladin should also be a Fighter subclass. I take that the Paladin, the Blackguard and the Hellknight can exist as what's essentially the same subclass with some minor changes, then? Or does the Paladin class allows them to exist much more organically? Because that's what I feel the Ranger class does for the Hunter, the Beastmaster, the Horizon Walker and the Mage-Killer Monster Slayer.

[Morty]

D&D classes are entitlements. You can't take them away, only add to them. The ranger will exist as long as D&D exists. I expect 6e to have 15 base classes at launch.

Half the D&D classes don't have enough fluff to justify their existence, while the generic fighter is so all encompassing that it can make all martials fighter subclasses. The reality is, the reason Ranger is receiving hate at the moment is because 5e ranger doesn't have the mechanical differences that justify it.

There isn't much fluff behind any of these classes: Angry Fighter, Holy Fighter, Punchy Fighter, Sneaky Fighter. Nature fighter is just as unique. But Barbarians have rage mechanic which makes playing them feel distinct, same for the paladin's smite, rogue's SA, and monk's ki kit.


Sadly true. With the exception of 4E, the base class list of D&D has remained constant for a long time now, no matter how much sense it would make to revise and prune it. Even 4E held on to a lot of it, to its detriment. It and PF have tried to patch up the holes in the base class lists with tons of new ones in supplements. That being said...


Rangers just need more mechanical uniqueness and they'd be fine.

People have tried to give them mechanical uniqueness for as long as I remember, and I haven't seen it work yet.

[FilthyLucre]

For what it's worth I actually think there should only be three classes: Mage, Fighter, and Rogue and then just handle everything else with subclasses - some of which might even be available to multiple different classes.

[paladinn]

For what it's worth I actually think there should only be three classes: Mage, Fighter, and Rogue and then just handle everything else with subclasses - some of which might even be available to multiple different classes.

I've suggested this myself elsewhere. https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/UA_Sidekicks.pdf

Use the "sidekick" warrior, spellcaster and expert as the baseline and tweak to taste. For a ranger, substitute fighting style at 1st level, favored enemy/ studied target/ hunters mark/ whatever at another, maybe some horde-breaking feature at another. You have a definite fighter with ranger flavor.

For wizards, clerics and druids, use the appropriate spell list and maybe substitute a channel divinity or wildshape at an appropriate level.

For others, use the expert chassis and do likewise.

Modularity is a good thing.

[Tanarii]

Natural Explorer is a joke.
If you believe your claims, you need to go re-read Natural Explorer and all the things you're comparing it to again, because you didn't get it the first time. Natural Explorer's ability's cannot be replicated, at least not easily, by other features.

For example, if you Forage, Explore, Map or Navigate you lose your passive perception and are automatically surprised. There might be a few magic items that can counter that, but trying to increase passive perception won't do it.

How much of a joke Natural Explorer is depends on your campaign and how much heads up your DM gave you about terrains. If you will be spending significant time in the wilderness and you can somewhat predict what terrains it will be, it's incredibly useful. For example, Tomb of Annihilation. If it's mostly going to be dungeons, yeah, it's pretty much a joke.

[Bloodcloud]

Ranger should be broken for parts and spread over multiple subclass, feats and background features.
Basically:
-Tempest is a fighter subclass that makes two weapon fighting work for fighter and is specialized as a crowd-control martial with some added mobility.
-Skirmisher is a fighter sublcass with some stealth/mobility baked in.
-Ranger is a quarter caster druid fighter subclass
-Warden is a druid subclass with extra attack
-Hunter is a rogue subclass focusing on "ambush" and tracking
-Scout is a rogue subclass with some ritual druid magic and general nature theme
-Favored enemy is a feat
-Natural explorer is a background feature
-Beastmaster is now a full "pet-haver" class that is basically a pile of mechanic for playing two character at once with subclass giving it the flavor of Pet golem, pet undead, pet beast, pet summon, etc.

My opinion.

[GreatWyrmGold]

The Ranger is a Woodsman that fights. That's your description of their identity. That is EXACTLY why they should be a Fighter subclass. They are a fighter with a few skills. D&D gives them Magic though your first example (Aragorn) doesn't use any. A Rangers identity is being a good fighter that is at home in nature. That is best represented in a fighter subclass because their is nothing unique about it.

What is there so much of that it doesn't fit in a subclass? There isn't anything more to a Ranger other than a fighting woodsman.
The Barbarian is an angry man who fights. That is EXACTLY why they should be a Fighter subclass. They are a fighter with anger management issues. A Barbarians [sic] identity is being a good, angry fighter. That is best represented in a fighter subclass because their [sic] is nothing unique about it. What is there so much of that it doesn't fit in a subclass? There isn't anything more to a Barbarian other than an angry fighter.
The Paladin is a holy man who fights. That is EXACTLY why they should be a Fighter subclass. They are a fighter with a few spells. A Paladin's identity is being a good fighter that fights evil with holy power. That is best represented in a fighter subclass because there is nothing unique about it. What is there so much of that it doesn't fit in a subclass? There isn't anything more to a Paladin other than a fighting holy man.
The Warlock is a wizard with a patron. That is EXACTLY why they should be a Wizard subclass. They are a wizard with a few invocations. A Warlock's identity is being an arcane spellcaster with a patron. That is best represented in a wizard subclass because there is nothing unique about it. What is there so much of that it doesn't fit in a subclass? There isn't anything more to a Warlock other than arcane guy with patron.

Need I continue?



You don't make a subclass into the subclass. I personally would drop beastmaster. As I stated in an eariler post, when balanced it's not fun and therefore when fun it's not balanced.

What important identity needs to be preserved in the subclasses? Beastmaster would be cool if they actually worked in play, but I've never seen a group that was happy about a beastmaster Ranger. Either the player didn't like the class or the group didn't like that the Ranger had essentially two characters (revised ranger).
Pathfinder pulled off the concept well. I'm running Rise of the Runelords, and the only characters to survive the entire campaign (with just one resurrection each) are a Hunter (read, Beastmaster ranger but Pathfinder) and his tiger animal companion. He does perfectly well without being OP.
It's not a problem with the concept, it's a problem with the implementation.



The Ranger should be a background and not a class at all.

Their whole "thing" is being an explorer. Sorry, but any class is an explorer, thats just how the game goes.

Their main feature is a ribbon, I can't recall any other class that has their main defining feature as a ribbon!

The Ranger is really close to just being an Outlander type background.

You could also make "ranger" a feat. Make natural explorer and favored enemy as some sort of feat. Slap it on a fighter, rogue, druid, cleric, or whomever else and you got a ranger of different capacities.
You could say the same thing about Rogue and Criminal/Urchin, or Cleric and Acolyte. Or Barbarian and Outlander, for that matter.



Paladin started as a fighter subclass. It didn't become "its own thing" until 3e, when the "smite" concept was introduced. It could easily still be folded back into the fighter, especially if it didn't have casting. Or make it 1/3 casting with access to the cleric list. It's all about the smites now, which is the paladin's "thing", something that no other class does (or as well - looking at you, hexblade).
"If you took away some of what have become the paladin's defining features, you could make them a fighter subclass."
Well, duh. But should you?



For what it's worth I actually think there should only be three classes: Mage, Fighter, and Rogue and then just handle everything else with subclasses - some of which might even be available to multiple different classes.
I'd rather play either a system which had a class for each distinct fantasy archetype or which let me freely pick and choose abilities from different archetypes. D&D currently does the former, GURPS does the latter, your suggestion does neither. It provides all the constraints of a class-based system, without any of the flavor.



Fair enough. I feel there is another excuse in there (about how 4e is largely considered a blot), but at this point I'm just making excuses for being wrong.
I'm glad you're mature enough to admit it.
I just wanted to compliment someone instead of attacking everyone's flawed
arguments.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

If you believe your claims, you need to go re-read Natural Explorer and all the things you're comparing it to again, because you didn't get it the first time. Natural Explorer's ability's cannot be replicated, at least not easily, by other features.

For example, if you Forage, Explore, Map or Navigate you lose your passive perception and are automatically surprised. There might be a few magic items that can counter that, but trying to increase passive perception won't do it.

How much of a joke Natural Explorer is depends on your campaign and how much heads up your DM gave you about terrains. If you will be spending significant time in the wilderness and you can somewhat predict what terrains it will be, it's incredibly useful. For example, Tomb of Annihilation. If it's mostly going to be dungeons, yeah, it's pretty much a joke.


Read it, it's a joke of a class feature.

Outlander and an ability check covers it. If you want to specialize then grabbing that background and expertise via rogue does the trick (Perception and Survival).

And hey, expertise Perception is actually good for something else too!.

NE is a joke.

If you have to rely on the DM specifically going out of their way to make your class feature work, like, having to mold the campaign around you, you need a better class feature.

Ranger wants to be a desert ranger? Well, better change your Favore Terrain to forest because were going to be in a forest for the first 5 levels. Not only is a joke mechanically but it can push a player to change their fluff so their joke of an ability actually works.

NE only works in terrains you have as a favored terrain (1, 5, 10, 15). Real features don't turn off when you go from a forest to a mountain. Plus, it helps with intelligence checks, nice right, except the Ranger will most definitely NOT be Int focused at all even worse than other classes that don't rely on Int as the ranger relies on Dex/Str, Con, and Wis. Int is 4th. It's a joke feature that attempts to cover up for a mechanical problem in the character being MAD and it foesn't even do it right.

Natural Explorer is a joke.

[GlenSmash!]

I don't think NE is a joke, but I do think it's a bad design.

It completely bypassed my DM's wilderness encounters rather than helping the party overcome them in a way that was satisfactory.

[GlenSmash!]

I doubt I can change your mind but I'll add a few comments.

I actually think Ranger (wilderness expert) has more of a core identity than the Fighter (guy who fights) or Barbarian (guy who gets mad).

Looking at the existing Barbarian subclasses especially I don't see much cohesion. In many of them the Barbarian has not even discovered the source of their rage until level 3 and said sources are hugely disparate. If I was going to disband one class into one or multiple sublcasses I'd definitely start with the Barbarian. Which is my favorite class to play BTW.

Now to the Ranger itself according to D&D beyond data it's quite popular at low levels. 3rd place after Fighter and Rogue but quickly falls farther and farther in popularity at higher tiers of play.

I think the concept is something that many new players recognize from fantasy and want to emulate, but find higher level features uninspiring (I'm looking at you foe slayer) and low level abilities too circumstantial.

On the whole I think the D&D Ranger is equal parts martial ability, skills, and magic and as such is a bad fit for a subclass on either Fighter or Rogue and merits it's own class that should have had the ability to further specialize in martial ability, skills, or magic either through subclasses or something akin to a Warlock's evocations or Artificer's infusions.

PS. I think the Ranger should be adaptable so if its going to have spells it should be a prepared caster.

[Galithar]

Alright so there's a lot here and I'm just going to hit a few points because most people are posting books and selective multi quoting in my phone is a nightmare.

To whoever said the Pathfinder Hunter (Beastmaster) was done well, we just have different definitions of balance. You say it's balanced and fun and then that he was the only one to survive the full campaign? Did I miss that? Because while there could be a million contributing factors bring the only one to survive leads me to believe that character is stronger. Not a Pathfinder player though so I can't really comment on it's balance just that your representation of it does not paint a picture of balance to me.

To everyone's sarcastic and painful to read comparison of a Paladin as a fighter subclass. I'll say it one more time. The Paladin has multiple drastic differences. Not only do they cast, they are the wielder of Divine smites. They mechanically need to smite, have auras, and cast spells. That's more then can be added to a subclass. Narratively they need to have a wholehearted dedication to an ideal. That part could be put into a Subclass.

Rangers on the other hand need to have skills, stealth and ambush (read skills), the ability to track and hide (read skills), and be pretty good fighters and maybe have a pet. Narratively. I still haven't been given a consistent 'what makes a Ranger'. They have to like Nature? They have to fight? They need to be adventurous and explore?

The Ranger simply doesn't have an identity that I've seen presented coherently (Full disclaimer I haven't read everything. There have been a lot of responses some of which are very long and u have only do much time)

Fighters do. It's a simple and generic identity but it's there: Is really good at fighting with weapons.

Rogue: Is sneaky and fights with weapons. A skill monkey, often but not always charismatic. Disarms traps.

Wizard: A magic user who's power comes from versatility and learned power over a long (subject to the player I've seen young wizards but the stereotypical identity is more like Gandalf then Harry Potter)

Warlock: A caster who's power is derived from an (often evil) extremely powerful creature through a deal or pact. Often excels at extended encounters due to good at will capabilites.

Sorcerer: Someone with innate abilities to cast magic. Can often manipulate spells in ways others can't. Magic is more spontaneous and less learned then a Wizard.

I went through the three casters to make my last point of this post. Many similar classes can differ in their abilities and create a unique identity for themselves by altering how they do what they do. A Ranger doesn't differ from a fighter much on this front. They both fight through practiced martial skills. The ranger adds a little magic (like an Eldritch Knight) but I would bet I could describe 2 characters to you and you couldn't tell me which was a fighter and which was a ranger. If I did the same thing with fighters and rogues or Fighters and Paladins you could. Just like you could tell between a wizard Warlock and sorcerer. (This is for narrative identity, not mechanical as something like 'makes three attacks with the attack action' is kind of a giveaway)


Also to whoever said it seems like I don't want to be convinced that's kind of the point. If I said 'change my mind' and was actively trying to think I was wrong there would be no point. I've yet to see much that convinces me that a Ranger should be it's own class for any reason other then it's become a sacred cow. It would work best as a number of subclasses to different main classes. Fighter and Rogue being the main ones, hence my title.

[KorvinStarmast]

The Ranger was once a Fighter Sub class. (Original D&D/Strategic Review)
It is now it's own class. Which is fine.

The Bard was one a Rogue sub class. (AD&D 2e)
It is now it's own class. Which is fine.

The Druid was once a Cleric sub class. (Original D&D, Eldritch Wizardry)
It is now its own class. Which is fine.

The Sorcere was once simply the name of a 9th level Magic User, the Warlock an 8th level Magic User (Original D&D)
They are each their own sub class, which is fine.

Bottom Line: This isn't something that needs fixing.

[Malbrack]

There isn't much fluff behind any of these classes: Angry Fighter, Holy Fighter, Punchy Fighter, Sneaky Fighter. Nature fighter is just as unique. But Barbarians have rage mechanic which makes playing them feel distinct, same for the paladin's smite, rogue's SA, and monk's ki kit.

Rangers just need more mechanical uniqueness and they'd be fine.

This is it in a nutshell. Many complaints about 5e Ranger come down to this. Barbarians have Rage and Reckless Attack for a distinct combat flavor. Paladins have Smite, Auras, and unique Channel Divinity options. Rogues have Sneak Attack. Monks have Ki attacks like Stunning Blow. All of these make these classes feel distinct in combat. If you look at unique combat features that all Rangers get you have... umm, I think Land's Stride is the first ability? Nothing really jumps out at me immediately.

Sadly, Ranger had distinctive combat features in earlier editions. In 2e it was the dual wield class. In 4e it was the make-two-attacks-instead-of-one class.

There are Ranger spells that all Rangers can select, but spells can be obtained by other classes too (through Magical Secrets, Paladin Oath lists, etc.). Plus Hunter's Mark works a lot like Hex, so even one of the most common Ranger spells doesn't feel very distinctive anyway. In fact, if the Ranger's class fantasy is chasing down and killing a dangerous prey, then Vengeance Paladin already does that better.

Ranger could have been the pet class. That would have made it feel distinct in combat from other classes, but not everyone thinks that Rangers should have a pet. I wonder if the game would have been better with Ranger as a fighter subclass and Beast Master as a standalone class. The central feature of the Beast Master class could have been developing a bond with a pet that fights with you, and the subclasses could have addressed what else you do besides fight beside your pet.

All of this is kind of pointless to speculate about now though. Ranger as a class isn't going way in 5e. It will just keep getting revised until they finally figure out some unique combat mechanics for it.

[GlenSmash!]

Another thing I would really have liked to see in Rangers is a reason to invest in Constitution, beyond the existing reasons why any other class would invest in constitution.

These are the guys who range around vast areas of wilderness. Their endurance should be second to none.

I wish I had more design skill to come up with a compelling mechanic beyond adding Con bonus to damage, or to AC as a Reaction.

[Kane0]

-Snip-

+1, much more eloquently says what I think.


Another thing I would really have liked to see in Rangers is a reason to invest in Constitution, beyond the existing reasons why any other class would invest in constitution.

These are the guys who range around vast areas of wilderness. Their endurance should be second to none.

I wish I had more design skill to come up with a compelling mechanic beyond adding Con bonus to damage, or to AC as a Reaction.

Use CON bonus as a buffer against gaining exhaustion and/or effects that reduce max HP?
Being able to stack sources of Temp HP equal to [balanced amount reliant on CON]?
Reaction to reduce damage taken by CON bonus (taking a leaf from Goliath)?
Use CON score as minimum roll for survival checks (taking a leaf from barbarian)?
Add CON bonus to some or all of your saves (taking a leaf from pally)?

[GlenSmash!]

Use CON bonus as a buffer against gaining exhaustion and/or effects that reduce max HP? Very thematic. I like it.


Being able to stack sources of Temp HP equal to [balanced amount reliant on CON]? Without a ranger getting a couple of sources of THP, I'm not sold on this one.


Reaction to reduce damage taken by CON bonus (taking a leaf from Goliath)?useful for non-Goliath rangers at least


Use CON score as minimum roll for survival checks (taking a leaf from barbarian)? A neat ribbon. Though I think the Barbarian ability is all strength checks. Bumping it up to all Wisdom checks seems like a bit much though.

Add CON bonus to some or all of your saves (taking a leaf from pally)? Toughness improving overall suitability? Very thematic. I like it.

[Vknight]

I mean Colossus Slayer exists and if it scaled a bit better it would be amazing

[paladinn]

I'm thinking the barbarian class has a lot of what should have been ranger material. If one class is supposed to be the wilderness expert, which one is it? The barbarian has a lot of wilderness stuff Plus the ability to rage. Granted, rage is the class "thing"; but why be a ranger and get a pet when you can be a rage monster with mega damage potential?

Hmm maybe the barbarian should be folded into the ranger as a subclass. Favored enemy might be mages. Rage ability instead of hunters mark or some such.

When the barbarian class was intro'd in 1e UA, everyone knew it was an OP joke. It was in 2e as a fighter kit. IMO that's where it should have stayed.

[Waterdeep Merch]

A ranger's ultimate problem lies in not doing much interesting in combat, when it seems like it should be one of the most unique in a fight. Beyond being one of two places that a trap expert makes sense (along with the rogue), it feels like a ranger should be all about setting up ambushes and the like- a trap-master in the idea that their abilities revolve around using the terrain to their advantage.

They have a handful of spells that do this, but they could really use an expansion of options. And they really, really should have had a central mechanic baked-in that somehow allows them to do this sort of thing. They almost do; Land's Stride, Hide in Plain Sight, and Vanish point to this being the original idea.

Maybe taking a page out of Aragorn and Geralt of Rivia's playbook could fix this. Turn the Favored Enemy backwards. If the ranger can figure out what they're going to fight, they can craft specialty potions that give important bonuses/immunities and poisons that grant soft control against them. You can have it require spell slots to infuse the wild ingredients they use (which ought to key off survival to find and be easier in their favored terrain, because of course it should) and I think the balance probably works as-is without needing anything too extensive. Just need to come up with a decent little list.

[T.G. Oskar]

Also to whoever said it seems like I don't want to be convinced that's kind of the point. If I said 'change my mind' and was actively trying to think I was wrong there would be no point. I've yet to see much that convinces me that a Ranger should be it's own class for any reason other then it's become a sacred cow. It would work best as a number of subclasses to different main classes. Fighter and Rogue being the main ones, hence my title.

Then the title is, at least that last sentence, intellectually dishonest. It hints of sarcasm; note that you said that, if you were "actively trying to think [you were] wrong there would be no point", hence it invites people that do think a Ranger should be a class to debate, only to essentially dismiss their claims. And there's a lot of dismissing. If anything, dropping that last sentence would deliver the same results (it states your idea succinctly), allows the same degree of discussion (since there will be people who, like me, will merit the debate of the Ranger being a class), but you would then make very clear that you won't change your mind, hence the discussion could be even more focused.

Here's the thing: people here have given their opinion as to why the Ranger should be a class. There are good points in both sides: the Ranger could exist as a subclass, but it's mechanically difficult, and doesn't respect the wealth of content that has been made for it, hence it fits better as a class. The Ranger has a distinct feel - it's a hunter and a woodsman, one who primarily exists outside of the civilized world. Even if most of its feel is recursive (the Ranger's concept pretty much exists because of D&D; other classes have since given it a primary focus as a ranged class, which gives it a lot of distinction).

However, even with the caveat that you haven't read it all, it seems quite obvious that you're not looking for anyone to change your mind, that you're set on your opinion, and that any well-presented opinion will be mostly dismissed. To show how, look at what you say about the Paladin (and then about the Sorcerer and the Warlock):


To everyone's sarcastic and painful to read comparison of a Paladin as a fighter subclass. I'll say it one more time. The Paladin has multiple drastic differences. Not only do they cast, they are the wielder of Divine smites. They mechanically need to smite, have auras, and cast spells. That's more then can be added to a subclass. Narratively they need to have a wholehearted dedication to an ideal. That part could be put into a Subclass.

Rangers on the other hand need to have skills, stealth and ambush (read skills), the ability to track and hide (read skills), and be pretty good fighters and maybe have a pet. Narratively. I still haven't been given a consistent 'what makes a Ranger'. They have to like Nature? They have to fight? They need to be adventurous and explore?

The Ranger simply doesn't have an identity that I've seen presented coherently (Full disclaimer I haven't read everything. There have been a lot of responses some of which are very long and u have only do much time)

Fighters do. It's a simple and generic identity but it's there: Is really good at fighting with weapons.

Rogue: Is sneaky and fights with weapons. A skill monkey, often but not always charismatic. Disarms traps.

Wizard: A magic user who's power comes from versatility and learned power over a long (subject to the player I've seen young wizards but the stereotypical identity is more like Gandalf then Harry Potter)

Warlock: A caster who's power is derived from an (often evil) extremely powerful creature through a deal or pact. Often excels at extended encounters due to good at will capabilites.

Sorcerer: Someone with innate abilities to cast magic. Can often manipulate spells in ways others can't. Magic is more spontaneous and less learned then a Wizard.

I went through the three casters to make my last point of this post. Many similar classes can differ in their abilities and create a unique identity for themselves by altering how they do what they do. A Ranger doesn't differ from a fighter much on this front. They both fight through practiced martial skills. The ranger adds a little magic (like an Eldritch Knight) but I would bet I could describe 2 characters to you and you couldn't tell me which was a fighter and which was a ranger. If I did the same thing with fighters and rogues or Fighters and Paladins you could. Just like you could tell between a wizard Warlock and sorcerer. (This is for narrative identity, not mechanical as something like 'makes three attacks with the attack action' is kind of a giveaway)

The Ranger HAS an identity. (it is a hunter and a woodsman.) What you're really saying is that the Ranger doesn't have a purpose. You showed, mechanically, why the Paladin is distinct; however, when you defined its "identity", what you really meant was its purpose: the Paladin is the champion of an ideal. Then, you went for the other classes' purposes: the Fighter is a person whose whole purpose is to fight, the Rogue has a lot of mechanical stuff (you really didn't give the Rogue a purpose; the Rogue's purpose is to handle the shadier elements of adventuring, which include larceny but also communication skills, hence Thieves' Cant and access to many Charisma skills), the Wizard seeks arcane knowledge through study, and...well, here's a curious point. You didn't really give a purpose to the Sorcerer and/or the Warlock. The Warlock has a given purpose - the deal with its patron defines the powers it gains, how it uses these powers, and for which reason (whether to advance the patron's purpose or defy it). The Sorcerer, however, has no given purpose. The Sorcerer was given the ability to use magic. What will it do with it? Will it seek the source of its power; will it reject its power out of fear, or loathing?

The Ranger has a purpose, however. It is a hunter, and hunters have a given purpose of culling the ranks of creatures. Some do it to preserve natural balance: either they cull the prey, or they cull predators. Some do it for money, and are exceptionally good at it. Some do it for the thrill of it. And some...do it out of hatred, or out of a vague reason. This would be its purpose, and its identity. The Ranger is also a woodsman, and a woodsman is an expert in living outdoors. The woodsman can easily be a guide, or a grizzled survivalist, or a trailblazer, or an explorer for more civilized people. The Ranger is right between wilderness and civilization, being somewhere in between. Now, if you think that can be resumed as something a Fighter or Rogue would do, that's quite the leap.

Perhaps this will resume it better, since it gave an idea of what's mostly the issue: you see no purpose on a Ranger, compared to other classes, and thus find no inherent identity. This is a much more interesting point to discuss, and one that really leads to a much better conversation. IMO, the Ranger has the mechanical chassis, the identity and the purpose to be its own class; therefore, it's a class. It's an interesting exercise to define it as a subclass, though.

[paladinn]

Is it an option to go back to the SR/1e idea of rangers being awesome against "giant-class" monsters, including all humanoids? It seems like that would be less situational then what we have now.

If they keep a "favored enemy" concept, there need to be serious benefits to it, way beyond advantage on tracking checks, information and speaking a language. How about a bonus to hit, AC and saves due to knowing the enemy so well?

I just re-read the description and it is totally lame as-is.

[TheUser]

Is it an option to go back to the SR/1e idea of rangers being awesome against "giant-class" monsters, including all humanoids? It seems like that would be less situational then what we have now.

If they keep a "favored enemy" concept, there need to be serious benefits to it, way beyond advantage on tracking checks, information and speaking a language. How about a bonus to hit, AC and saves due to knowing the enemy so well?

I just re-read the description and it is totally lame as-is.

Any type of "favored enemy" mechanic or favored terrain etc is terrible as a main mechanic for a class.

It takes agency away from the player. That player is now relying on the mercy of the DM to prop up the right enemies against them.

I could do without that mechanic thanks.

Even in the case of the paladin class having bonus from smites against two different types of monsters, it's mostly just that, a bonus. It doesn't make or break the class and is very much just iconic.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Any type of "favored enemy" mechanic or favored terrain etc is terrible as a main mechanic for a class.

It takes agency away from the player. That player is now relying on the mercy of the DM to prop up the right enemies against them.

I could do without that mechanic thanks.

Even in the case of the paladin class having bonus from smites against two different types of monsters, it's mostly just that, a bonus. It doesn't make or break the class and is very much just iconic.
That's why I think the concept should be reversed. A ranger should somehow be able to 'set up' against a foe if they know what it's going to be. So they can be anti-dragon or anti-lycanthrope or anti-beast, but that's never their shtick until the exact moment they know it's coming. That's when they can activate their "______" feature and get useful bonuses to fight it. Preferably something besides raw damage, more on the control/debuff side.

[Kane0]

Then the title is, at least that last sentence, intellectually dishonest. It hints of sarcasm; note that you said that, if you were "actively trying to think [you were] wrong there would be no point", hence it invites people that do think a Ranger should be a class to debate, only to essentially dismiss their claims.

Perhaps this will resume it better, since it gave an idea of what's mostly the issue: you see no purpose on a Ranger, compared to other classes, and thus find no inherent identity. This is a much more interesting point to discuss, and one that really leads to a much better conversation. IMO, the Ranger has the mechanical chassis, the identity and the purpose to be its own class; therefore, it's a class. It's an interesting exercise to define it as a subclass, though.

I'm not going to assume intentions, but IME people who usually take on a stance like 'Change my mind' aren't starting off from the most open point of view. Which was why I responded with:


Okay, so what is a ranger to you? What are the mechanical and thematic elements you find important? If you could fix the class to fulfil those requirements, would you still want to remove it in favor of a series of subclasses?

Instead of further arguments after my initial post.

If we can meet Galithar (and Paladinn) somewhere in the middle we can both figure out what we can do to help each other out rather than just presenting arguments at brick walls.

[Sigreid]

Of course ranger could go back to being a subclass of fighter. But then you could start with an Adventurer at level 1 and group all of the abilities and advantages in the game into trees and let the player select skill boxes starting at the base of each tree and let the characters climb from one box to the next in trees at their discretion as they level up, similar to the old SWG skill system.

Actually, I'm not saying D&D should do this but I think it would b kind of a neat way to have nearly unlimited advancement. Possibly with requiring some kind of a catalyst to trigger the unlock of the trunks of the various trees. Eventually a character could conceivably unlock all of the abilities available from classes in the game but those who followed a tree to its end would develop mastery in that tree quicker than those who dabble here and there.

[GreyBlack]

I'd like to go a step further, OP.

There should be only 4 classes: Fighter, Magic User, Priest, and Rogue. From there, every class is a subclass of those 4. Some of the subclasses are a hybrid of the two classes (for example, Paladin would be a hybrid between Fighter and Priest).

In this model, the Ranger would be a base class Fighter that is a hybrid with Magic User. They'd cast spells like a magic user, but they'd be able to fight like a Fighter.

(Before you ask: Druid would be a Priest hybrid with Magic User, Bard would be a Rogue hybrid with Magic User, Barbarian would be a hybrid of Fighter and Rogue, etc.)

[Edwin Briar]

Personally I don't like the PHB-Ranger, mostly because the starting abilities are extremely situational and are of limited value even in campaigns where they are constantly present.
The UA-Ranger on the other hand (I won't deny that certain Favored Enemies are way more potent than others) paints a clearer picture regarding the class-identity. The Ranger is not one with nature simply for the sake of it being so (like druids...or nature subclasses), but because he challenges nature, while coexisting with it. A Fighter measures up to his opponents, but in the Rangers case that is nature itself (and at the same time unnatural forces endangering it).

By facing these challenges the Ranger became better equipped to face them and this should be the central focus of his abilities. Find your prey, chase your prey, slay your prey! (And become friends with that super cute Giant Otter!)

[Vknight]

I'd like to go a step further, OP.

There should be only 4 classes: Fighter, Magic User, Priest, and Rogue. From there, every class is a subclass of those 4. Some of the subclasses are a hybrid of the two classes (for example, Paladin would be a hybrid between Fighter and Priest).

In this model, the Ranger would be a base class Fighter that is a hybrid with Magic User. They'd cast spells like a magic user, but they'd be able to fight like a Fighter.

(Before you ask: Druid would be a Priest hybrid with Magic User, Bard would be a Rogue hybrid with Magic User, Barbarian would be a hybrid of Fighter and Rogue, etc.)

That sounds awful and like Shadow of the Demonlord which is a bad system.

The reason those hybrid classes are hybrid is because of there distinctions. The sad thing is the ranger because of its nature gets misunderstood as just some fighter living in the woods.

[GlenSmash!]

That's why I think the concept should be reversed. A ranger should somehow be able to 'set up' against a foe if they know what it's going to be. So they can be anti-dragon or anti-lycanthrope or anti-beast, but that's never their shtick until the exact moment they know it's coming. That's when they can activate their "______" feature and get useful bonuses to fight it. Preferably something besides raw damage, more on the control/debuff side.

One of my favorite things about playing the Witcher 3 was how I could specialize for each enemy I fight by coating my swords with the right oil, drinking the right potion, and using the right bombs.

It was very satisfying.

I would very much like a mechanic that serves the same purpose on a Ranger.

[Tanarii]

Read it, it's a joke of a class feature.

Outlander and an ability check covers it.This proves you didn't read it.

[Waterdeep Merch]

One of my favorite things about playing the Witcher 3 was how I could specialize for each enemy I fight by coating my swords with the right oil, drinking the right potion, and using the right bombs.

It was very satisfying.

I would very much like a mechanic that serves the same purpose on a Ranger.
After polling my players, they like this idea enough that I'm going to build this and make it my official replacement.

First, Favored Enemy and Foe Slayer had to go. Good riddance.

Next, I moved Primeval Awareness to level 1 and changed it to not requiring spell slots- you can use it 1+Wisdom modifier times per day, and it always lasts 1 minute. This is an important new concept conceit, since knowing their enemies is a big part of figuring out how best to prepare.

You gain Hunter's Tools at level 2. There are three categories of tools: tonics, toxins, and traps. The creation of any of them requires one minute, 5 gp x level worth of ingredients, and the expenditure of a spell slot. You can forage for the necessary ingredients for any of them within 10 minutes with a successful Wisdom (Survival) check of DC 10+ the level of the expended spell slot. It may be easier or harder to gather what you require in certain types of terrain, up to DM discretion.

All tonics, toxins, and traps lose their potency after 24 hours of creation.

Tonics are more volatile than potions by nature. Drinking a second tonic while the first is still active poisons you for one hour. Drinking a third or more while at least two tonics are active gives you a level of exhaustion.

Toxins are special poisons that can be applied to one slashing or piercing weapon, 20 pieces of ammunition, or a trap or object that causes slashing or piercing damage as an action. They remain potent for one minute after application. Toxins do not intermingle well- if you apply a toxin to something where another toxin or poison has already been applied, it supplants and replaces them, as it breaks them down harmlessly. This does not stop multiple poisons or toxins from affecting a creature, however.

Traps come in two forms- stationary and portable. Stationary traps cannot be moved from the spot they are placed without disrupting it. Portable traps, like bombs and caltrops, act as regular objects and are often throwable.

At level 20, gain the ability Ad Hoc. You may create any Hunter's Tool with a single action so long as you already have the necessary ingredients. You may also switch out one ranger spell you know with any other ranger spell after a short rest.

These are my basic thoughts before I start building the Hunter's Tools. Thoughts?

[GlenSmash!]

After polling my players, they like this idea enough that I'm going to build this and make it my official replacement.

First, Favored Enemy and Foe Slayer had to go. Good riddance.

Next, I moved Primeval Awareness to level 1 and changed it to not requiring spell slots- you can use it 1+Wisdom modifier times per day, and it always lasts 1 minute. This is an important new concept conceit, since knowing their enemies is a big part of figuring out how best to prepare.

You gain Hunter's Tools at level 2. There are three categories of tools: tonics, toxins, and traps. The creation of any of them requires one minute, 5 gp x level worth of ingredients, and the expenditure of a spell slot. You can forage for the necessary ingredients for any of them within 10 minutes with a successful Wisdom (Survival) check of DC 10+ the level of the expended spell slot. It may be easier or harder to gather what you require in certain types of terrain, up to DM discretion.

All tonics, toxins, and traps lose their potency after 24 hours of creation.

Tonics are more volatile than potions by nature. Drinking a second tonic while the first is still active poisons you for one hour. Drinking a third or more while at least two tonics are active gives you a level of exhaustion.

Toxins are special poisons that can be applied to one slashing or piercing weapon, 20 pieces of ammunition, or a trap or object that causes slashing or piercing damage as an action. They remain potent for one minute after application. Toxins do not intermingle well- if you apply a toxin to something where another toxin or poison has already been applied, it supplants and replaces them, as it breaks them down harmlessly. This does not stop multiple poisons or toxins from affecting a creature, however.

Traps come in two forms- stationary and portable. Stationary traps cannot be moved from the spot they are placed without disrupting it. Portable traps, like bombs and caltrops, act as regular objects and are often throwable.

At level 20, gain the ability Ad Hoc. You may create any Hunter's Tool with a single action so long as you already have the necessary ingredients. You may also switch out one ranger spell you know with any other ranger spell after a short rest.

These are my basic thoughts before I start building the Hunter's Tools. Thoughts?

I like the idea.

On the execution I think it's a bit fiddly, and perhaps tries too emulate to closely the Witcher 3 mechanics (Which is actually the same complaint I have about the Bloodhunter Order of the Mutant).

I wish I had the skill to suggest a more streamlined mechanic.

[Reevh]

Subclasses are intended to add to the flavor and identity of a main class. If the problem is that the Ranger lacks an identity, making it a subclass isn’t going to help. That’s part of why the Champion class falls flat.

Each of the other classes has a thing that makes them feel mechanically distinct in addition to their flavor.

Rogues have sneak attack and are slippery skill monkeys.

Fighters are reasonably durable front liners with the most attacks and incredible burst damage.

Paladins provide defensive buffs to their allies while also having solid nukes in their divine smites.

Barbarians are super hard to kill as front liners.

Wizards are the “have every spell” class. They are the spellcaster with the widest spell list from day to day. Yes the bard can pick from any list, but they don’t have an enormous list to prepare from every day.

The cleric is a powerful protector, healer, and AOE damage machine.

The warlock is a simple caster with machine gun blasts and an impressive list of class features to choose from in the form of invocations. Plus they probably have the best flavor in the game.

The Sorcerer has fewer spells available than the wizard, but gets more options in HOW to use them with sorc points.

The Bard is just good at everything except martial combat, and even that they’re decent at with their swords subclass. They’re the true jack of all trades and master of most.

The monk is all about ki, flurry of blows, stunning strikes, and mobility.

Rangers, on the other hand, have a core mechanic that feels incredibly lacking for how most people actually play the game. If you really want to improve on rangers, they need a core mechanic that’s unique to them and interesting/valuable. I have some thoughts, but trying to fold them into another class doesn’t actually solve their lack of identity.

[Snails]

Subclasses are intended to add to the flavor and identity of a main class. If the problem is that the Ranger lacks an identity, making it a subclass isn’t going to help. That’s part of why the Champion class falls flat.

...

Rangers, on the other hand, have a core mechanic that feels incredibly lacking for how most people actually play the game. If you really want to improve on rangers, they need a core mechanic that’s unique to them and interesting/valuable. I have some thoughts, but trying to fold them into another class doesn’t actually solve their lack of identity.

Well said.

The fundamental problem is there are no mechanics that say Ranger to me (and many other players). TWF + Hunter's Mark is a different fighting style but not in a way I perceive as tactically interesting.

I can easily imagine creating a couple half-Feats that would allow me to play Aragorn as a Fighter, but that is neither a fix to the Ranger class nor a useful basis for a sub-class.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I like the idea.

On the execution I think it's a bit fiddly, and perhaps tries too emulate to closely the Witcher 3 mechanics (Which is actually the same complaint I have about the Bloodhunter Order of the Mutant).

I wish I had the skill to suggest a more streamlined mechanic.
It certainly is. My thought is to do everything first, see what sticks best, then iterate to streamline and remove unnecessary bits.

I believe rolling all Hunter's Tools into spells is the simplest measure, certainly the easiest way to glue it back into the system as-is. I'm thinking that it may be too limited to do what I want that way, but perhaps it's not a sin to have complex spells.

There's bards and dipping to worry about with that route, but eh.

Oh! I also think rangers should start with proficiency in Herbalism Kits, standard. It's kind of ridiculous that they don't.

[GlenSmash!]

Oh! I also think rangers should start with proficiency in Herbalism Kits, standard. It's kind of ridiculous that they don't.

I agree. In fact that's one of the reasons I've rolled up an Artificer Alchemist as somewhat of a Ranger substitute experiment.

[Reevh]

I do kind of like the idea of building the ranger up around poisons/herbs in some of their core mechanics. Possibly also ambush tactics.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I think traps and poisons and such belong in a subclass. I can't envision every type of ranger using such abilities, but i do envision a particular type.

The idea of Hunter's Tools though, which would be similar to invocations, metamagic and battle master maneuvers, sounds intriguing, and it would be open enough for most if not all ranger subclasses to use. You could even design ones for particular subclasses.

[Bigmouth]

I think the Wizard should be a Rogue subclass. Change my mind.
Wizards should be the smartest, with the most skills. But they aren't. Gandalf swings that staff too well. It would narrow the focus of the wizard down and put them on a progression rate similar to the rest of the classes. More newbie friendly.
I think the Fighter should be a Wizard Subclass. Change my mind.
If you can't beat them, join them. Just change the special effects of all the spells they use to be 'fightery'. Give them a trait that says "Nah, it's not magic. I'm just that damn good." Boom! No more worrying about Fighter's contributing in Tier 3 and 4.

Silly thread since OP has no interest in changing his mind. But everyone plays along.

OP made no convincing argument about why it should be a subclass. Just jumped in with both feet. "It should be."
Why? Because people talk about fixing it all the time?
Well, I'll go the other way and say that is exactly why it SHOULDN'T be a subclass of fighter or rogue. Rangers are popular (much more popular with people outside forums IME). People care about it and are passionate enough to want to fix it. Fantasy rangers live and thrive beyond D&D.
It's just built wrong.
And of course, since you can already get close with fighters or rogues, would this silliness also involve killing off Arcane Archers or Scouts? Heck, does it mean we should kill off the Ancients Paladin?

If this is all theorycrafting for theorycrafting's sake, I'd day burn em all. Build one base class and subdivide from that point. Nip Linear vs Quadratic in the bud.

[Kane0]

I think the Wizard should be a Rogue subclass. Change my mind.
Wizards should be the smartest, with the most skills. But they aren't. Gandalf swings that staff too well. It would narrow the focus of the wizard down and put them on a progression rate similar to the rest of the classes. More newbie friendly.
I think the Fighter should be a Wizard Subclass. Change my mind.
If you can't beat them, join them. Just change the special effects of all the spells they use to be 'fightery'. Give them a trait that says "Nah, it's not magic. I'm just that damn good." Boom! No more worrying about Fighter's contributing in Tier 3 and 4.

Silly thread since OP has no interest in changing his mind. But everyone plays along.

OP made no convincing argument about why it should be a subclass. Just jumped in with both feet. "It should be."
Why? Because people talk about fixing it all the time?
Well, I'll go the other way and say that is exactly why it SHOULDN'T be a subclass of fighter or rogue. Rangers are popular (much more popular with people outside forums IME). People care about it and are passionate enough to want to fix it. Fantasy rangers live and thrive beyond D&D.
It's just built wrong.
And of course, since you can already get close with fighters or rogues, would this silliness also involve killing off Arcane Archers or Scouts? Heck, does it mean we should kill off the Ancients Paladin?

If this is all theorycrafting for theorycrafting's sake, I'd day burn em all. Build one base class and subdivide from that point. Nip Linear vs Quadratic in the bud.

There are valid points both ways, but you ain't gonna change nobody's mind by calling their position dumb. Especially if they came looking for a fight.

I'm still waiting for Galithar's response to my questions, I think that might be most helpful to the discussion. Open invitation for Paladinn to answer too, appears they share views on this.

Sidenote: With how classes can range from specific to generic (ie 'Identity') we can't really use that as a metric for validity as a class versus subclass. Being a sacred cow can actually carry a bit of weight in that context.

[paladinn]

There are valid points both ways, but you ain't gonna change nobody's mind by calling their position dumb. Especially if they came looking for a fight.

I'm still waiting for Galithar's response to my questions, I think that might be most helpful to the discussion. Open invitation for Paladinn to answer too, appears they share views on this.

Sidenote: With how classes can range from specific to generic (ie 'Identity') we can't really use that as a metric for validity as a class versus subclass. Being a sacred cow can actually carry a bit of weight in that context.

I'm don't know Galithar and I definitely didn't come here for a fight.

As for your questions, sir:

"What is a ranger to you?" Being an OSR grognard at heart, I'd say a ranger is a fighter, first and foremost, especially able to survive and thrive in the wild, to guide those who aren't so able, to be sort of the "bridge" between civilization and wilderness. Part of that is to be able to effectively defend against the enemies of such civilization.

"What are the mechanical and thematic elements you find important?" See above. A ranger should be the toughest cuss in any group. A "normal" fighter can only keep up by virtue of training and weapon skill. Tracking has always been a constant for rangers. I'd say animal handling as well. Stealth. Maybe natural healing.

"If you could fix the class to fulfil those requirements, would you still want to remove it in favor of a series of subclasses?" I think a ranger would benefit greatly from the "generic" features of the fighter class, while substituting the non-generic archetype features for more rangeresque ones.

I just don't think the ranger has enough unique (and good) features to justify being a complete class of its own.

[Bobthewizard]

Any type of "favored enemy" mechanic or favored terrain etc is terrible as a main mechanic for a class.

It takes agency away from the player. That player is now relying on the mercy of the DM to prop up the right enemies against them.

I could do without that mechanic thanks.

I absolutely agree with this. Getting rid of the Natural Terrain and Favored Enemy restrictions and just giving Ranger all of those skills wouldn't break the game, so why limit them to those terrains and enemies. Since they are limited, most players seem to forget about them. I'd rather they use those skills.

To the original question, if you want a ranger that's a subclass of rogue or fighter, you can play a scout (UA for the fighter). If you want a magic ranger, play the PHB or revised ranger. Maybe even talk to your DM about changes you think are needed for your character. I like that D&D gives you options to do it either way. I wouldn't want to take away the current Ranger and make it a nonmagical subclass if that meant telling someone they couldn't play the character they wanted to.

[paladinn]

I absolutely agree with this. Getting rid of the Natural Terrain and Favored Enemy restrictions and just giving Ranger all of those skills wouldn't break the game, so why limit them to those terrains and enemies. Since they are limited, most players seem to forget about them. I'd rather they use those skills.

To the original question, if you want a ranger that's a subclass of rogue or fighter, you can play a scout (UA for the fighter). If you want a magic ranger, play the PHB or revised ranger. Maybe even talk to your DM about changes you think are needed for your character. I like that D&D gives you options to do it either way. I wouldn't want to take away the current Ranger and make it a nonmagical subclass if that meant telling someone they couldn't play the character they wanted to.

The 4e ranger was spell-less. So is the Castles & Crusades ranger. So is the equivalent in the Middle Earth game. I just don't care for a ranger casting spells. Most of a ranger's "spells" just seem like glorified class features that were thrown in to justify the class' existence. One of the reasons for the confusion about the ranger's purpose is the attempts to make it a "junior druid".

The more I play and DM, the more I think spells should be for casters, as in wizards, clerics and (real) druids.

[JNAProductions]

The 4e ranger was spell-less. So is the Castles & Crusades ranger. So is the equivalent in the Middle Earth game. I just don't care for a ranger casting spells. Most of a ranger's "spells" just seem like glorified class features that were thrown in to justify the class' existence. One of the reasons for the confusion about the ranger's purpose is the attempts to make it a "junior druid".

The more I play and DM, the more I think spells should be for casters, as in wizards, clerics and (real) druids.

And Bards get...

[Hail Tempus]

The 4e ranger was spell-less. So is the Castles & Crusades ranger. So is the equivalent in the Middle Earth game. I just don't care for a ranger casting spells. Most of a ranger's "spells" just seem like glorified class features that were thrown in to justify the class' existence. One of the reasons for the confusion about the ranger's purpose is the attempts to make it a "junior druid".

The more I play and DM, the more I think spells should be for casters, as in wizards, clerics and (real) druids.
Hmmm... It seems like they started going in a certain direction with Warlocks, but then decided to give them a form of spellcasting.

I could see Rangers and Paladins not getting spells, but rather some sort of modular features like the Warlock’s invocations (spirits for Rangers, oaths for Paladins, maybe?)

[Blood of Gaea]

Ranger should be several subclasses. Scout Rogue and Ancients Paladin are good examples. I could definitely see a Druid and Fighter subclass as well.

[paladinn]

And Bards get...

In 1e Bards were a hot mess. Not a lot better in 2e. I prefer the BECMI bard from VotPA. Basically a thief (rogue) with better weapon choices, no sneak attack, all the rogue skills, a "lore" ability than let them know almost anything, and charm, inspire and counterspell abilities through their music. I'd probably add some sort of de-buffing against enemies

[paladinn]

Hmmm... It seems like they started going in a certain direction with Warlocks, but then decided to give them a form of spellcasting.

I could see Rangers and Paladins not getting spells, but rather some sort of modular features like the Warlock’s invocations (spirits for Rangers, oaths for Paladins, maybe?)

I've already mentioned my take on rangers. Paladins have always gotten detect evil ("divine sense"), protection from evil (an "aura"), immunity to disease ("divine health"), lay-on-hands, and a special mount. In OD&D they could "dispel evil" at will at 8th level; AD&D nerfed that to a "turn undead" and 3e introduced the smite idea. They didn't get spells till 1e. I would rather keep everything But the spells (and maybe keep smites instead of dispel evil).

The big problem with this version of the paladin, ranger, bard, etc. is that the special abilities are hard to spread over 20 levels. Since 3e there has been such a clamor about "dead levels" that modern games feel they Have to give characters something shiny at every level. More hp and better saves aren't enough any more.

[Bigmouth]

I don't think the OP's mind can be changed. They came with a provocative opinion to spark some conversation IMO. I don't know that I think their opinion to be dumb. Silly, yes. Silly because removing ranger and making it a subclass is a HUGE change, a change so large, that at that point, why not reinvent the wheel. Not reduce to four classes that already are broken with the Linear vs Quadratic, but actually rebuild from scratch.

My mentioning of Arcane Archer, Scout, and Ancients Paladin wasn't about any qualities they had other than if you built a fighter subclass with ranger abilities, how close would it be to an Arcane Archer or Ancients Paladin? If it is a rogue subclass, wouldn't it be pretty close to Scout? I think Ranger is iconic, it is a 'sacred cow'. People new to D&D can flip open the book, see ranger and have an instant notion of what that is and be drawn to it. That's not something that should be hidden behind another class.

[Kane0]

"What is a ranger to you?" Being an OSR grognard at heart, I'd say a ranger is a fighter, first and foremost, especially able to survive and thrive in the wild, to guide those who aren't so able, to be sort of the "bridge" between civilization and wilderness. Part of that is to be able to effectively defend against the enemies of such civilization.

"What are the mechanical and thematic elements you find important?" See above. A ranger should be the toughest cuss in any group. A "normal" fighter can only keep up by virtue of training and weapon skill. Tracking has always been a constant for rangers. I'd say animal handling as well. Stealth. Maybe natural healing.

"If you could fix the class to fulfil those requirements, would you still want to remove it in favor of a series of subclasses?" I think a ranger would benefit greatly from the "generic" features of the fighter class, while substituting the non-generic archetype features for more rangeresque ones.

I just don't think the ranger has enough unique (and good) features to justify being a complete class of its own.

Cool, I think we're getting somewhere

So, am I correct in saying that from your view a fighter can be a ranger and a ranger can be a fighter?
Do you think there is enough breadth in the ranger concept to be more than one kind? If yes, would they be mutually exclusive?
if I may pick out some keywords you used there (survive, wild, guide, tough, track, animals, stealth), how would you rate their importance?
Would you be able to narrow down what you mean by unique features, what you might consider good features, and what would justify a complete class for you?

And going on the answers to the above; if I were to present a theoretical class along those lines, would you consider it worthy of standing next to the other 11 in the PHB?

[paladinn]

Cool, I think we're getting somewhere

So, am I correct in saying that from your view a fighter can be a ranger and a ranger can be a fighter?
Do you think there is enough breadth in the ranger concept to be more than one kind? If yes, would they be mutually exclusive?
if I may pick out some keywords you used there (survive, wild, guide, tough, track, animals, stealth), how would you rate their importance?
Would you be able to narrow down what you mean by unique features, what you might consider good features, and what would justify a complete class for you?

And going on the answers to the above; if I were to present a theoretical class along those lines, would you consider it worthy of standing next to the other 11 in the PHB?

Is it your mission to "Save the Ranger"?

A ranger Is a fighter, so yes..

I don't know how to rank those features in importance, but I do think that they do not, even together, justify the ranger as a full class. That is why there has always been a "favored enemy" mechanic involved, which was the ranger's combat "thing"; but it has been nerfed into oblivion. Even at its best, it was extremely situational.

Which is why I've suggested adapting the PF "studied target" concept. If facing a given foe, after fighting for a while, you would get a plus to hit and, I would say, to saves and AC against that foe.

Without something of that nature (and no, not the existing FE debacle), I don't think the ranger stands up at a full class.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Conceptually, the ranger needs to be rewritten not shoved into another class. It just doesn't work out. The subclass would be over-bloated or just be unsatisfying and even then you would forever pigeon hole anyone with the ranger idea into a narrow concept. You can't just forget about the subclasses a ranger class would have.

As far as I've seen no matter how you slice it, the ranger just needs to be rewritten as a class.

[Kane0]

Is it your mission to "Save the Ranger"?

A ranger Is a fighter, so yes..

I don't know how to rank those features in importance, but I do think that they do not, even together, justify the ranger as a full class. That is why there has always been a "favored enemy" mechanic involved, which was the ranger's combat "thing"; but it has been nerfed into oblivion. Even at its best, it was extremely situational.

Which is why I've suggested adapting the PF "studied target" concept. If facing a given foe, after fighting for a while, you would get a plus to hit and, I would say, to saves and AC against that foe.

Without something of that nature (and no, not the existing FE debacle), I don't think the ranger stands up at a full class.

Absolutely, I reckon it's worth saving.

Cool, cool. We're in agreement there. Would you also say the same for rogues, druids and/or barbarians in relation to Rangers?

Alright, so all those combined aren't a ranger. Can you fit all that on a fighter, plus whatever else is needed to make it a ranger?

I agree that Favored Enemy is and should remain nothing more than a ribbon. That sounds like that central combat thing is a key missing piece to you, and to that I agree as well. If we replaced it what PF or 4e did would that fit better? Could the ranger then be a proper class?

[paladinn]

Absolutely, I reckon it's worth saving.

Cool, cool. We're in agreement there. Would you also say the same for rogues, druids and/or barbarians in relation to Rangers?

Alright, so all those combined aren't a ranger. Can you fit all that on a fighter, plus whatever else is needed to make it a ranger?

I agree that Favored Enemy is and should remain nothing more than a ribbon. That sounds like that central combat thing is a key missing piece to you, and to that I agree as well. If we replaced it what PF or 4e did would that fit better? Could the ranger then be a proper class?

Years ago I would have said yes.. now I'm not so sure. Back then, getting some thing new every level (besides hp and saves, etc.) wasn't as big a deal as now. Now, everyone has to have something shiny every level. In OSR and AD&D and such, a lot of those abilities were front-loaded and increased over time. I don't know how one could do a ranger that way and appeal to modern sensibilties.

And like it or now, what a class can do in a fight has become its "thing".

[GreyBlack]

That sounds awful and like Shadow of the Demonlord which is a bad system.

The reason those hybrid classes are hybrid is because of there distinctions. The sad thing is the ranger because of its nature gets misunderstood as just some fighter living in the woods.

I was actually pulling from second edition, where this was literally the case. You had the Warriors, Wizard, Priest, and Rogue. Everything else was just a subclass of those 4; Druids and Clerics were Priests; Bards and Thieves were Rogues, Paladins, Rangers, and Fighters were Warriors; and Wizards... well you could be a specialist.

That said, when talking about the classes, people tend to already say that class A is just a hybrid of class X and Y anyway. So, if that's the case, why not just go all the way with it? Pathfinder already has a similar system in place with their Archetype system, so why not go whole hog?

[paladinn]

I was actually pulling from second edition, where this was literally the case. You had the Warriors, Wizard, Priest, and Rogue. Everything else was just a subclass of those 4; Druids and Clerics were Priests; Bards and Thieves were Rogues, Paladins, Rangers, and Fighters were Warriors; and Wizards... well you could be a specialist.

That said, when talking about the classes, people tend to already say that class A is just a hybrid of class X and Y anyway. So, if that's the case, why not just go all the way with it? Pathfinder already has a similar system in place with their Archetype system, so why not go whole hog?

PF2 has almost jumped the shark. Instead of simplifying (especially feats), they have made Everything a feat, including racial abilities, class abilities, etc. It's made an already complex game much moreso.

I like some of the archetypes in PF1; but they got on board the "something shiny at every level" train long before 5e.

And IMO, 2e's class layout wasn't a bad thing. And they had kits too :)

[Snails]

PF2 has almost jumped the shark. Instead of simplifying (especially feats), they have made Everything a feat, including racial abilities, class abilities, etc. It's made an already complex game much moreso.

Flag on the play! Incorrect usage of Jump the Shark! 15 yard penalty and loss of down.

[paladinn]

Flag on the play! Incorrect usage of Jump the Shark! 15 yard penalty and loss of down.

Heh.. Have you looked at PF2?

[Snails]

That said, when talking about the classes, people tend to already say that class A is just a hybrid of class X and Y anyway. So, if that's the case, why not just go all the way with it? Pathfinder already has a similar system in place with their Archetype system, so why not go whole hog?

From an ivory tower theorycrafty point of view, no reason not to.

From a practical gameplay point of view, D&D 5e is trying to polish the player experience of building a character, such that it does not overload the casual player with too many detailed choices.

Pick your class. Pick your race. Pick your background. Pick your skills. Start playing.

"So my character is really a blend of Class X and Class Y..." is specifically something that the Designers did not want to be part of basic gameplay -- it is an option for advanced players who know the system well already.

Enough players want to play a ranger-y PC from 1st level that it needs to exist in some easy to understand manner. A class would be convenient. A sub-class + background is workable but less desirable. A feat or two to support the idea would suck.

[Sindal]

I personally think I'll just wait, until the new iteration of ranger is proposed by WoTC the way they said.

All these 'it should be like this based on how I think it should work' ranger threads don't really accomplish much most times because there is 'soemthing wrong' but eveyrone's idea is differet

[Tanarii]

Enough players want to play a ranger-y PC from 1st level that it needs to exist in some easy to understand manner. A class would be convenient. A sub-class + background is workable but less desirable. A feat or two to support the idea would suck.
Well said. Especially on point about Feats. Those are an optional rule, like multiclassing. A Core D&D archetype (since AD&D) should not be an optional class.

[paladinn]

I posted this on Kane0's other thread, but would like to get some feedback from y'all:
https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/B1dN0bNFW

It's an attempt at duplicating the Pathfinder Slayer class in 5e. I like a lot of it, but would not make it a casting class and Definitely not give it sneak attack (it's a rogue thing).

Any thoughts? Especially for Studied Target

[GreatWyrmGold]

To whoever said the Pathfinder Hunter (Beastmaster) was done well, we just have different definitions of balance. You say it's balanced and fun and then that he was the only one to survive the full campaign? Did I miss that? Because while there could be a million contributing factors bring the only one to survive leads me to believe that character is stronger.
...Fair enough, I should have mentioned that the reason he survived was that his player is the only one who knows when to fold 'em, combined with how archers can usually disengage combat without taking attacks of opportunity. And also that most of the first party was killed by DM error, with the other surviving character's player being the current DM, but that's a separate issue.
In combat, he generally doesn't overshadow anyone; his tiger is a decent tank (especially since we don't have anyone else) and his archery provides a little damage, but the casters and alchemist usually do more damage. Where he shines most is out of combat, thanks to clever use of feats and spells.


The Ranger simply doesn't have an identity that I've seen presented coherently (Full disclaimer I haven't read everything. There have been a lot of responses some of which are very long and u have only do much time)
So...you didn't bother to read everything, or identify your problems with the definitions you did read, and you expect us to just accept your assertion that no identity for the ranger class exists in the way that an identity exists for other classes.
If this is the best argument you can muster, why should I bother?


Also to whoever said it seems like I don't want to be convinced that's kind of the point. If I said 'change my mind' and was actively trying to think I was wrong there would be no point.
You really know how to grind my gears, don't you?
If you want to start a word-fight, say so. If you are actually open to a good argument changing your mind, say "Change my mind". You should be looking for people with compelling arguments that change your mind, because that's how you stop being wrong.
But with how blandly you dismissed all ranger identities as being incoherent and meaningless, it's pretty clear you just want to word-fight.



I'm thinking the barbarian class has a lot of what should have been ranger material. If one class is supposed to be the wilderness expert, which one is it?
I think the barbarian and ranger are supposed to be different ways of handling "woodsy" characters. A barbarian (by fluff, not sure what mechanics support this) has been living in uncivilized lands their whole life and knows little but nature. The ranger may be from more civilized parts, but has learned everything about nature. Raw power versus deep understanding.
Think of it like the sorcerer/wizard divide. The sorcerer has, most likely, never known a life when they didn't have magic; they use their innate raw power to do what they will. Wizards, on the other hand, usually grow up without magic, but study until they understand everything about it. Raw power versus deep understanding.



That's why I think the concept should be reversed. A ranger should somehow be able to 'set up' against a foe if they know what it's going to be. So they can be anti-dragon or anti-lycanthrope or anti-beast, but that's never their shtick until the exact moment they know it's coming. That's when they can activate their "______" feature and get useful bonuses to fight it. Preferably something besides raw damage, more on the control/debuff side.
So, less Soveliss Orc-Slayer, more Soveliss Wins-With-Preparation? I like that idea.



I don't think NE is a joke, but I do think it's a bad design.

It completely bypassed my DM's wilderness encounters rather than helping the party overcome them in a way that was satisfactory.
That's true of a distressing number of D&D abilities, especially spells. Knock, goodberry, teleport...all let the players just circumvent some challenge that the DM was going to give them.



The more I play and DM, the more I think spells should be for casters, as in wizards, clerics and (real) druids.
Which is odd, because I keep getting the opposite idea. Everyone should get a little magic; full-casters should be better at spellcasting, just like fighters are better at fighting, but the fact that fighters fight doesn't mean other classes can't fight, you know?



The big problem with this version of the paladin, ranger, bard, etc. is that the special abilities are hard to spread over 20 levels. Since 3e there has been such a clamor about "dead levels" that modern games feel they Have to give characters something shiny at every level. More hp and better saves aren't enough any more.

Back then, getting some thing new every level (besides hp and saves, etc.) wasn't as big a deal as now. Now, everyone has to have something shiny every level.
Better numbers are boring.
Video games can get away with +numbers level-ups because they can make leveling up common, not the sole means of progression, and let you feel that gradual increase in power every time you traipse through an old area.
D&D level-ups take longer (unless you use a program that handles the math for you), and they are usually the only way you get significant new abilities. Also, combat is clunky enough that you don't want to throw a bunch of goblins at the players just to show them how much they've grown.
Heck, the fact that DMs usually scale their opponents to match their players' level alone makes +numbers level-ups meaningless. Same in video games which do the same; combat feels identical at 5th level and 20th level if all that changes is your numbers, because their numbers have grown to match.

I view this as "video games let us recognize something about game design that wasn't obvious when there were maybe a dozen games we could compare". Some may view it as "video games sapped the market of interest for that kind of thing" or something like that, but I don't care. The fundamental design logic is there; getting another +1 to some rolls and a dozen hit points just doesn't feel like much of anything.



And like it or now, what a class can do in a fight has become its "thing".
That's always been the case. Some classes had significant side-jobs (like finding traps or noticing a second-level spell that ruins the plot), but D&D was always centered around combat. And from what I've heard, the oldest versions of D&D were even worse about it (what with not entirely realizing they weren't just tweaking the tactical wargame formula anymore).



PF2 has almost jumped the shark. Instead of simplifying (especially feats), they have made Everything a feat, including racial abilities, class abilities, etc. It's made an already complex game much moreso.
Wait, how does making everything fit the same mold make things more complex? Or is it just that everything is extremely modular, and modularity is somehow equivalent to complexity?

[GreyBlack]

From an ivory tower theorycrafty point of view, no reason not to.

From a practical gameplay point of view, D&D 5e is trying to polish the player experience of building a character, such that it does not overload the casual player with too many detailed choices.

Pick your class. Pick your race. Pick your background. Pick your skills. Start playing.

"So my character is really a blend of Class X and Class Y..." is specifically something that the Designers did not want to be part of basic gameplay -- it is an option for advanced players who know the system well already.

Enough players want to play a ranger-y PC from 1st level that it needs to exist in some easy to understand manner. A class would be convenient. A sub-class + background is workable but less desirable. A feat or two to support the idea would suck.

Gee, it's almost like that was the point of my original post.

[KorvinStarmast]

From a practical gameplay point of view, D&D 5e is trying to polish the player experience of building a character, such that it does not overload the casual player with too many detailed choices.

Pick your class. Pick your race. Pick your background. Pick your skills. Start playing. Yes, but for a small corner of the internet, that's not good enough. :smallfrown:


"So my character is really a blend of Class X and Class Y..." is specifically something that the Designers did not want to be part of basic gameplay -- it is an option for advanced players who know the system well already. Bingo.


Enough players want to play a ranger-y PC from 1st level that it needs to exist in some easy to understand manner. And it does. :smallsmile:

[GlenSmash!]

I posted this on Kane0's other thread, but would like to get some feedback from y'all:
https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/B1dN0bNFW

It's an attempt at duplicating the Pathfinder Slayer class in 5e. I like a lot of it, but would not make it a casting class and Definitely not give it sneak attack (it's a rogue thing).

Any thoughts? Especially for Studied Target

Hmm. Studied Target adds fiddly +1 bonuses. I liked that 5e got away from that with advantage/disadvantage. I get that if you are going to have a favored enemy type mechanic, you might as well be able to switch it up as needed, but this class just leans into one least favorite things about Rangers as is.

Sneak attack can't be applied to Longswords so I can't make an Aragorn type Ranger out of this unless that's changed (I know you mentioned not liking sneak attack, but I thought I might as well comment on it).

Hunter's Resolve is ok, but it could easily be all Survival checks without hurting anything.

Swift Tracker is a ribbon. 11th level seems a weird level to get a ribbon to me.

Slayer's Advance stops you from taking a level 2 rogue dip I guess.

Quarry. A +5 bonus? Why 5? Advantage, or something related to levels in the class would make more sense to me than a flat +5. Also why have a quarry and a studied target as separate mechanics?

Improved Quarry. It seems weird to me that we are improving the mechanic we only got 3 levels ago.

Master Slayer is better than Foe slayer, but it's so fiddly. Should keep it simple.

Bounty Hunter seems to be an attempt at making Favored enemy into an entire subclass. I don't think that would be a move in the right direction.

Skinwalker is all over the place.

On the whole the Pathfinder is showing so strong in here with fiddly mechanics instead of more streamlined mechanics. Also I can't see why I would ever choose it over a Scout Rogue which I already think of as an inadequate Ranger substitute.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I posted this on Kane0's other thread, but would like to get some feedback from y'all:
https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/B1dN0bNFW

It's an attempt at duplicating the Pathfinder Slayer class in 5e. I like a lot of it, but would not make it a casting class and Definitely not give it sneak attack (it's a rogue thing).

Any thoughts? Especially for Studied Target
I might remove the addition to hit and increase the addition to damage. At least to a +2 early, and scaling at the same rate as a barbarian's rage bonus. Attack rolls will already eclipse AC late as it is, no need to rush it. The damage is more useful for giving a player that 'powerful' feeling.

It's a little fiddly on activation just because of it's numerous caveats, but I'm unsure if it's weighty enough that it would hamper any but the freshest of players. Maybe just remove the normal action caveat altogether and just let it always be a bonus action? I mean, as-written, you can only prevent them from claiming it at best on the very first round, and then it's still a finnicky thing that you need to turn back on when you switch targets. It's like rage without it's best benefit, or Hunter's Mark/Hex with a lower average but infinite use. All those work off bonus actions, I don't see why this can't.

[paladinn]

I might remove the addition to hit and increase the addition to damage. At least to a +2 early, and scaling at the same rate as a barbarian's rage bonus. Attack rolls will already eclipse AC late as it is, no need to rush it. The damage is more useful for giving a player that 'powerful' feeling.

It's a little fiddly on activation just because of it's numerous caveats, but I'm unsure if it's weighty enough that it would hamper any but the freshest of players. Maybe just remove the normal action caveat altogether and just let it always be a bonus action? I mean, as-written, you can only prevent them from claiming it at best on the very first round, and then it's still a finnicky thing that you need to turn back on when you switch targets. It's like rage without it's best benefit, or Hunter's Mark/Hex with a lower average but infinite use. All those work off bonus actions, I don't see why this can't.

Thanks for the input. I know many of us are looking for a Favored Enemy replacement. I actually like the to-hit bonus so as to distinguish from the paladin smites. I wouldn't mind seeing bonuses to AC and maybe some saves too. If you're studying the opponent, you have a lot that you can learn.

[Hobbo Jim]

I might be joining in on this a bit late, there's a lot of info here already. But...

To me, the ranger is the equivalent of the fighter, but designed to fight in the rugged wilderness rather than in society. Obviously this isn't a perfect equivalence, but I think it helps give an idea of what they might do. Excelling either in solo or in small scouting groups.
Regarding magic, I think it would me more interesting to make them more like the fighter/rogue where their base class gets no magic, but some of the subclasses might grant it if they want to go in more of a "fighter druid" sort of way.

A few subclasses might be a Monster Hunter, a scout/sneaker, someone part of a druidic clan but took to the sword rather than magic (half caster), and of course the beast master/tamer. Expansion ideas (which are usually a little more out there) might be a

Maybe this is an idea that should be thrown out the window immediately, but has it been considered that perhaps other classes breach the ranger too much? You can always take various classes and make them more ranger-esque to try and fill the slot by sprinkling some nature on them, but to be honest I think that the scout rogue would step on the ranger too much if it were better written. As it is, I don't mind it because Ranger is so bad in 5e, but if it were re-written to work better mechanically and be a little bit more identity driven (I suggest my thoughts, but other things might work), then I would dislike scout rogue and prefer a ranger who gets some extra stealth abilities like a skirmisher or something. That said, I do think that the base ranger shouldn't necessarily focus quite so much on stealth, and a little more on surviving/utilizing nature. Maybe poisons.

[Garfunion]

That said, I do think that the base ranger shouldn't necessarily focus quite so much on stealth, and a little more on surviving/utilizing nature. Maybe poisons.
This right here. Let’s move the Favored Enemy to the Hunter subclass and Favored Terrain to another subclass.
And really focus on making Ranger the jack of all trades “wilderness” traveler. Let the subclasses fill in the additional class identity.

[Galithar]

Alright, so I haven't been able to post for a bit but I'll address a few things.

First up Natural Explorer:
"Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel.
• Your group can’t become lost except by magical means.
• Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger.
• If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace.
• When you forage, you find twice as much food as you normally would.
• While tracking other creatures, you also learn their exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area."

1. Great that difficult terrain doesn't slow your travel. But this is not a good ability for two reasons. First, it's dependant on your DM making it relevant. So you're reliant on your DM to make this useful. Second, if it is made relevant then your in a situation where you are simply negating an obstacle for your team simply by existing. If it's important then you have to have a Ranger. I don't like any mechanic that makes a certain class or ability a necessity. Some may disagree, but I just don't think that's good game design.

2. Your group can't become lost by non-magical means. If I'm not mistaken an outlander always knows where North is (if there is a North) and remembers anywhere they've been. Add in a decent survival check and you're not getting lost by non-magical means. This is also not dependant on the DM letting the adventure take place in your favored terrain.

3. Even when you're engaged in another activity such as those listed, not every party member has to participate in that activity. They can keep watch and alert you when needed. Sure it reduces the number of perception checks possible but it's a group game and having a teammate there to watch your back is usually assumed. So a decent ribbon ability, but not very powerful. Also I am aware feats are optional, but the Alert feat prevents you from being surprised and is therefore a perfect replacement that anyone can take. (and in my opinion at least one should) This isn't one of my reasons to discount this part, just to show a perfect (and superior) replication.

4. If travelling alone you can move at a normal pace. Okay, again this is a team game and you will generally have party members that need to travel with you. Even if you don't then you're reliant on the DM to make time sensitive stealth relevant.

5. When foraging for food you find twice as much. I know a lot of tables hand wave rations. But even if you don't the survival skills will help you find food without this, so unless there is a reason you need very large quantities you should be okay without this. Again a good ribbon ability but it's not that powerful.

6. Knowing the exact number of creatures and their type would be useful information. I think this is something that should be given on an exceptionally good survival roll. But I will say if this is relevant in your campaign it is actually pretty powerful, but is again DM dependant on relevance.


Next I need to clarify something that gets easily lost (because I didn't ever explicitly state it). I believe the Ranger COULD be a full class, but not in D&D 5e. There is a reason it is a highly disliked and rarely played class. I don't have links (because I don't catalogue this stuff for future reference) but there are lots of statistics and polls showing that this is a fact. Also the existence of a Ranger rewrite in UA also indicates that no one is happy with the class. I get that the Ranger is a sacred cow and WotC would never get rid of it, this thread isn't about changing WotC it's about debating the merits of the class as a subclass. And for those of you that apparently didn't get it, the title is a meme that is used to put absurd ideas on a sign that says 'change my mind' at the bottom. I have no reason to want you to change my mind I want to talk about the subject. My opinion is just that, and yours is just as valid even if I don't agree with it. If I entered a debate with the intention of changing my mind it would be impossible to defend my stance because I would be trying to justify someone else's argument. Coming here and telling me "I'm wrong" is not productive because this is subjective. There is no objective right or wrong here. And for the record me telling you that I'm not convinced by your argument is not saying you're wrong just that I disagree.

Now I've stated before that I don't like Beastmaster. 5e is so dependant on action economy that giving someone a second entity on the battlemap is a slippery slope. I believe it's POSSIBLE to do right but I'm not sure that it can ever be fun and balanced in 5e. Sure some people may find it fun as is (which is actually balanced) but the general impression I have from the people I've talked to, polls I've seen etc it's generally not enjoyed by the masses. The Revised Ranger is enjoyed, but I have done math showing the power of the revised rangers beastmaster power and it's above the curve and requires no planned optimization. Just being a beastmaster Ranger gives you amazing damage and tanking abilities.

And even though I said I wouldn't respond to this my problem is not that the Ranger lacks purpose. It is exactly as I said that it lacks IDENTITY.

The IDENTITY of a Wizard is someone who gains magical power through study.
The IDENTITY of a Warlock is someone who gains magical power through a pact.
The IDENTITY of a Sorcerer is someone who gained their power simply from existing (aka their ancestry).
The IDENTITY of a Fighter is someone who has trained in martial practices to the point of becoming a master of weapon and armor.
The IDENTITY of a Rogue is someone that has practiced agility, stealth, and often deception to get an advantage against their opponent.
The IDENTITY of a Barbarian is someone who harnesses and inner rage to become a powerful warrior.
The IDENTITY of a Paladin is someone that draws power (often holy) from their Oath to smite enemies and empower their allies.
The IDENTITY of a Cleric is someone that channels the power of a deity to destroy thier enemies and protect their allies
The IDENTITY of a Ranger is what? What I've been given is a variety of things that don't seem to define them. The closest is 'a woodsman' and I just don't think that really identifies a class. Almost everything else is a couple of mechanical things that could be given to another class. Stealthy. Rogue. Ambush. Rogue. Deals extra damage. Fighter (though this is a slippery slope for balance). Traps. Rogue. Tracking (skills) Rogue. I don't see an identity here. I see an amalgamation of what mechanics we (as a group even though I haven't voiced it I agree with many of these mechanics. It's what I would be adding to the subclass) want to give them (or identified that they have already).

If your identity can be slapped onto almost any class with a background and maybe a feat or two it's not enough to define a class by my definition. But it fits well as a subclass (or series of them) and I will again repeat that I KNOW the Ranger will not cease being a class in D&D. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. (I dislike Bards as well, but that's a whole different matter and not something I want to get into.)


Also for all the comments about making other classes into subclasses you are correct. They COULD be subclasses. But I have seen no reasoning behind it. You just say they could. Whether you are being genuine or not I will treat it as if you are.

Barbarians have too much in their narrative and mechanics to still maintain their identity intact as a subclass. The Paladin is the same way. Both COULD be watered down into a subclass, but you lose too much. I understand that some people want to have a Ranger that is all in one package, but I haven't seen anything that can't be done with backstory and skills. It's not all in one package but the Ranger is mostly about where they came from and what they can do, not how they do it. By that I mean that they are about wilderness abilities and having grown up in that life. They get combat abilities the same way a fighter does. They practice martial ability and become powerful warriors. They have magic from... Okay I'll admit I honestly don't know the 5e fluff for where their magic comes from... I should probably look into that though.

If we look at their mechanics it's too reliant on the DM allowing them (Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer). They do have some other good features, but nothing about them screams I'M A RANGER to me. Especially Hunter has some good features, but I see no reason they couldn't be given to a Fighter (probably with some tweaking for balance). As far as the abilities of the base class Land's Stride is one of the best. Ignore difficult terrain and advantage against some select spells? Not bad but the rest? Vanish? Okay... So I can hide really well if I have 10 minutes to set up and I don't move...

But enough about their lackluster mechanics most, if not all of us, agree that the as written Ranger is not good.

I still don't see the unique identity of the Ranger. What are they supposed to be in 5e?

There have been some good ideas here though. Some of them could mechanically make a working class with some polish.

Let me propose as an offering to the opposition (I'm not trying to take credit for the idea I just don't remember who said it first) that a Ranger's identity could come from their utilization of nature. Not like a Druid, but more like an alchemist. They can use herbs to create healing salves, poisons and the like. Then you could have the Ranger's IDENTITY to be the guy who supports his allies and brings his enemies down by utilizing nature. I would probably take spell casting away and give them some more meat to their abilities if I did this, but this would actually give them an identity.

[MadBear]

Rangers deserve their own class that isn't meaningfully recreated using a subclass.

For example saying beast Masters don't work anyway in no way addresses the fact that it is a fantasy trope.

[GreatWyrmGold]

From reading an analysis, the Unearthed Arcana Revised Ranger (http://www.mundangerous.com/2016/09/analyzing-dd-5es-unearthed-arcana-revised-ranger/) fixes a lot of the core-5e ranger's big problems. If we're going to "fix" the ranger, that seems like a good place to start. (And possibly end, if we can't identify problems that remain through revisions. Hint hint, that's a good place to take this discussion.)

[paladinn]

From reading an analysis, the Unearthed Arcana Revised Ranger (http://www.mundangerous.com/2016/09/analyzing-dd-5es-unearthed-arcana-revised-ranger/) fixes a lot of the core-5e ranger's big problems. If we're going to "fix" the ranger, that seems like a good place to start. (And possibly end, if we can't identify problems that remain through revisions. Hint hint, that's a good place to take this discussion.)

Looking at the revised ranger.. Even with the improvements that were made, including the ones to Favored Enemy, I'm still faced with the question, "What can a ranger do that other classes can't?" Wizards, sorcerers and clerics have their spells; druids wildshape; paladins smite; barbarians rage; rogues sneak attack; bards sing (!) Rangers by definition bring a lot to the exploration leg of the tripod; but they need to bring something to the combat side as well. Favored Enemy, even the revised version, is too situational. Thus the proposals for some type of Hunters Mark or Studied Target/Foe. I'd like to see a bonus to hit, AC and saves against the one (at a time) foe in question, maybe equal to the ranger's proficiency bonus?

This thread and the other seem to be going in circles, so I'll probably bow out at this point. Whatever you/we come up with, WotC isn't going to change the official ranger. They had the opportunity with Xanathar's

Peace!

[Bigmouth]

The IDENTITY of a Wizard is someone who gains magical power through study.
The IDENTITY of a Warlock is someone who gains magical power through a pact.
The IDENTITY of a Sorcerer is someone who gained their power simply from existing (aka their ancestry).
The IDENTITY of a Fighter is someone who has trained in martial practices to the point of becoming a master of weapon and armor.
The IDENTITY of a Rogue is someone that has practiced agility, stealth, and often deception to get an advantage against their opponent.
The IDENTITY of a Barbarian is someone who harnesses and inner rage to become a powerful warrior.
The IDENTITY of a Paladin is someone that draws power (often holy) from their Oath to smite enemies and empower their allies.
The IDENTITY of a Cleric is someone that channels the power of a deity to destroy thier enemies and protect their allies
The IDENTITY of a Ranger is what? What I've been given is a variety of things that don't seem to define them. The closest is 'a woodsman' and I just don't think that really identifies a class. Almost everything else is a couple of mechanical things that could be given to another class. Stealthy. Rogue. Ambush. Rogue. Deals extra damage. Fighter (though this is a slippery slope for balance). Traps. Rogue. Tracking (skills) Rogue. I don't see an identity here. I see an amalgamation of what mechanics we (as a group even though I haven't voiced it I agree with many of these mechanics. It's what I would be adding to the subclass) want to give them (or identified that they have already).

First thing that jumps out when I see this list is that Wizard, Warlock, and Sorcerer have the same identity. Magical Power. How they gained it is simply backstory. Backstory that different fiddly bits have been tacked onto. But that's another story other than pointing out how loosey goosey identities are/can be.

The IDENTITY of a Ranger is someone who has trained in a variety of disciplines to the point of becoming a master of ADVENTURING. I think that's the core identity of the class. What that translates to is being good at everything related to adventuring. Fighting, sneaking, utility, and magic. They aren't as good at fighting as Fighters and Barbs, but are better at sneaking, utility, and magic. They aren't as good at sneaking as Rogues but are better at fighting, utility, and magic. They aren't as good at utility and magic as Wizards and Clerics, but are better at fighting and sneaking. They are 'second besters' (which some people hate playing and which some people don't know they hate, but which will lead to dissatisfaction over time due to the lack of being 'the best' at anything).

Writing this, I am now thinking you could make a pretty good Ranger built along the lines of a Bard. Instead of Inspiration being based off magical performance, it would simply be the ranger sharing their experience. "I know a thing or two about fighting orcs...have some inspiration" (tangentially Inspiration Dice seem like a akward way of having 'fiddly bit' bonuses while trying to disguise them so they don't feel like PF or 3.5 +2 when X, +3 when Y, +4 when Z)

[Tanarii]

Every time an anti-Ranger or Rebuild Ranger or whatever thread comes up, all the counter-proposals make me become more and more convinced the only mistake the Devs made with the Ranger was not having Natural Explorer apply in all natural terrains.

[Teaguethebean]

Every time an anti-Ranger or Rebuild Ranger or whatever thread comes up, all the counter-proposals make me become more and more convinced the only mistake the Devs made with the Ranger was not having Natural Explorer apply in all natural terrains.

Honestly when I came into this thread I supported removing ranger but some damn good points have been made.

[Pleh]

Every time an anti-Ranger or Rebuild Ranger or whatever thread comes up, all the counter-proposals make me become more and more convinced the only mistake the Devs made with the Ranger was not having Natural Explorer apply in all natural terrains.

That's what I was thinking just this morning.

Who are some heroic fictional characters that play into the Favored Terrain/Enemy archetypes (honestly, the most unique aesthetic of the class) without stepping on the other classes? First off, Aragorn isn't the most helpful place to look.

I think of the first Rambo movie, the first Die Hard movie, and the first Predator movie. I think of MacGyver. It's about the guy that has real combat training, but moreso than other fighters, can adapt his skills to turn his environment and knowledge of enemies to his advantage. It's in the use of skills as a weapon.

What better way to represent these sorts of characters and abilities than just making more of the Ranger abilities more generally applicable? At the very least, say they can change their environment bonuses with a short rest? It fits that montage of the hero stopping to dress in makeshift camo, craft some improvised weapons, lay down some simple traps to wait out the enemy.

[Garfunion]

I see one problem that will present itself soon. The Artificer will soon become the better “Ranger”. If we take a look at the current UA Artificer, a lot of what it gets can be re-fluffed to be a nature explorer.
So the current Ranger needs a new shtick.

[Dork_Forge]

I see one problem that will present itself soon. The Artificer will soon become the better “Ranger”. If we take a look at the current UA Artificer, a lot of what it gets can be re-fluffed to be a nature explorer.
So the current Ranger needs a new shtick.


Can you elaborate on what features can be refluffed? Off the top of my head the core class features (Magical Tinkering, Infusions and even spells) don't really lend themselves to refluffing to nature. Even if you took the Battle Smith and flavoured that as a beast master, the Iron Defender is still a construct and Intelligence as a weapon stat wouldn't make sense nature wise.

[Nagog]

I could see it as more of a Rogue subclass, perhaps similar to the current Scout archtype. Expertise with Survival and perhaps Animal Handling, perhaps even granted as part of a feature. Spells picked up in a similar manner to Arcane Trickster, but the Ranger spell list. Favored enemy/terrain can be removed altogether, as they don't really contribute much to a campaign without an enemy/terrain theme. If there is such a feature, just give them a terrain in which they always get advantage on their attack rolls (And therefore sneak attack, unless the target has something to negate their advantage). Throw Find Familiar onto their spell list, and as a feature (perhaps in Tier 2), give them expanded familiar options similar to Beast Master (Hardly compares to the versatility of Pack of the Chain, but similar in narrative effect). I'd play that subclass.

[GlenSmash!]

Can you elaborate on what features can be refluffed? Off the top of my head the core class features (Magical Tinkering, Infusions and even spells) don't really lend themselves to refluffing to nature. Even if you took the Battle Smith and flavoured that as a beast master, the Iron Defender is still a construct and Intelligence as a weapon stat wouldn't make sense nature wise.

Many of the spells are elemental based, which is pretty naturey.

While Battlesmith is very construct oriented, Alchemist is interesting. It has faster potion crafting, but potion crafting according to XgtE requires gathering rare ingredients from Nature and Creatures, which is pretty Rangery. Immunity to poison and acid, and extra poison damage and healing could also fit a Ranger accustomed to harvesting dangerous creature parts in the wild. Enhancing Weapons and armor could easily be refluffed as coating the weapons in corrosive oils or armor in protective oils made form the same creautres. Even the Homunculus could be refluffed as a special wild animal, or fey spirit, or if you want to keep it a construct something stitched together from magical creatures but that is a bit too frankenstieny for a Ranger.

It's not perfect, but I'm trying it with a Longsword/Longbow wielding High Elf Alchemist (MAD AF I know). At least I will try it out next chance I get.

I do think the spell versatility, infusion versatility, potion crafting, and better pet rules in the Artificer would have been nice to have in the PHB Ranger though.

[Garfunion]

Can you elaborate on what features can be refluffed? Off the top of my head the core class features (Magical Tinkering, Infusions and even spells) don't really lend themselves to refluffing to nature. Even if you took the Battle Smith and flavoured that as a beast master, the Iron Defender is still a construct and Intelligence as a weapon stat wouldn't make sense nature wise.
I’m not going to list all the ways I can re-fluff the class but off the top of my head for magical tinkering;
-put a screech beetle inside a walnut (emit noise)
-throw a smelly spore mushroom (emit odor)
- pull out a jar of glow worms/fireflies (emit light)


Wisdom is also not indicative to nature because clerics use it. But you do use intelligence for knowledge nature rolls.

[Dork_Forge]

I’m not going to list all the ways I can re-fluff the class but off the top of my head for magical tinkering;
-put a screech beetle inside a walnut (emit noise)
-throw a smelly spore mushroom (emit odor)
- pull out a jar of glow worms/fireflies (emit light)


Wisdom is also not indicative to nature because clerics use it. But you do use intelligence for knowledge nature rolls.

Bear in mind for Artificer to cast spells it must have tools in hand which hampers the martial element of the Ranger. For the magical tinkering suggestions, you're creating those effects not imbuing a mundane item to do it and you're missing some options. For Wisdom, yes Int is used for knowledge rolls, but Wis is used for Animal Handling and Survival (textbook knowledge vs real world knowledge/application of skills) and the only two nature classes in the game (Druid and Ranger) use Wisdom.

You COULD refluff Artificer to nature to make a Ranger analogue, but you'd end up having to make stretches to get there, taking away from some abilities (like magical tinkering) and hand waving others (infusions?) and at the end of it you'd have a class that would easily be worse as a Ranger tahn the actual Ranger.

[Dork_Forge]

Many of the spells are elemental based, which is pretty naturey.

While Battlesmith is very construct oriented, Alchemist is interesting. It has faster potion crafting, but potion crafting according to XgtE requires gathering rare ingredients from Nature and Creatures, which is pretty Rangery. Immunity to poison and acid, and extra poison damage and healing could also fit a Ranger accustomed to harvesting dangerous creature parts in the wild. Enhancing Weapons and armor could easily be refluffed as coating the weapons in corrosive oils or armor in protective oils made form the same creautres. Even the Homunculus could be refluffed as a special wild animal, or fey spirit, or if you want to keep it a construct something stitched together from magical creatures but that is a bit too frankenstieny for a Ranger.

It's not perfect, but I'm trying it with a Longsword/Longbow wielding High Elf Alchemist (MAD AF I know). At least I will try it out next chance I get.

I do think the spell versatility, infusion versatility, potion crafting, and better pet rules in the Artificer would have been nice to have in the PHB Ranger though.

It can definitely work, but you'd have a harder time with some stuff than others, the needing to use tools to cast would be a bit of a hurdle and magical tinkering not easy to reflavour without just plain altering the mechanics. The alchemist is probably the closest to the Ranger analogue, getting racial proficiencies like you would be certainly helps, if you went Outlander as a background you could make it work, but at that point it's as much being a sum of it parts than being a self contained Ranger alternative. Though I wish you fun trying the concept out!

[Garfunion]

Bear in mind for Artificer to cast spells it must have tools in hand which hampers the martial element of the Ranger. For the magical tinkering suggestions, you're creating those effects not imbuing a mundane item to do it and you're missing some options. For Wisdom, yes Int is used for knowledge rolls, but Wis is used for Animal Handling and Survival (textbook knowledge vs real world knowledge/application of skills) and the only two nature classes in the game (Druid and Ranger) use Wisdom.

You COULD refluff Artificer to nature to make a Ranger analogue, but you'd end up having to make stretches to get there, taking away from some abilities (like magical tinkering) and hand waving others (infusions?) and at the end of it you'd have a class that would easily be worse as a Ranger tahn the actual Ranger.
I never said I was going to list all the options. I also never stated I imbued my magical tinkering options.
I picked those mushrooms and stored them in my bag.
I put the screech beetle inside the walnut shell
I harvested those glow bugs.
Even the Ranger needs a “component pouch” for their spells because many of them still require material components. Goodberry requires a sprig of mistletoe.
An artificer with outlander background can be just as effective outdoor hunter. I don’t need a high intelligence just like the Ranger doesn’t need a high wisdom if they are devoting their class to be more weapon combat oriented.

An ability score does not dictate your character’s RP, unless you want it to.

[Sir_Solifuge]

And even though I said I wouldn't respond to this my problem is not that the Ranger lacks purpose. It is exactly as I said that it lacks IDENTITY.

The IDENTITY of a Wizard is someone who gains magical power through study.
The IDENTITY of a Warlock is someone who gains magical power through a pact.
The IDENTITY of a Sorcerer is someone who gained their power simply from existing (aka their ancestry).
The IDENTITY of a Fighter is someone who has trained in martial practices to the point of becoming a master of weapon and armor.
The IDENTITY of a Rogue is someone that has practiced agility, stealth, and often deception to get an advantage against their opponent.
The IDENTITY of a Barbarian is someone who harnesses and inner rage to become a powerful warrior.
The IDENTITY of a Paladin is someone that draws power (often holy) from their Oath to smite enemies and empower their allies.
The IDENTITY of a Cleric is someone that channels the power of a deity to destroy thier enemies and protect their allies
The IDENTITY of a Ranger is what? What I've been given is a variety of things that don't seem to define them. The closest is 'a woodsman' and I just don't think that really identifies a class. Almost everything else is a couple of mechanical things that could be given to another class. Stealthy. Rogue. Ambush. Rogue. Deals extra damage. Fighter (though this is a slippery slope for balance). Traps. Rogue. Tracking (skills) Rogue. I don't see an identity here. I see an amalgamation of what mechanics we (as a group even though I haven't voiced it I agree with many of these mechanics. It's what I would be adding to the subclass) want to give them (or identified that they have already).

If your identity can be slapped onto almost any class with a background and maybe a feat or two it's not enough to define a class by my definition. But it fits well as a subclass (or series of them) and I will again repeat that I KNOW the Ranger will not cease being a class in D&D. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. (I dislike Bards as well, but that's a whole different matter and not something I want to get into.)



I definitely agree that the Ranger has an identity crisis, but not in the sense that you listed above. What you claim to be identities of the rest of the classes are 1) more of that classes function and abilities within a set bounds, 2) basing the setting of those bounds thoroughly within a combat focus, and 3) forgetting that all of these are just traits that only form an identity when life is breathed into them.

Though I'm hesitant to say that T.G. Oskar was accurate in saying Rangers don't have a purpose (since in my opinion nothing has a purpose; and if something does have a purpose it is nothing beyond what that specific individual says its purpose is and is even less up for debate by others than identity is) the idea that Rangers don't have identity isn't inherent in that class alone. It's in every class. What you listed above is one way each class functions, but not their identity nor solely how they get their identity.

A class' identity is more RP based than much of this boards focus, IMO. You can take the Cleric as an example. You state:


The IDENTITY of a Cleric is someone that channels the power of a deity to destroy thier enemies and protect their allies

Two Clerics are going to have very different identities based on how the Player wants them to be identified. The personal identity of Tricky Richard Nikson, my Trickery Domain Cleric of Loki, is going to be completely different from Anita Lashing, the Death Domain Cleric of Loviatar. Richard sneacks around the world playing pranks and conducting acts of subterfuge as a means of paying homage and worship to Loki. He enjoys confusing people (NOT read enemies, but just people) as a means of sewing chaos. He's the person who will delight in slight of hand "magic" tricks, and set up impossible puzzles and wagers in the bar while extolling to the gentry that by swindling them, they will become the favored of the slippery god he worships. Anita, desires pain upon herself and will rush head-long into a battle to literally get the sensations of steel slicing her skin because through that pain she worships her goddess. She is quick to inflict pain on others as well and bear witness to their suffering because it delights her deity, and she might even purposely only heal people whenever they are truly on the cusp of death because any sooner would short them of the pain they should feel. She walks amongst the small villages, and finds the people suffering most, and flocking to their side, smile and asks them, "Oh isn't this wonderful?! Doesn't the Willing Whip sting us in the most creative ways?! May the Maiden of Pain's blessing continue your suffering."

Those are identities. Their abilities include the use of divine magic, and the direct connection to a deity, but they are definitely differentiated through their identities. Granted, the subclasses assist in this, but isn't that the point of subclasses... adding flavor and identifiable features? I feel like classes are just the vehicles onto which goes the means of creating unique identities through subclasses and backstory.

You could take it further, with two Clerics of the same domain. Orgy-Lover Bob, the Life Domain Cleric of Aphrodite, values all living creatures because they worship life as a whole. They value life as a primal force and something to be worshiped. They travel from town to town, encouraging love matches, marriages, and orgies in the villages because it would cause impregnation and thusly creating life! He is sometimes crass and talks of inappropriate topics in polite company and is more likely to mention how pretty the person giving him a quest is and how much life she could bring with those birthing hips, than to focus on the quest at hand. Emily "Em" Pathe, Life Cleric of Ilmater, travels the world taking the suffering of those around her onto herself. She is an introvert but will constantly seek out others to try and solve their problems to ease even the slightest of suffering to the point where she seems almost constantly exhausted and in pain. She wears the wait of the world on her shoulders and purposefully so. While not the best talker, she is a consummate listener, and is can be the favorite of the nobility who have nothing better to do that find things to gripe about and so is useful when trying to become close to that local magistrate.

The laundry list above of proposed identities for the classes come across as "functions" of those classes, and if we really call them like it is, they are specifically combat functions. We have to remember that 1) there are other facets to the game than just combat, though for many tables combat is the whole reason they play, and 2) that functions are only one facet of a character. Can you as a Player focus all of your energy and time on accentuating that function, sure and I'll bet you will have one helluva good time. Do I have to, no?

Where I see the Ranger's identity crisis, is just that the well known characters that people espouse as the quintessential rangers.... are just IMHO not very unique. They are, as pointed out, a woodsier version of other classes (read as archetypes). The published fluff of the PHB Ranger is awesome! Being the bridge between the urban and wilderness is cool. Acting as a means of keeping what's out, out, and what's in, in is a hugely interesting starting point for the Ranger. I'm just sad that it falls flat after that. What winds up happening is that we get IMHO what the Paladin used to be, a class that only offers 1 (maybe 2) archetype of a way to play. I feel like subclasses of Ranger attempted to make unique options for Ranger, but still fell flat. It's why I initially agreed with the OP and thought that "hmmm.... totally, a Ranger is a Ranger, is a Ranger, is a Ranger, and so why would they need to be their own thing?" But then realized this is more from a lack of creativity on the community's part and historical characterizations of "the ranger" than it is of the class itself.

I'm going to commit blasphemy here... Drizzt, Aragorn, even the Witcher.... meh. Badass characters, no lie, just.... lackluster in the uniqueness area.

Mechanically speaking, any ability that negates a feature of the game completely should not exist unless there is a trade off. So I'm just saddened by some of the abilities the Ranger boasts as what makes them unique. Something made of molten rock should be immune to fire, but it's definitely weak to water and ice, right? Speaking in hyperbole here as an example, the ranger should be so bad@$$ at the wilderness he recognizes that one particular tree as the one Madame Growly the Bear had her cubs under 10 years ago (and thereby ignores much of the drawbacks of being in the wilderness for most average adventurers, e.g. difficult terraine, "how do I find food?", what leaves are okay to wipe my backside with, etc.), but they should then be going around the same city block 10 times before they realize they missed their turn into the shopping district, or think that the low-rent side of town is too high class for the likes of him. Etc.

That being said, I actually have read through all of this thread, and my personal jury is still out. I see both sides. I like the idea of having Ranger as a subclass of Rogue, because being alone out in the wilderness, partially shunning polite society in the city, wandering though the countryside.... that is damn Roguish, IMHO. WoTC has just really laid it on thick that the seedy side of Rogue sticks out more than anything else. Though I also look at the Ranger and see how it would be soooooooooooo cool if you could pull off different identities of that class through subclasses. I want to see the French Canadian fur trader-esque Ranger who knows how to live off the land and utilize what nature has to offer for survival and monetary gain; while also seeing the Smokey the Bear goodie-two-shoes protecting the wild type Ranger; while also seeing the grizzled old man who is able to take down that one beast an entire squad of soldiers couldn't handle because he knows everything there is to know about it; and adding the silly Lorax Ranger who thinks he literally speaks for the trees.

Once I start seeing mechanical means to really enable that creation of unique identities to happen more freely, easily, and broadly (read done more often in the D&D community, and actually shown to others) then the idea of Ranger as subclass will be flat out silly. Sadly as of now, claiming it works better as a subclass is just as valid of an idea as the UA or any home-brew is since you know, UA is just WoTC official home-brew.

[Dork_Forge]

I never said I was going to list all the options. I also never stated I imbued my magical tinkering options.
I picked those mushrooms and stored them in my bag.
I put the screech beetle inside the walnut shell
I harvested those glow bugs.
Even the Ranger needs a “component pouch” for their spells because many of them still require material components. Goodberry requires a sprig of mistletoe.
An artificer with outlander background can be just as effective outdoor hunter. I don’t need a high intelligence just like the Ranger doesn’t need a high wisdom if they are devoting their class to be more weapon combat oriented.

An ability score does not dictate your character’s RP, unless you want it to.

And if you aren't imbuing those things they're potentially not as useful (and the amount you can have is directly tied to Int).

You can draw the component out as you cast, that is not the same as having to take out then put away a set of tools.

The Outlander background is patching oversome of the weakness of it, but at the end of the day that's not the Artificer being a Ranger substitute on its own. You'd have a hard time being as an effective Hunter character with no martial weapon proficiencies and a d8 hit die.

[GlenSmash!]

It can definitely work, but you'd have a harder time with some stuff than others, the needing to use tools to cast would be a bit of a hurdle and magical tinkering not easy to reflavour without just plain altering the mechanics. The alchemist is probably the closest to the Ranger analogue, getting racial proficiencies like you would be certainly helps, if you went Outlander as a background you could make it work, but at that point it's as much being a sum of it parts than being a self contained Ranger alternative. Though I wish you fun trying the concept out!

Thanks,

I just realized I could get Rapier proficiency as a Hobgoblin for less MADness so I might try that.

[Garfunion]

And if you aren't imbuing those things they're potentially not as useful (and the amount you can have is directly tied to Int).
Making, imbuing, activating, it doesn’t matter. The item function as I describe it as long as the mechanics are maintained.
Side note:
Drizzit used a magical figurine (panther) as a beast companion.


You can draw the component out as you cast, that is not the same as having to take out then put away a set of tools.
Tools in hand(lock picks) not tool set. Additional using your tools is part of casting spells.


The Outlander background is patching oversome of the weakness of it, but at the end of the day that's not the Artificer being a Ranger substitute on its own. You'd have a hard time being as an effective Hunter character with no martial weapon proficiencies and a d8 hit die.
The Artificer does have some martial weapon proficiencies (heavy & hand crossbow). They also get Arcane Weapon spell that function closely to hunter’s mark spell.

Side note: I’m sure the tool requirements will be reduced by the time the artificer is official.

[Dork_Forge]

Drizzit used a magical figurine (panther) as a beast companion.

Tools in hand(lock picks) not tool set. Additional using your tools is part of casting spells.

The Artificer does have some martial weapon proficiencies (heavy & hand crossbow). They also get Arcane Weapon spell that function closely to hunter’s mark spell.

Side note: I’m sure the tool requirements will be reduced by the time the artificer is official.

I... don't really understand why you're mentioning that (nor am I familiar with the novels besides knowing the character exists), if a regular beast master could get a figurine of power it'd amount to the same thing?

You have to still draw them and put them away if you're using a crossbow or anything that isn't a sword/axe/hammer, with only one interaction with object per turn.

Apologies I missed the crossbow profs and AW is better than HM but you're then limited to crossbows (and reflavouring a crossbow that makes it's own ammo as you shoot as a nature trick is pushing it) and if you don't infuse it then you don't get extra attack.

I hope that they don't take the tool thing away though, it's a nice aspect of the flavour and whilst it might seem cumbersome it can lead to some cool Macguyver moments.

[Garfunion]

I... don't really understand why you're mentioning that (nor am I familiar with the novels besides knowing the character exists), if a regular beast master could get a figurine of power it'd amount to the same thing?
I edited my post. But magical tinkering uses intelligence to determine how many trinkets you can maintain. Your intelligence is not need to determine how many infusion you can have/make.


You have to still draw them and put them away if you're using a crossbow or anything that isn't a sword/axe/hammer, with only one interaction with object per turn.
Actually draw material component is part of casting the spell. So if you cast a spell with a bonus action you can still attack with a heavy crossbow with your action.

Apologies I missed the crossbow profs and AW is better than HM but you're then limited to crossbows (and reflavouring a crossbow that makes it's own ammo as you shoot as a nature trick is pushing it) and if you don't infuse it then you don't get extra attack.
Rangers can use crossbows, I’m not trying to re-fluff that. Also AW makes your weapon magical which meets the magical weapon requirements for Arcane Armament feature.


I hope that they don't take the tool thing away though, it's a nice aspect of the flavour and whilst it might seem cumbersome it can lead to some cool Macguyver moments.
I didn’t say remove it just loosen up some of the restrictions.

Side note: the more I think about it I could recreate Drizzit as a 1 level fighter(for two-weapon fighting), X level artificer battle smith, with the outlander background.

[Galithar]

I definitely agree that the Ranger has an identity crisis, but not in the sense that you listed above. What you claim to be identities of the rest of the classes are 1) more of that classes function and abilities within a set bounds, 2) basing the setting of those bounds thoroughly within a combat focus, and 3) forgetting that all of these are just traits that only form an identity when life is breathed into them.

Though I'm hesitant to say that T.G. Oskar was accurate in saying Rangers don't have a purpose (since in my opinion nothing has a purpose; and if something does have a purpose it is nothing beyond what that specific individual says its purpose is and is even less up for debate by others than identity is) the idea that Rangers don't have identity isn't inherent in that class alone. It's in every class. What you listed above is one way each class functions, but not their identity nor solely how they get their identity.

A class' identity is more RP based than much of this boards focus, IMO. You can take the Cleric as an example. You state:



Two Clerics are going to have very different identities based on how the Player wants them to be identified. The personal identity of Tricky Richard Nikson, my Trickery Domain Cleric of Loki, is going to be completely different from Anita Lashing, the Death Domain Cleric of Loviatar. Richard sneacks around the world playing pranks and conducting acts of subterfuge as a means of paying homage and worship to Loki. He enjoys confusing people (NOT read enemies, but just people) as a means of sewing chaos. He's the person who will delight in slight of hand "magic" tricks, and set up impossible puzzles and wagers in the bar while extolling to the gentry that by swindling them, they will become the favored of the slippery god he worships. Anita, desires pain upon herself and will rush head-long into a battle to literally get the sensations of steel slicing her skin because through that pain she worships her goddess. She is quick to inflict pain on others as well and bear witness to their suffering because it delights her deity, and she might even purposely only heal people whenever they are truly on the cusp of death because any sooner would short them of the pain they should feel. She walks amongst the small villages, and finds the people suffering most, and flocking to their side, smile and asks them, "Oh isn't this wonderful?! Doesn't the Willing Whip sting us in the most creative ways?! May the Maiden of Pain's blessing continue your suffering."

Those are identities. Their abilities include the use of divine magic, and the direct connection to a deity, but they are definitely differentiated through their identities. Granted, the subclasses assist in this, but isn't that the point of subclasses... adding flavor and identifiable features? I feel like classes are just the vehicles onto which goes the means of creating unique identities through subclasses and backstory.

You could take it further, with two Clerics of the same domain. Orgy-Lover Bob, the Life Domain Cleric of Aphrodite, values all living creatures because they worship life as a whole. They value life as a primal force and something to be worshiped. They travel from town to town, encouraging love matches, marriages, and orgies in the villages because it would cause impregnation and thusly creating life! He is sometimes crass and talks of inappropriate topics in polite company and is more likely to mention how pretty the person giving him a quest is and how much life she could bring with those birthing hips, than to focus on the quest at hand. Emily "Em" Pathe, Life Cleric of Ilmater, travels the world taking the suffering of those around her onto herself. She is an introvert but will constantly seek out others to try and solve their problems to ease even the slightest of suffering to the point where she seems almost constantly exhausted and in pain. She wears the wait of the world on her shoulders and purposefully so. While not the best talker, she is a consummate listener, and is can be the favorite of the nobility who have nothing better to do that find things to gripe about and so is useful when trying to become close to that local magistrate.

The laundry list above of proposed identities for the classes come across as "functions" of those classes, and if we really call them like it is, they are specifically combat functions. We have to remember that 1) there are other facets to the game than just combat, though for many tables combat is the whole reason they play, and 2) that functions are only one facet of a character. Can you as a Player focus all of your energy and time on accentuating that function, sure and I'll bet you will have one helluva good time. Do I have to, no?

Where I see the Ranger's identity crisis, is just that the well known characters that people espouse as the quintessential rangers.... are just IMHO not very unique. They are, as pointed out, a woodsier version of other classes (read as archetypes). The published fluff of the PHB Ranger is awesome! Being the bridge between the urban and wilderness is cool. Acting as a means of keeping what's out, out, and what's in, in is a hugely interesting starting point for the Ranger. I'm just sad that it falls flat after that. What winds up happening is that we get IMHO what the Paladin used to be, a class that only offers 1 (maybe 2) archetype of a way to play. I feel like subclasses of Ranger attempted to make unique options for Ranger, but still fell flat. It's why I initially agreed with the OP and thought that "hmmm.... totally, a Ranger is a Ranger, is a Ranger, is a Ranger, and so why would they need to be their own thing?" But then realized this is more from a lack of creativity on the community's part and historical characterizations of "the ranger" than it is of the class itself.

I'm going to commit blasphemy here... Drizzt, Aragorn, even the Witcher.... meh. Badass characters, no lie, just.... lackluster in the uniqueness area.

Mechanically speaking, any ability that negates a feature of the game completely should not exist unless there is a trade off. So I'm just saddened by some of the abilities the Ranger boasts as what makes them unique. Something made of molten rock should be immune to fire, but it's definitely weak to water and ice, right? Speaking in hyperbole here as an example, the ranger should be so bad@$$ at the wilderness he recognizes that one particular tree as the one Madame Growly the Bear had her cubs under 10 years ago (and thereby ignores much of the drawbacks of being in the wilderness for most average adventurers, e.g. difficult terraine, "how do I find food?", what leaves are okay to wipe my backside with, etc.), but they should then be going around the same city block 10 times before they realize they missed their turn into the shopping district, or think that the low-rent side of town is too high class for the likes of him. Etc.

That being said, I actually have read through all of this thread, and my personal jury is still out. I see both sides. I like the idea of having Ranger as a subclass of Rogue, because being alone out in the wilderness, partially shunning polite society in the city, wandering though the countryside.... that is damn Roguish, IMHO. WoTC has just really laid it on thick that the seedy side of Rogue sticks out more than anything else. Though I also look at the Ranger and see how it would be soooooooooooo cool if you could pull off different identities of that class through subclasses. I want to see the French Canadian fur trader-esque Ranger who knows how to live off the land and utilize what nature has to offer for survival and monetary gain; while also seeing the Smokey the Bear goodie-two-shoes protecting the wild type Ranger; while also seeing the grizzled old man who is able to take down that one beast an entire squad of soldiers couldn't handle because he knows everything there is to know about it; and adding the silly Lorax Ranger who thinks he literally speaks for the trees.

Once I start seeing mechanical means to really enable that creation of unique identities to happen more freely, easily, and broadly (read done more often in the D&D community, and actually shown to others) then the idea of Ranger as subclass will be flat out silly. Sadly as of now, claiming it works better as a subclass is just as valid of an idea as the UA or any home-brew is since you know, UA is just WoTC official home-brew.

You are identifying CHARACTERS and not the class. What identifies a Cleric as a Cleric is their use of Divine magic. A Cleric that cannot cast is not the CLASS cleric, but the PROFESSION cleric.

In a game the identity of a mechanical class will always exist within it's mechanics. The RP of your class is not your class identity. It's your characters identity. The Identity of the class should be something that I can say in a sentence or two that identifies what the class is. Classes are mechanical constructs and so their identity will be mechanical in nature.

To further explain this I could make a fighter with a backstory of being devoted to the deity Loviator that does almost all of the same things as the Cleric you described, but they wouldn't be the classes cleric because they wouldn't cast any spells. They could preach and relish pain and seek out suffering exactly the same. That is the characters identity, not the class's. They are often related but not the same thing.

Also my identities are only "combat functions" if you choose to look at them that way. A rogue using deception to get a better deal is not combat, not every rogue uses deception, but enough do I feel this part of the identity. A Wizard using their knowledge they gained studying magic to convince a king of something is not combat. I could continue to list more, but if you see the identity listed as a combat function it's because you are looking at the with preconceptions. (Except fighter... Their identity is basically 'I fight things' not saying it's a good thing, just that it is)

I agree with most of what you said outside of those points and I'm out of time for now.

[Dork_Forge]

I edited my post. But magical tinkering uses intelligence to determine how many trinkets you can maintain. Your intelligence is not need to determine how many infusion you can have/make.


Actually draw material component is part of casting the spell. So if you cast a spell with a bonus action you can still attack with a heavy crossbow with your action.

Rangers can use crossbows, I’m not trying to re-fluff that. Also AW makes your weapon magical which meets the magical weapon requirements for Arcane Armament feature.


I didn’t say remove it just loosen up some of the restrictions.

Side note: the more I think about it I could recreate Drizzit as a 1 level fighter(for two-weapon fighting), X level artificer battle smith, with the outlander background.
I'm not really sure how to multi quote on a phone so I'll try and just reply in order:

I am aware, and I never claimed it was reliant on Int how many infusions you make.

Drawing a material component is part of the spell, the artificer uses tools as a focus, not a component. So you'd need two uses of interaction with an object to draw and stow the tool.

It makes your weapon magical and also makes you dependent on having that spell cast to use 'Extra Attack' at all.

I don't really know anything about Drizzt besides he's a drow with a panther and TWF, I just assumed he could communicate with animals?

You can replicate a ranger type character by taking fighter and outlander, and I've no problem with that claim. But my issue was Artificer can't really be claimed as a suitable alternative without the heavy disclaimer you NEED outlander, you SHOULD have a level in Fighter and you NEED to put in a lot of work to make some of it work thematically as a Ranger. Even after all of that you'll end up with primarily d8s for your hit dice and seeing as pretty much all the Ranger subclasses have an additional way to generate damage outside of HM probably a little behind in damage (I haven't done any math, just feels right).

[GreyBlack]

And even though I said I wouldn't respond to this my problem is not that the Ranger lacks purpose. It is exactly as I said that it lacks IDENTITY.

The IDENTITY of a Wizard is someone who gains magical power through study.
The IDENTITY of a Warlock is someone who gains magical power through a pact.
The IDENTITY of a Sorcerer is someone who gained their power simply from existing (aka their ancestry).
The IDENTITY of a Fighter is someone who has trained in martial practices to the point of becoming a master of weapon and armor.
The IDENTITY of a Rogue is someone that has practiced agility, stealth, and often deception to get an advantage against their opponent.
The IDENTITY of a Barbarian is someone who harnesses and inner rage to become a powerful warrior.
The IDENTITY of a Paladin is someone that draws power (often holy) from their Oath to smite enemies and empower their allies.
The IDENTITY of a Cleric is someone that channels the power of a deity to destroy thier enemies and protect their allies
The IDENTITY of a Ranger is what? What I've been given is a variety of things that don't seem to define them. The closest is 'a woodsman' and I just don't think that really identifies a class. Almost everything else is a couple of mechanical things that could be given to another class. Stealthy. Rogue. Ambush. Rogue. Deals extra damage. Fighter (though this is a slippery slope for balance). Traps. Rogue. Tracking (skills) Rogue. I don't see an identity here. I see an amalgamation of what mechanics we (as a group even though I haven't voiced it I agree with many of these mechanics. It's what I would be adding to the subclass) want to give them (or identified that they have already).

If your identity can be slapped onto almost any class with a background and maybe a feat or two it's not enough to define a class by my definition. But it fits well as a subclass (or series of them) and I will again repeat that I KNOW the Ranger will not cease being a class in D&D. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. (I dislike Bards as well, but that's a whole different matter and not something I want to get into.)


The IDENTITY of the Ranger is the Outlander who keeps the boundaries between the wild and civilization. That's a pretty strong thematic niche to have. They are both the hunters who attempt to subjugate nature to their whim, but they also protect civilization from nature with their blades if necessary.

If you need a touchstone character to identify, Aragorn is an excellent one; he knows the lands so well that he can heal with only the herbs of the land, but he will also defend it with the sword.

A better one for modern audiences would be Geralt of Rivia; his entire schtick is tracking the fey and other monsters in his world and protecting people from the harms that might come to them. He does this through nonviolence at times, such as by convincing the fey creatures that they're harming the people and that they should be more careful, but also by killing monsters if they cannot be reasoned with.

So that's a pretty strong thematic and class IDENTITY. How well WotC captured it is up for debate, but that type of character does not neatly fit into any of the class IDENTITIES that you put forward. The Master and Defender of the wilds.

[Garfunion]

Drawing a material component is part of the spell, the artificer uses tools as a focus, not a component. So you'd need two uses of interaction with an object to draw and stow the tool.
Drawing a focus is part of casting a spell, just like drawing a sword in tandem of taking the attack action. And like most focuses they are attached to a chain/string.


It makes your weapon magical and also makes you dependent on having that spell cast to use 'Extra Attack' at all.

Which is why an artificer can use an infused weapon as a magic weapon for arcane armament and a spell focus. They can also use any infused item they create as a focus as well, which can be re-fluffed with a more nature theme.

[Dork_Forge]

Drawing a focus is part of casting a spell, just like drawing a sword in tandem of taking the attack action. And like most focuses they are attached to a chain/string.



Which is why an artificer can use an infused weapon as a magic weapon for arcane armament and a spell focus. They can also use any infused item they create as a focus as well, which can be re-fluffed with a more nature theme.

It's something you do before you cast, it isn't part of it, it's your interaction with an object for that round, same with the sword. The only exception to that is drawing ammunition, that is actually part of the attack. The idea of having individual elements of artisans tools lashed to your body like a holy symbol may work mechanically (though DM dependent) but it isn't practical at all for adventuring.

I'm aware of the mechanics of the artificer, I've played the most recent iteration in a short campaign and a one shot. My point was that it was a stretch to treat the class as a Ranger alternative fluff wise, but I guess if you're adamant about something you can make it work.

[Garfunion]

It's something you do before you cast, it isn't part of it, it's your interaction with an object for that round, same with the sword. The only exception to that is drawing ammunition, that is actually part of the attack. The idea of having individual elements of artisans tools lashed to your body like a holy symbol may work mechanically (though DM dependent) but it isn't practical at all for adventuring.

I'm aware of the mechanics of the artificer, I've played the most recent iteration in a short campaign and a one shot. My point was that it was a stretch to treat the class as a Ranger alternative fluff wise, but I guess if you're adamant about something you can make it work.
Anything is possible with magic😋.

But I think I have derailed the discussion to much. Time to go back to our regularly scheduled thread.

Ranger class is pointless and poorly designed.

[JNAProductions]

Ranger class is pointless and poorly designed.

I'll agree to the second statement, not the first.

And, despite what some people say, mechanically... It's okay. It's just kinda lacking in fun, which is a HUGE FLIPPING DEAL in a game designed to be fun.

[Garfunion]

I'll agree to the second statement, not the first.

And, despite what some people say, mechanically... It's okay. It's just kinda lacking in fun, which is a HUGE FLIPPING DEAL in a game designed to be fun.
Which is why people need to drop the combat mechanic and focus strongly on the “I am the ultimate outdoors Wilderness Guide & Camp Master”.

[Pleh]

Which is why people need to drop the combat mechanic and focus strongly on the “I am the ultimate outdoors Wilderness Guide & Camp Master”.

Which I think is largely accomplished by granting Natural Explorer to all environments, or at least letting it get swapped at a short rest.

[Kane0]

Maybe add in some spells too, like 'Obscure Camp' and 'Hearth Ward' or something? Rangers already get some handy ones like Alarm, Snare, Cordon of Arrows and Nondetection but they could use something to compete with the likes of Tiny Hut, Faithful Hound, Guards & Wards, Magnificent Mansion and Demiplane.

And of course change spells known to spells prepared in order to allow the Ranger to actually pick and use these spells.

[Garfunion]

And of course change spells known to spells prepared in order to allow the Ranger to actually pick and use these spells.

There is always the option to let them know all Ranger spells, like the UA Artificer.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Who are some heroic fictional characters that play into the Favored Terrain/Enemy archetypes (honestly, the most unique aesthetic of the class) without stepping on the other classes?
Considering how many people have argued that Gandalf, the archetypical wizard, is more like a fighter with a few low-level spells, I'm not sure "Name characters who fit one class without looking anything like other classes" is a useful request to make.



I’m not going to list all the ways I can re-fluff the class but off the top of my head for magical tinkering;
-put a screech beetle inside a walnut (emit noise)
-throw a smelly spore mushroom (emit odor)
- pull out a jar of glow worms/fireflies (emit light)
At that point, you can refluff anything to be nature-ey. My wizard spells are just pacts with local spirits. My barbarian rage is just me chewing some madleaf. My expertise in climbing comes from shoes made from gecko feet.
Moreover, I think this speaks more to the fluff flexibility of a class centered around making stuff than any danger the Artificer poses specifically to the Ranger.


Wisdom is also not indicative to nature because clerics use it. But you do use intelligence for knowledge nature rolls.
But druids use Wisdom, too. As does the Survival skill.



Which is why people need to drop the combat mechanic and focus strongly on the “I am the ultimate outdoors Wilderness Guide & Camp Master”.
The problem being that for all that D&D talks about having three pillars, it only supports one of them. Making exploration and roleplaying more than a couple of die rolls between you and progress, let alone making them engaging, is 100% up to the DM. When the rules put so much focus on combat, any class that doesn't have something unique to do in combat is going to come off as boring, because combat is where the largest part of a player's impression of a class comes from.



I'm not really sure how to multi quote on a phone...
With great patience. And knowledge of where your phone's keyboard hides certain characters.

[T.G. Oskar]

Next I need to clarify something that gets easily lost (because I didn't ever explicitly state it). I believe the Ranger COULD be a full class, but not in D&D 5e. There is a reason it is a highly disliked and rarely played class. I don't have links (because I don't catalogue this stuff for future reference) but there are lots of statistics and polls showing that this is a fact. Also the existence of a Ranger rewrite in UA also indicates that no one is happy with the class.

Actually, the reason why the Ranger was revised isn't because people don't like it. It's more like people want to like it, see that it has its flaws, and want WotC to fix them, because they want an official acknowledgement and patch for it. Though, you pretty much state that point later.

And do note that those statistics and polls place "Human Fighter" as the main choice, by FAR. How you interpret that information is up to you, but there's some statistical bias there. (Which is different from opinion bias.)


I get that the Ranger is a sacred cow and WotC would never get rid of it, this thread isn't about changing WotC it's about debating the merits of the class as a subclass. And for those of you that apparently didn't get it, the title is a meme that is used to put absurd ideas on a sign that says 'change my mind' at the bottom. I have no reason to want you to change my mind I want to talk about the subject. My opinion is just that, and yours is just as valid even if I don't agree with it. If I entered a debate with the intention of changing my mind it would be impossible to defend my stance because I would be trying to justify someone else's argument. Coming here and telling me "I'm wrong" is not productive because this is subjective. There is no objective right or wrong here. And for the record me telling you that I'm not convinced by your argument is not saying you're wrong just that I disagree.

You can debate something without the intention of changing your mind, but still be open to the idea. That's the whole point of a debate - it either strengthens your opinion, allows you to address flaws in that opinion, or even make you change your mind; it can also apply to the other side of the debate, to the point where your own opinion may be shaken, but you'll still make the other side change their mind (mostly because you address the flaws the other side presents, and give an iron-clad case for it.) It's entirely possible, yes.

Which is why the title is still "intellectually dishonest", particularly if it's meant to be sarcastic. Having to explain that it's a meme means it's not viral enough to be used for fun, or whatever intention it is. The intention behind this thread was to seek ideas on how to make the Ranger a subclass, then that should have been the point of the title in the first place. You see the title of a thread before reading the original post; thus, you already formulate the idea of what will be your answer before you even read the post, and IF the original post doesn't address the idea that you don't want to have your opinion changed, it WILL cause a discussion regarding the validity of the Ranger as a class OR subclass. Simply removing that memetic reference would temper things a bit.


And even though I said I wouldn't respond to this my problem is not that the Ranger lacks purpose. It is exactly as I said that it lacks IDENTITY.

The IDENTITY of a Wizard is someone who gains magical power through study.
The IDENTITY of a Warlock is someone who gains magical power through a pact.
The IDENTITY of a Sorcerer is someone who gained their power simply from existing (aka their ancestry).
The IDENTITY of a Fighter is someone who has trained in martial practices to the point of becoming a master of weapon and armor.
The IDENTITY of a Rogue is someone that has practiced agility, stealth, and often deception to get an advantage against their opponent.
The IDENTITY of a Barbarian is someone who harnesses and inner rage to become a powerful warrior.
The IDENTITY of a Paladin is someone that draws power (often holy) from their Oath to smite enemies and empower their allies.
The IDENTITY of a Cleric is someone that channels the power of a deity to destroy thier enemies and protect their allies
The IDENTITY of a Ranger is what? What I've been given is a variety of things that don't seem to define them. The closest is 'a woodsman' and I just don't think that really identifies a class. Almost everything else is a couple of mechanical things that could be given to another class. Stealthy. Rogue. Ambush. Rogue. Deals extra damage. Fighter (though this is a slippery slope for balance). Traps. Rogue. Tracking (skills) Rogue. I don't see an identity here. I see an amalgamation of what mechanics we (as a group even though I haven't voiced it I agree with many of these mechanics. It's what I would be adding to the subclass) want to give them (or identified that they have already).

If your identity can be slapped onto almost any class with a background and maybe a feat or two it's not enough to define a class by my definition. But it fits well as a subclass (or series of them) and I will again repeat that I KNOW the Ranger will not cease being a class in D&D. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. (I dislike Bards as well, but that's a whole different matter and not something I want to get into.)

[...]

I still don't see the unique identity of the Ranger. What are they supposed to be in 5e?

For purposes of clarification: I mentioned a hunter and a woodsman. Can't see why the Ranger can't be a hunter and a woodsman at the same time.

That said, I also like this concept:


The IDENTITY of the Ranger is the Outlander who keeps the boundaries between the wild and civilization. That's a pretty strong thematic niche to have. They are both the hunters who attempt to subjugate nature to their whim, but they also protect civilization from nature with their blades if necessary.

If you need a touchstone character to identify, Aragorn is an excellent one; he knows the lands so well that he can heal with only the herbs of the land, but he will also defend it with the sword.

A better one for modern audiences would be Geralt of Rivia; his entire schtick is tracking the fey and other monsters in his world and protecting people from the harms that might come to them. He does this through nonviolence at times, such as by convincing the fey creatures that they're harming the people and that they should be more careful, but also by killing monsters if they cannot be reasoned with.

So that's a pretty strong thematic and class IDENTITY. How well WotC captured it is up for debate, but that type of character does not neatly fit into any of the class IDENTITIES that you put forward. The Master and Defender of the wilds.

It's a good answer to the question "what the Ranger is?", which is at the core of what's identity. (I'll explain why I used the term "purpose" rather than "identity" below.) It fits the idea of a hunter and a woodsman, and many other concepts as well.


Though I'm hesitant to say that T.G. Oskar was accurate in saying Rangers don't have a purpose (since in my opinion nothing has a purpose; and if something does have a purpose it is nothing beyond what that specific individual says its purpose is and is even less up for debate by others than identity is)[...]

Fair. Identity and purpose can be confusing.

As I said, identity is the answer to the question "what a class is?" It involves definition, fluff and whatnot. Identity, thus, is what a class IS. Purpose, on the other hand, answers a different set of questions: "why the class does?" Hence, purpose is what the class DOES.

Using the four base classes:
A Fighter fights. That is its purpose. A Fighter is someone trained in the use of weapons and armor with grander expertise. That is what the class IS.
A Cleric casts divine magic and channels divinity. That is what it DOES. The Cleric is a representative of a deity, ordained by its faith, to spread the word and face the enemies of the faith. That is what it IS.
A Rogue uses guile and skill to surpass obstacles. That is what it DOES. The Rogue is a witty, often seedy, very often cool, and very talented guy or gal. That's...not exactly what it is, but let's be honest: the Rogue's identity is so tied to what a Thief is, most people will associate the two. Rogues don't need to be criminals (hence the background) or thieves (hence the archetype), but most iconic Rogues will be thieves and/or criminals. (A shame they haven't done an Archaeologist, since Indiana Jones and Lara Croft and evne Nathan Drake definitely seem like Rogues)
A Wizard casts arcane spells through preparation. That is what it DOES. The Wizard has spent years mastering the arcane arts, and has achieved a level of practice only a few can dream of. That is what they ARE.

Now, I consider your point fair because these are subjective observations. What I think a Fighter IS and DOES will be different than what you think it IS. I mentioned "purpose" because you can get the hang of what you'll do with a Fighter, Cleric, Rogue or Wizard mostly by looking at it. Subclasses, of course, can muddle this: an Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster will have spellcasting ability, hence dabbling on what a Wizard (or Sorcerer, or Warlock) can do, but they'll be primarily a Fighter or a Rogue, and secondarily a spellcaster.

The Ranger's identity, what it IS, is pretty clear to me: a hunter and a woodsman, a force of balance between the natural world and civilization. They're distinct from a Druid, who worships and protects the natural world, because they understand the need for civilization. The issue is what a Ranger DOES, which I would equate to its purpose - and why I said Galithar was more focused on its purpose than on its identity. Galithar pointed out mostly what a Ranger does: it fights, it tracks, it's stealthy and prefers ambushes, but couldn't tie that to an identity. The issues Galithar has are mechanical in nature - acknowledging that the Ranger *could* be a full class, but the mechanics in the game don't lead to it. Now, I can concur that the Ranger suffers, though it's not in any way less contributing to the game than some other options (a Hunter Ranger, or any of the XGtE subclasses, are definitely better than a Berserker Barbarian, or...say, a Mastermind Rogue. YMMV on Four Elements Monk); however, because the chassis of the class has issues, it leads to people dismissing it. This is mostly because the developers hated the idea of Favored Enemy, and they nerfed it to the ground. I think Kane0 and some other posters have given a good replacement: make it like PF Investigator's Studied Foe, which IMO is a fair replacement...provided it works more like 4E's Hunter's Quarry, which added a damage die against a "tagged" enemy (in broad terms, of course; you can correct me if I'm wrong). This correlates to what WotC has implicitly done, by providing all subclasses with a source of damage, noticing that those few Ranger players focus on using Hunter's Mark above anything else, and generally gravitating towards Hunter Ranger and Colossus Slayer for additional damage. Something as simple as "tag an enemy, deal 1d8 damage each time you hit that enemy" is elegant in its execution. THEN, you could tie Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer to it (you treat your favored enemy, as well as all creatures native to your favored terrain, as automatically tagged). That said, it's just an example.

It's also fairly tied to something paladinn said on a post:


Looking at the revised ranger.. Even with the improvements that were made, including the ones to Favored Enemy, I'm still faced with the question, "What can a ranger do that other classes can't?" Wizards, sorcerers and clerics have their spells; druids wildshape; paladins smite; barbarians rage; rogues sneak attack; bards sing (!) Rangers by definition bring a lot to the exploration leg of the tripod; but they need to bring something to the combat side as well. Favored Enemy, even the revised version, is too situational. Thus the proposals for some type of Hunters Mark or Studied Target/Foe. I'd like to see a bonus to hit, AC and saves against the one (at a time) foe in question, maybe equal to the ranger's proficiency bonus?

This thread and the other seem to be going in circles, so I'll probably bow out at this point. Whatever you/we come up with, WotC isn't going to change the official ranger. They had the opportunity with Xanathar's

Peace!

Even WotC has dealt with the issue, giving the class several revisions, and the one unofficially called the "revised Ranger" has a ton of traction; however, it's gonna be nothing if WotC doesn't give it a seal of approval. No matter how many revisions and homebrew fixes and ideas for fixes (and attempts to turn them into a subclass; it's as equally valid as the previously mentioned), if WotC doesn't say "this is the Ranger", it'll amount to nothing. It has a degree of validity if the discussion prompts WotC for action. It also leads to what you say later:


Once I start seeing mechanical means to really enable that creation of unique identities to happen more freely, easily, and broadly (read done more often in the D&D community, and actually shown to others) then the idea of Ranger as subclass will be flat out silly. Sadly as of now, claiming it works better as a subclass is just as valid of an idea as the UA or any home-brew is since you know, UA is just WoTC official home-brew.

I consider this a valid point. It's mostly the reason why paladinn essentially bowed out of the thread; even they (inclduing Galithar) admit that the Ranger could be a base class, but that the inherent issues (something even I agree on) don't help it. The surroundings between these two related things (Ranger can be a class, but Ranger has issues) is where we all differ. I personally have, between the builds I've made, a Monster Slayer Ranger (not the revised one, but the actual PHB Ranger) that I'd love to play, since it'd help me understand many of the issues with the Ranger itself (and hence, help with the discussion), so it's not like I have completely and utterly dismissed the Ranger. (It's mostly that I prefer the Paladin as a class, and I currently play a Cleric because the gaming group I play with had none, and I really play a pretty swell Cleric by default.) I'm willing to test the idea that the Ranger doesn't need a fix, mostly because it challenges any argument I may have, any bias I may have from observation. However, that doesn't invalidate or deny statistical data that shows people are unhappy with the current iteration of the Ranger, and seek a honest revision. But, to even start with it, you need a framework. It can be its identity. It can be both identity and purpose. It can be a concept. As you mention in your post:


Where I see the Ranger's identity crisis, is just that the well known characters that people espouse as the quintessential rangers.... are just IMHO not very unique. They are, as pointed out, a woodsier version of other classes (read as archetypes). The published fluff of the PHB Ranger is awesome! Being the bridge between the urban and wilderness is cool. Acting as a means of keeping what's out, out, and what's in, in is a hugely interesting starting point for the Ranger. I'm just sad that it falls flat after that. What winds up happening is that we get IMHO what the Paladin used to be, a class that only offers 1 (maybe 2) archetype of a way to play. I feel like subclasses of Ranger attempted to make unique options for Ranger, but still fell flat. It's why I initially agreed with the OP and thought that "hmmm.... totally, a Ranger is a Ranger, is a Ranger, is a Ranger, and so why would they need to be their own thing?" But then realized this is more from a lack of creativity on the community's part and historical characterizations of "the ranger" than it is of the class itself.

WotC has the means to deal with this. They already have a pretty solid starting concept. What they need is to revise its execution. This, to me, would be dealing with their purpose, or rather, to answer "what the Ranger DOES?"


I'm going to commit blasphemy here... Drizzt, Aragorn, even the Witcher.... meh. Badass characters, no lie, just.... lackluster in the uniqueness area.

Do note that Aragorn is the Trope Codifier for the Ranger. The concept barely existed before then, or at least, it was more of a Hunter. Drizzt is the Trope Codifier for the Dual Wielder Ranger that was tacked to the original concept, which was more of a way to turn the Elf racial class into a proper class. (Do note that AD&D 1E Rangers could cast both Druid and Magic User spells, before going their own list by AD&D 2nd.) Geralt...someone who uses what's essentially Alchemy is pretty unique, IMO, but I don't really see Geralt as a Ranger. Personally, I consider Native (Northern, Central and Southern) American hunters more akin to the concept of a Ranger than anything else, though their contact with civilization is scarce; they would be a good start, and then adding the idea of being the "line" between nature and civilization strengthens that. So yeah: I can see why you'd consider them unworthy of being examples.

(And, just so you know: I don't like Drizzt either, or Faerunian Drows. Vulkoorim are my kind of Drow anyways.)


PF2 has almost jumped the shark. Instead of simplifying (especially feats), they have made Everything a feat, including racial abilities, class abilities, etc. It's made an already complex game much moreso.

I feel they went a bit too close to 4E, where everything was a power. Somewhere towards Essentials, where most of your class features were new powers or ways to modify your Basic Attack. PF 2nd ties so much to feats, trying to get in track with all of this can be a headache.

Just now, I was modifying a playtest build I made with the official content, and...while I feel more comfortable with it as a character (compared to my attempt in making a PF 1e character, which felt so worthless), it's still a bit too far from being a build I like (compare to my Paladin builds in 3.5 and 5e, or my Warrior --> Templar spec build in Dragon Age, which I really like a lot). Had to leap a lot of hurdles to figure out what I wanted from the class itself (levels 4, 6 and to an extent 14 are just so horrible! And 1st level isn't that great either), and I had to use a liberal application of Multiclass Archetype feats (for Sorcerer) to feel a bit more comfortable with my build. Shield Ally is kinda trash, since it's restricted by range, which is generally a big no-no in metaplay, and they took many of the ways you could get more powers (and limited the uses of your powers, since you get only one or two uses per encounter, so to speak). Most of the time, I feel that I'm either attacking or...well, attacking; if I didn't have access to Sorcerer spellcasting, I'd feel useless, since the fancy maneuver thingies are pretty much exclusive to Fighter and Ranger.

But, enough ranting. PF 2e is simultaneously simple (the concept of Traits and symbols to shorthand info is pretty swell) and complex (everything is feats, everything is fiddly numbers), and I feel they did that just to distance themselves much more from their "parent" system.

[Snails]

I am surprised that Robin Hood gets such little mention as a prototypical "Ranger".

Rough men of the woods with interesting backstories who were often outlaws surely was a partial inspiration for Aragorn himself.

In fact, certain versions of Robin Hood make him out to be of noble blood, who may someday return to his rightful position. The most extreme: noble whose loyalty to Richard the Lionhearted in the face of treacherous Prince John and greedy Shire-Reeve of Nottingham forces him to outlawry -- that rings multiple Aragorn bells for me.

[Pleh]

Considering how many people have argued that Gandalf, the archetypical wizard, is more like a fighter with a few low-level spells, I'm not sure "Name characters who fit one class without looking anything like other classes" is a useful request to make.


Do note that Aragorn is the Trope Codifier for the Ranger. The concept barely existed before then, or at least, it was more of a Hunter. Drizzt is the Trope Codifier for the Dual Wielder Ranger that was tacked to the original concept, which was more of a way to turn the Elf racial class into a proper class. (Do note that AD&D 1E Rangers could cast both Druid and Magic User spells, before going their own list by AD&D 2nd.) Geralt...someone who uses what's essentially Alchemy is pretty unique, IMO, but I don't really see Geralt as a Ranger. Personally, I consider Native (Northern, Central and Southern) American hunters more akin to the concept of a Ranger than anything else, though their contact with civilization is scarce; they would be a good start, and then adding the idea of being the "line" between nature and civilization strengthens that. So yeah: I can see why you'd consider them unworthy of being examples.

Hmmm.

Perhaps character analysis isn't so far off topic after all?

[paladinn]

Ok, taking the plunge again.. Most of what's been posted here lately has seemed to lean toward, "Let's save the Ranger class". I'd like to (again) propose making the ranger a fighter archetype.

First, the "baseline" fighter abilities are really good for any fighting class. I personally think 2nd Wind, Action Surge and Indomitable are kind of meh. If I had my druthers, I'd make them swappable with archetype features. But we'll roll with it. Regardless, 3 attacks and 7 ASI's are just awesome; and they alone make this idea worth considering. And you get a fighting style one level earlier.

So as an archetype, we would have ranger features at levels 3, 7, 10, 15 and 18. Here is what I would propose:

1. Combine Primeval Awareness and Natural Explorer. Neither are really anything to speak of, and could easily be combined.

2. Replace Favored Enemy with something else. We've discussed some sort of "Studied Foe" ability. I think we could use some combo of Hunter's Mark (spell), Slayer's Prey (from XGtE) and one of the Hunter's Prey abilities (I kinda like Colossus Slayer). They are all very similar and could be easily merged, I think.

3. Use the following for fighter archetype features as follows:

Level 3 - Natural Awareness, Hunters/Slayers Mark/Prey
Level 7 - Choice of Defensive Tactics from Hunter
Level 10 - Hide in Plain Sight; choice of Multiattack option from Hunter
Level 15 - Some combo or choice between Vanish, Evasion and Dodge
Level 18 - Feral Senses and Foe Slayer

Do y'all think this is OP? How/would you tweak?

[Mortis_Elrod]

Ok, taking the plunge again.. Most of what's been posted here lately has seemed to lean toward, "Let's save the Ranger class". I'd like to (again) propose making the ranger a fighter archetype.

First, the "baseline" fighter abilities are really good for any fighting class. I personally think 2nd Wind, Action Surge and Indomitable are kind of meh. If I had my druthers, I'd make them swappable with archetype features. But we'll roll with it. Regardless, 3 attacks and 7 ASI's are just awesome; and they alone make this idea worth considering. And you get a fighting style one level earlier.

So as an archetype, we would have ranger features at levels 3, 7, 10, 15 and 18. Here is what I would propose:

1. Combine Primeval Awareness and Natural Explorer. Neither are really anything to speak of, and could easily be combined.

2. Replace Favored Enemy with something else. We've discussed some sort of "Studied Foe" ability. I think we could use some combo of Hunter's Mark (spell), Slayer's Prey (from XGtE) and one of the Hunter's Prey abilities (I kinda like Colossus Slayer). They are all very similar and could be easily merged, I think.

3. Use the following for fighter archetype features as follows:

Level 3 - Natural Awareness, Hunters/Slayers Mark/Prey
Level 7 - Choice of Defensive Tactics from Hunter
Level 10 - Hide in Plain Sight; choice of Multiattack option from Hunter
Level 15 - Some combo or choice between Vanish, Evasion and Dodge
Level 18 - Feral Senses and Foe Slayer

Do y'all think this is OP? How/would you tweak?

Well, first off where do spells fit in? or my big black panther/wolf? I guess i can't ever have those now ? Wow that sucks. Why is level 15 filled with abilities that are gotten by other classes 6+ levels ago? and why is 18 filled with 2 lack luster abilties?

I get the idea here. But you dont need to strip a class down and shove it somewhere else. Imagine delaying the progression a ranger but at the cost of all the spells and all the subclass abilties (which are some of the best things about the current ranger even if the spellcasting sucks id rather have it than not) just for... what? heavy armor, a couple more attacks and action surge? id rather take 11 levels of fighter and multiclass.

Or id rather play the current ranger and pretend my subclass is my base class like i do now. Where is the room to be nightcrawler teleporting around a room in between each strike? To walk through walls by slipping into another plane?

The subclasses are good(barring beastmaster which needs work). If you take away their base where do they go?

[paladinn]

Well, first off where do spells fit in? or my big black panther/wolf? I guess i can't ever have those now ? Wow that sucks. Why is level 15 filled with abilities that are gotten by other classes 6+ levels ago? and why is 18 filled with 2 lack luster abilties?

I get the idea here. But you dont need to strip a class down and shove it somewhere else. Imagine delaying the progression a ranger but at the cost of all the spells and all the subclass abilties (which are some of the best things about the current ranger even if the spellcasting sucks id rather have it than not) just for... what? heavy armor, a couple more attacks and action surge? id rather take 11 levels of fighter and multiclass.

Or id rather play the current ranger and pretend my subclass is my base class like i do now. Where is the room to be nightcrawler teleporting around a room in between each strike? To walk through walls by slipping into another plane?

The subclasses are good(barring beastmaster which needs work). If you take away their base where do they go?

First, one of my goals was to lose the spells. I don't think a ranger needs to be a junior druid. And the one spell that Every ranger takes (Hunter's Mark) is now an archetype feature. If you want spells that much, you could always take EK and substitute druid spells.

Second, this is my first pass at doing the ranger as a fighter archetype. My intention was, for at least of of the archetype levels, to allow a beastmaster to have his/her pet, or a walker to teleport, or whatever. Just need to sub out for some of the stated abilities.

Third, if a ranger is, at heart, a fighter, I would think that the extra attacks, ASI's, armor etc. would more than make up for some of the lesser features that didn't get brought over.

If the ranger was perfectly fine as-is, why has there been such a hew and cry against it? And if you think foe slayer is so "lackluster", what would you put in its place (short of scrapping the whole thing)?

[PoeticallyPsyco]

What if this rogue sub-class had the option to use Cunning Action to make another attack with a finesse or ranged weapon if they hit with a weapon attack using the Attack Action on their turn.
I'm aware this would mean that you can't use the Two-Weapon Fighting as is. But, nothing is stopping you to make the other attack with a weapon in your off-hand, and you might even make the initial attack using a one-handed weapon and make the "off-hand" attack with a light weapon (kinda like as if you had the Dual Wielder feat and were dual wielding Rapier and Dagger for flavor), plus you'd add your ability modifier to the attack's damage roll as if you had the Two-Weapon Fighting Style.

That could potentially bring back the old 3.5 trick of 'dual wielding' a two handed weapon and unarmed strikes. I have to admit, that does sound cool.

[GlenSmash!]

Do note that Aragorn is the Trope Codifier for the Ranger. The concept barely existed before then, or at least, it was more of a Hunter. Drizzt is the Trope Codifier for the Dual Wielder Ranger that was tacked to the original concept, which was more of a way to turn the Elf racial class into a proper class. (Do note that AD&D 1E Rangers could cast both Druid and Magic User spells, before going their own list by AD&D 2nd.) Geralt...someone who uses what's essentially Alchemy is pretty unique, IMO, but I don't really see Geralt as a Ranger. Personally, I consider Native (Northern, Central and Southern) American hunters more akin to the concept of a Ranger than anything else, though their contact with civilization is scarce; they would be a good start, and then adding the idea of being the "line" between nature and civilization strengthens that. So yeah: I can see why you'd consider them unworthy of being examples.

I've always considered those who stand on the borders, ranging over territory protecting civilization from the dangers of the wild as the prototypical Rangers.

Texas Rangers, Forest Service Rangers, Park Rangers, the Lone Ranger.

The Rangers of Arnor keeping Bree and the Shire safe and the Rangers of Ithilien doing the same for Gondor.

The Witchers were specifically created to protect civilization from monsters that would horrify the most hardened soldier.

I personally don't see the connection to primitive hunters, and certainly not ones from some specific human cultures vs other human cultures.

[patchyman]

I think the discussion of the Ranger’s IDENTITY is a useful one. IMO, in a tabletop game, discussion of a class’ identity has both a thematic (fluff) and a mechanical component. If the class has a very strong and distinctive theme, it is less important that its mechanics don’t really distinguish it from other classes, and vice versa.

For example, the Barbarian’s theme (Outlander Warrior) can be done very easily using a Background plus the Fighter Class, but it’s core mechanic, Rage does a good job of distinguishing it from the Fighter. A Barbarian is built around their Rage mechanic, just like a Rogue is built around Sneak attack (otherwise a Rogue would simply be a Dex Fighter in leather).

I think Rangers suffer because they don’t have a distinctive mechanic. Part of this seems to be a series of questionable design decisions. Some potential contenders for defining characteristic were pushed into the subclasses, where they are no longer universal. Some were poorly implemented as spells (Hunter’s Mark, the Arrow line of spells).

I think rangers could have been great if the designers had made an upfront choice and designed the class around that choice.

[GlenSmash!]

First, one of my goals was to lose the spells. I don't think a ranger needs to be a junior druid.

Is the Paladin a junior Cleric?


And the one spell that Every ranger takes (Hunter's Mark) is now an archetype feature. If you want spells that much, you could always take EK and substitute druid spells.

If the ranger was perfectly fine as-is, why has there been such a hew and cry against it?

This is a bit of a strawman. One can think the Ranger needs improvement without thinking your propasal is the best way to improve.


And if you think foe slayer is so "lackluster", what would you put in its place (short of scrapping the whole thing)?

Lot's of other options besides scrapping the whole thing.

[paladinn]

Is the Paladin a junior Cleric?

Do clerics smite as a class feature?


This is a bit of a strawman. One can think the Ranger needs improvement without thinking your propasal is the best way to improve.

I never said my proposal was the best way, just A way. And I'm asking for ways to make it better.


Lot's of other options besides scrapping the whole thing.

Care to share? You don't like foe slayer; what would you put in its place?

[Mortis_Elrod]

First, one of my goals was to lose the spells. I don't think a ranger needs to be a junior druid. And the one spell that Every ranger takes (Hunter's Mark) is now an archetype feature. If you want spells that much, you could always take EK and substitute druid spells.

Second, this is my first pass at doing the ranger as a fighter archetype. My intention was, for at least of of the archetype levels, to allow a beastmaster to have his/her pet, or a walker to teleport, or whatever. Just need to sub out for some of the stated abilities.

Third, if a ranger is, at heart, a fighter, I would think that the extra attacks, ASI's, armor etc. would more than make up for some of the lesser features that didn't get brought over.

If the ranger was perfectly fine as-is, why has there been such a hew and cry against it? And if you think foe slayer is so "lackluster", what would you put in its place (short of scrapping the whole thing)?

There are plenty of other ranger spells that i would want. and I cant both be an EK and your supposed Archtype so now i dont get the other ranger features.

You cant possibly fit all the subclass abilities in one fighter subclass. Thats just not gona work.

The ranger is not at heart a fighter. The heavy armor isn't wanted. 2 extra ASIs? ok but nothing really stand out. As far as extra attacks goes, level 20 is almost never played so its almost a never used attack, which means you really just get one more. and No. thats not enough.

The ranger isn't perfectly fine as is. But it would definitely better than not being there at all, or playing some wacky fighter with only 1/4th the features.

I would scrap foe slayer and instead improve upon the core feature of the class through out the levels ending upon a capstone that takes to that next level, capstones are supposed to be amazing and represent the class. Look at the Druid, Barbarian, Cleric, even Fighter at least impoves fighting one more step. Paladin usually lets you champion your ideal as a living avatar for a minute of glory. Rogues become can just choose to be luckiest. Even Warlocks get to suck up some magic and act like they didnt just blow all 4 slots last round.

[paladinn]

There are plenty of other ranger spells that i would want. and I cant both be an EK and your supposed Archtype so now i dont get the other ranger features.

You cant possibly fit all the subclass abilities in one fighter subclass. Thats just not gona work.

The ranger is not at heart a fighter. The heavy armor isn't wanted. 2 extra ASIs? ok but nothing really stand out. As far as extra attacks goes, level 20 is almost never played so its almost a never used attack, which means you really just get one more. and No. thats not enough.

The ranger isn't perfectly fine as is. But it would definitely better than not being there at all, or playing some wacky fighter with only 1/4th the features.

I would scrap foe slayer and instead improve upon the core feature of the class through out the levels ending upon a capstone that takes to that next level, capstones are supposed to be amazing and represent the class. Look at the Druid, Barbarian, Cleric, even Fighter at least impoves fighting one more step. Paladin usually lets you champion your ideal as a living avatar for a minute of glory. Rogues become can just choose to be luckiest. Even Warlocks get to suck up some magic and act like they didnt just blow all 4 slots last round.

Nice to see you can disagree without being disagreeable. Now I see why Kane0 started the other thread.

Good luck

[paladinn]

The ranger is not at heart a fighter.

Oh btw, you do realize that as envisioned in SR, and in 1e and 2e and LL and S&W, the ranger is a fighter subclass?

[GreatWyrmGold]

I feel [Paizo] went a bit too close to 4E, where everything was a power.
Both 4e and PF2 have issues, issues I have recognized and acknowledged. But in neither case was one of those issues "everything is a power/feat". Look at Shadowrun; the edition I'm most familiar with (the second one) made everything skills, and nobody sees fit to complain about that. GURPS makes everything an advantage, and nobody complains about that.
The problems are deeper and more structural, and hence harder to pin blame on than "Why did they put everything in a consistent mechanical framework?" or "Why did they take inspiration from the most popular multiplayer fantasy games of the era?"



Robin Hood and cowboys as prototypical rangers
Might as well point to Heracles as the prototypical barbarian over Conan, or Myrddin as the prototypical wizard over Gandalf. You wouldn't be wrong, since those mythic/folkloric characters are deep in the DNA of modern fantasy characters, but that analysis is about as useful as studying Australopithecus to understand modern humanity. A lot has changed since then, and Aragorn serves as a better "most recent common ancestor" to modern fantasy rangers than Robin Hood or the Lone Ranger does.



Do clerics smite as a class feature?
Do druids get favored enemies as a class feature? How about primeval awareness?
Yes, those class features suck. The problem with the ranger isn't that it's druid-derivative; it's no more druid-derivative than the paladin is cleric-derivative. The problem with the ranger is that its abilities are badly-designed.


Care to share? You don't like foe slayer; what would you put in its place?
Here's how I see this conversation:

P: "The ranger is bad and it should be a fighter subclass. Here's an example of how."
G: "No, the ranger can be its own class."
P: "Oh, you think the ranger is perfect as-is? Then why does everyone hate it?"
G: "No. But it doesn't need to be scrapped, it should be redesigned."
P: "Alright then. How about you help me redesign my proposal for scrapping it?"

I feel like you're talking a lot without really communicating.

[paladinn]

Both 4e and PF2 have issues, issues I have recognized and acknowledged. But in neither case was one of those issues "everything is a power/feat". Look at Shadowrun; the edition I'm most familiar with (the second one) made everything skills, and nobody sees fit to complain about that. GURPS makes everything an advantage, and nobody complains about that.
The problems are deeper and more structural, and hence harder to pin blame on than "Why did they put everything in a consistent mechanical framework?" or "Why did they take inspiration from the most popular multiplayer fantasy games of the era?"



Might as well point to Heracles as the prototypical barbarian over Conan, or Myrddin as the prototypical wizard over Gandalf. You wouldn't be wrong, since those mythic/folkloric characters are deep in the DNA of modern fantasy characters, but that analysis is about as useful as studying Australopithecus to understand modern humanity. A lot has changed since then, and Aragorn serves as a better "most recent common ancestor" to modern fantasy rangers than Robin Hood or the Lone Ranger does.



Do druids get favored enemies as a class feature? How about primeval awareness?
Yes, those class features suck. The problem with the ranger isn't that it's druid-derivative; it's no more druid-derivative than the paladin is cleric-derivative. The problem with the ranger is that its abilities are badly-designed.


Here's how I see this conversation:

P: "The ranger is bad and it should be a fighter subclass. Here's an example of how."
G: "No, the ranger can be its own class."
P: "Oh, you think the ranger is perfect as-is? Then why does everyone hate it?"
G: "No. But it doesn't need to be scrapped, it should be redesigned."
P: "Alright then. How about you help me redesign my proposal for scrapping it?"

I feel like you're talking a lot without really communicating.

And here I thought this thread was about the possibility of rangers being a subclass. My bad.

I'm out.

[Garfunion]

Here is my take on the Ranger. (Take 2)

The Ranger is your go to buddy for camping and “wilderness” travel. They makes those activities fun and easy for you.

Proficiencies
•Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields •Weapons: Simple weapons and scimitar
•Tools: Herbalist’s Kit
•Saving Throws: Strength, Dexterity
•Skills: Survival and two other skills chosen from Animal Handling, Athletics, Insight, Investigation, Nature, Perception, and Stealth

Equipment
You start with the following equipment, in addition to the equipment granted by your background:
• (a) scale mail or (b) leather armor
• (a) two scimitar or (b) two simple melee weapons
• (a) a dungeoneer’s pack or (b) an explorer’s pack
•Herbalist’s Kit
•A shortbow and a quiver of 20 arrows

(Move favorite enemy to the Hunter subclass. It feels like it belongs there more than anything.)

(Remove Favorite Terrain)

(1st level) Wilderness Master
-Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel.
-You can add twice your proficiency bonus to any d20 roll you make with Survival skill.
-Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as setting up camp, foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger.
-When you forage, you find enough food to feed a number of creatures equal to your Ranger level +5.
-When you set up or clear a campsite for a short or long rest, you make it difficult for other creatures to detect your campsite. Creatures attempting to detect your campsite have disadvantage on their Wisdom (Perception & Survival) rolls.

(1st level)Weapons of The Wild
(Flavor text)
When you use the Attack action on your turn and are wielding a shortbow, sling, two simple weapons or scimitars in each hand, or a quarterstaff in two hands, you can make one additional weapon attack as a bonus action.

(2nd level) Remove Fighting Style

(2nd level) Healing Poultice
You may use a herbalist’s kit to make a number of healing poultices equal to your Wisdom modifier(minimum 1) each day. The poultice remains potent for 24 hours or until the Ranger takes a long rest. During a short rest a creature may use a healing poultice. Doing so allows the creature to gain the maximum roll on all their hit die they spend to heal themselves during the rest.
Additionally you may use your herbalist’s kit as part of a long rest to allow up to 5 creatures to regain one additional hit die at the end of the long rest.

(2nd level) Spellcasting
You now prepare spells like a Paladin but with wisdom.

(3rd level) Seeker
Replaces Primeval Awareness
You can use your action and expend one ranger spell slot to focus your awareness on a region 1 mile around you for one minute. Choose one of the following options;
•You can sense whether the following types of creatures are present: aberrations, celestials, dragons, elementals, fey, fiends, and undead. This feature doesn’t reveal the creatures’ location or number.
•If you touch the footprints/tracks of a creature that are no more than one day old, you learn the exact distance, which direction they are moving, and at what pace.

Each spell slot you spend above 1st level increases the miles by two.

(6th level) Greater Weapons of The Wild
You gain additional benefits listed below;
•Attacking at long range doesn’t impose disadvantage on your simple weapon attacks.
•You can draw a simple thrown weapon as part of the same action you attack with it.
•You can retrieve any unattended thrown weapon as a free action.

(12th level) Master Weapons of The Wild
You gain additional benefits listed below;
•Your simple weapons and scimitar critical strike on a 19-20.
•???Extra damage with simple weapons & scimitar???
•Creatures do not gain the benefits of half cover and 3/4 cover from any attack you make against them from a simple weapon or scimitar.

[GreatWyrmGold]

And here I thought this thread was about the possibility of rangers being a subclass. My bad.
Hey, almost half of that was related to rangers being a subclass!

Unless you're referring less to the rambliness and more to the fact that people don't think ranger should be a subclass. Whether or not the OP was being honest when he asked the forum to change his mind, anyone coming into a thread where the OP specifically asks people to do so should expect that not everyone thinks the Ranger should be a subclass. The thread isn't about "Let's make the ranger a subclass," it's "Should the ranger be a subclass?"

[GlenSmash!]

Here is my take on the Ranger. (Take 2)

The Ranger is your go to buddy for camping and “wilderness” travel. They makes those activities fun and easy for you.

Proficiencies
•Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields •Weapons: Simple weapons and scimitar
•Tools: Herbalist’s Kit
•Saving Throws: Strength, Dexterity
•Skills: Survival and two other skills chosen from Animal Handling, Athletics, Insight, Investigation, Nature, Perception, and Stealth

Equipment
You start with the following equipment, in addition to the equipment granted by your background:
• (a) scale mail or (b) leather armor
• (a) two scimitar or (b) two simple melee weapons
• (a) a dungeoneer’s pack or (b) an explorer’s pack
•Herbalist’s Kit
•A shortbow and a quiver of 20 arrows

(1st level)Weapons of The Wild
(Flavor text)
When you use the Attack action on your turn and are wielding a shortbow, sling, two simple weapons or scimitars in each hand, or a quarterstaff in two hands, you can make one additional weapon attack as a bonus action.

(12th level) Master Weapons of The Wild
You gain additional benefits listed below;
•Your simple weapons and scimitar critical strike on a 19-20.
•???Extra damage with simple weapons & scimitar???
•Creatures do not gain the benefits of half cover and 3/4 cover from any attack you make against them from a simple weapon or scimitar.

What about being a wilderness-expert/guide/guardian-of-civilization makes Rangers particularly adept with Scimitars?

[GlenSmash!]

Do clerics smite as a class feature?

You were specifically talking about a Rangers ability to cast spells, not it's other class features. So I compared it to a Paladin which also casts spells not the Paladins other features.

Rangers actually have an ability that burns spell slots, it just sucks. I'd rather replace it or rework it that strip them of spells


I never said my proposal was the best way, just A way. And I'm asking for ways to make it better.

In that case to defend of your specific proposal with "If the ranger was perfectly fine as-is, why has there been such a hew and cry against it?" seems to make little sense.

It's not asking for feedback constructive or otherwise. Especially since the poster you asked it to had never claimed the Ranger was perfect as is.


Care to share? You don't like foe slayer; what would you put in its place?

I'm a poor game designer, hence why I've stuck to discussing theme and identity over creating mechanics.

Maybe change it to +Wisdom mod damage to all weapon attacks. Barbarians essentially get +2 to attack and damage with all melee weapons, plus increases to checks and saves, and HP, and possibly AC if going unarmored. A potential +5 to all attacks seems balanced though few Rangers in my have more than +2 or +3 Wisdom bonus so that may still be lackluster.

The Adventures in Middle-Earth version of the Ranger (called the Wanderer) has a capstone that makes them do max weapon damage dice on all weapon attacks. That would also be a potential damage bonus of around 3.5 to 5.5 average damage. Simple if perhaps uninspiring.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Here is my take on the Ranger. (Take 2)

The Ranger is your go to buddy for camping and “wilderness” travel. They makes those activities fun and easy for you.

Proficiencies
•Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields •Weapons: Simple weapons and scimitar
•Tools: Herbalist’s Kit
•Saving Throws: Strength, Dexterity
•Skills: Survival and two other skills chosen from Animal Handling, Athletics, Insight, Investigation, Nature, Perception, and Stealth

Equipment
You start with the following equipment, in addition to the equipment granted by your background:
• (a) scale mail or (b) leather armor
• (a) two scimitar or (b) two simple melee weapons
• (a) a dungeoneer’s pack or (b) an explorer’s pack
•Herbalist’s Kit
•A shortbow and a quiver of 20 arrows

(Move favorite enemy to the Hunter subclass. It feels like it belongs there more than anything.)

(Remove Favorite Terrain)

(1st level) Wilderness Master
-Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel.
-You can add twice your proficiency bonus to any d20 roll you make with Survival skill.
-Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as setting up camp, foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger.
-When you forage, you find enough food to feed a number of creatures equal to your Ranger level +5.
-When you set up or clear a campsite for a short or long rest, you make it difficult for other creatures to detect your campsite. Creatures attempting to detect your campsite have disadvantage on their Wisdom (Perception & Survival) rolls.

(1st level)Weapons of The Wild
(Flavor text)
When you use the Attack action on your turn and are wielding a shortbow, sling, two simple weapons or scimitars in each hand, or a quarterstaff in two hands, you can make one additional weapon attack as a bonus action.

(2nd level) Remove Fighting Style

(2nd level) Healing Poultice
You may use a herbalist’s kit to make a number of healing poultices equal to your Wisdom modifier(minimum 1) each day. The poultice remains potent for 24 hours or until the Ranger takes a long rest. During a short rest a creature may use a healing poultice. Doing so allows the creature to gain the maximum roll on all their hit die they spend to heal themselves during the rest.
Additionally you may use your herbalist’s kit as part of a long rest to allow up to 5 creatures to regain one additional hit die at the end of the long rest.

(2nd level) Spellcasting
You now prepare spells like a Paladin but with wisdom.

(6th level) Greater Weapons of The Wild
You gain additional benefits listed below;
•Attacking at long range doesn’t impose disadvantage on your simple weapon attacks.
•You can draw a simple thrown weapon as part of the same action you attack with it.
•You can retrieve any unattended thrown weapon as a free action.

(12th level) Master Weapons of The Wild
You gain additional benefits listed below;
•Your simple weapons and scimitar critical strike on a 19-20.
•???Extra damage with simple weapons & scimitar???
•Creatures do not gain the benefits of half cover and 3/4 cover from any attack you make against them from a simple weapon or scimitar.

I like some of this but I dont think fighting style and martial weapons need to be removed. The 6th level feature is particularly good for a potential Thrown Weapon feat/style which i do think a ranger would use/appreciate.

More importantly though i think rangers core feature should be usable with all weapons. Rangers are versatile and adaptable and the mechanics should reflect that.

[Garfunion]

What about being a wilderness-expert/guide/guardian-of-civilization makes Rangers particularly adept with Scimitars? Closest weapon to a machete I could find. It also helps fit certain character tropes.

[GlenSmash!]

I like some of this but I dont think fighting style and martial weapons need to be removed. The 6th level feature is particularly good for a potential Thrown Weapon feat/style which i do think a ranger would use/appreciate.

More importantly though i think rangers core feature should be usable with all weapons. Rangers are versatile and adaptable and the mechanics should reflect that.

Yeah that was my sticking point too.

I can see very little reason why a Barbarian would get proficiency with Martial Weapons and a Ranger would not.

[Garfunion]

I like some of this but I dont think fighting style and martial weapons need to be removed. The 6th level feature is particularly good for a potential Thrown Weapon feat/style which i do think a ranger would use/appreciate.

More importantly though i think rangers core feature should be usable with all weapons. Rangers are versatile and adaptable and the mechanics should reflect that.
With how Weapons of The Wild works 2 of the fighting styles would become useless. Making the +2 to ranged attack the best option.

I also think the Ranger wouldn’t gain proficiency in all martial weapons. Many of those weapons are big and heavy and would weigh Ranger down.


Yeah that was my sticking point too.

I can see very little reason why a Barbarian would get proficiency with Martial Weapons and a Ranger would not.
I personally feel the Barbarian should not have martial weapon proficiency. Instead they gain proficiency in maybe 1 or 2, two-handed martial weapons.

Side note: I was going for a more Native wilderness master.

[Mortis_Elrod]

With how Weapons of The Wild works 2 of the fighting styles would become useless. Making the +2 to ranged attack the best option.

I also think the Ranger wouldn’t gain proficiency and all martial weapons. Many of those weapons are big and heavy and would weigh Ranger down.


I personally feel the Barbarian should not have martial weapon proficiency. Instead they gain proficiency in maybe one or two two-handed martial weapons.

Side note: I was going for a more Native wilderness master.

Well at least your consistent. With that in mind what you suggest makes sense. Though it is essentially giving the ranger some feats in exchange for getting rid of some of the better weapons.

Iconically though I’m against the ranger and Barbarian not having martial weapons.

[Garfunion]

Well at least your consistent. With that in mind what you suggest makes sense. Though it is essentially giving the ranger some feats in exchange for getting rid of some of the better weapons.
Feats are optional, it frees up their ASI for other feats or their ability scores.


Iconically though I’m against the ranger and Barbarian not having martial weapons.They still get martial weapon pro, just not all of them.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Feats are optional, it frees up their ASI for other feats or their ability scores.

They still get martial weapon pro, just not all of them.

True true. Feats are optional but have yet to see a game that didn’t allow feats, though I recognize this as anecdotal.

Rangers not having longbows and short swords seems off.

And again I think a much better direction would be something independent of weapons at all. This is like weapon FE and it is almost equally limiting.

[GreyBlack]

Actually, the reason why the Ranger was revised isn't because people don't like it. It's more like people want to like it, see that it has its flaws, and want WotC to fix them, because they want an official acknowledgement and patch for it. Though, you pretty much state that point later.

And do note that those statistics and polls place "Human Fighter" as the main choice, by FAR. How you interpret that information is up to you, but there's some statistical bias there. (Which is different from opinion bias.)



You can debate something without the intention of changing your mind, but still be open to the idea. That's the whole point of a debate - it either strengthens your opinion, allows you to address flaws in that opinion, or even make you change your mind; it can also apply to the other side of the debate, to the point where your own opinion may be shaken, but you'll still make the other side change their mind (mostly because you address the flaws the other side presents, and give an iron-clad case for it.) It's entirely possible, yes.

Which is why the title is still "intellectually dishonest", particularly if it's meant to be sarcastic. Having to explain that it's a meme means it's not viral enough to be used for fun, or whatever intention it is. The intention behind this thread was to seek ideas on how to make the Ranger a subclass, then that should have been the point of the title in the first place. You see the title of a thread before reading the original post; thus, you already formulate the idea of what will be your answer before you even read the post, and IF the original post doesn't address the idea that you don't want to have your opinion changed, it WILL cause a discussion regarding the validity of the Ranger as a class OR subclass. Simply removing that memetic reference would temper things a bit.



For purposes of clarification: I mentioned a hunter and a woodsman. Can't see why the Ranger can't be a hunter and a woodsman at the same time.

That said, I also like this concept:



It's a good answer to the question "what the Ranger is?", which is at the core of what's identity. (I'll explain why I used the term "purpose" rather than "identity" below.) It fits the idea of a hunter and a woodsman, and many other concepts as well.



Fair. Identity and purpose can be confusing.

As I said, identity is the answer to the question "what a class is?" It involves definition, fluff and whatnot. Identity, thus, is what a class IS. Purpose, on the other hand, answers a different set of questions: "why the class does?" Hence, purpose is what the class DOES.

Using the four base classes:
A Fighter fights. That is its purpose. A Fighter is someone trained in the use of weapons and armor with grander expertise. That is what the class IS.
A Cleric casts divine magic and channels divinity. That is what it DOES. The Cleric is a representative of a deity, ordained by its faith, to spread the word and face the enemies of the faith. That is what it IS.
A Rogue uses guile and skill to surpass obstacles. That is what it DOES. The Rogue is a witty, often seedy, very often cool, and very talented guy or gal. That's...not exactly what it is, but let's be honest: the Rogue's identity is so tied to what a Thief is, most people will associate the two. Rogues don't need to be criminals (hence the background) or thieves (hence the archetype), but most iconic Rogues will be thieves and/or criminals. (A shame they haven't done an Archaeologist, since Indiana Jones and Lara Croft and evne Nathan Drake definitely seem like Rogues)
A Wizard casts arcane spells through preparation. That is what it DOES. The Wizard has spent years mastering the arcane arts, and has achieved a level of practice only a few can dream of. That is what they ARE.

Now, I consider your point fair because these are subjective observations. What I think a Fighter IS and DOES will be different than what you think it IS. I mentioned "purpose" because you can get the hang of what you'll do with a Fighter, Cleric, Rogue or Wizard mostly by looking at it. Subclasses, of course, can muddle this: an Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster will have spellcasting ability, hence dabbling on what a Wizard (or Sorcerer, or Warlock) can do, but they'll be primarily a Fighter or a Rogue, and secondarily a spellcaster.

The Ranger's identity, what it IS, is pretty clear to me: a hunter and a woodsman, a force of balance between the natural world and civilization. They're distinct from a Druid, who worships and protects the natural world, because they understand the need for civilization. The issue is what a Ranger DOES, which I would equate to its purpose - and why I said Galithar was more focused on its purpose than on its identity. Galithar pointed out mostly what a Ranger does: it fights, it tracks, it's stealthy and prefers ambushes, but couldn't tie that to an identity. The issues Galithar has are mechanical in nature - acknowledging that the Ranger *could* be a full class, but the mechanics in the game don't lead to it. Now, I can concur that the Ranger suffers, though it's not in any way less contributing to the game than some other options (a Hunter Ranger, or any of the XGtE subclasses, are definitely better than a Berserker Barbarian, or...say, a Mastermind Rogue. YMMV on Four Elements Monk); however, because the chassis of the class has issues, it leads to people dismissing it. This is mostly because the developers hated the idea of Favored Enemy, and they nerfed it to the ground. I think Kane0 and some other posters have given a good replacement: make it like PF Investigator's Studied Foe, which IMO is a fair replacement...provided it works more like 4E's Hunter's Quarry, which added a damage die against a "tagged" enemy (in broad terms, of course; you can correct me if I'm wrong). This correlates to what WotC has implicitly done, by providing all subclasses with a source of damage, noticing that those few Ranger players focus on using Hunter's Mark above anything else, and generally gravitating towards Hunter Ranger and Colossus Slayer for additional damage. Something as simple as "tag an enemy, deal 1d8 damage each time you hit that enemy" is elegant in its execution. THEN, you could tie Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer to it (you treat your favored enemy, as well as all creatures native to your favored terrain, as automatically tagged). That said, it's just an example.

It's also fairly tied to something paladinn said on a post:



Even WotC has dealt with the issue, giving the class several revisions, and the one unofficially called the "revised Ranger" has a ton of traction; however, it's gonna be nothing if WotC doesn't give it a seal of approval. No matter how many revisions and homebrew fixes and ideas for fixes (and attempts to turn them into a subclass; it's as equally valid as the previously mentioned), if WotC doesn't say "this is the Ranger", it'll amount to nothing. It has a degree of validity if the discussion prompts WotC for action. It also leads to what you say later:



I consider this a valid point. It's mostly the reason why paladinn essentially bowed out of the thread; even they (inclduing Galithar) admit that the Ranger could be a base class, but that the inherent issues (something even I agree on) don't help it. The surroundings between these two related things (Ranger can be a class, but Ranger has issues) is where we all differ. I personally have, between the builds I've made, a Monster Slayer Ranger (not the revised one, but the actual PHB Ranger) that I'd love to play, since it'd help me understand many of the issues with the Ranger itself (and hence, help with the discussion), so it's not like I have completely and utterly dismissed the Ranger. (It's mostly that I prefer the Paladin as a class, and I currently play a Cleric because the gaming group I play with had none, and I really play a pretty swell Cleric by default.) I'm willing to test the idea that the Ranger doesn't need a fix, mostly because it challenges any argument I may have, any bias I may have from observation. However, that doesn't invalidate or deny statistical data that shows people are unhappy with the current iteration of the Ranger, and seek a honest revision. But, to even start with it, you need a framework. It can be its identity. It can be both identity and purpose. It can be a concept. As you mention in your post:



WotC has the means to deal with this. They already have a pretty solid starting concept. What they need is to revise its execution. This, to me, would be dealing with their purpose, or rather, to answer "what the Ranger DOES?"



Do note that Aragorn is the Trope Codifier for the Ranger. The concept barely existed before then, or at least, it was more of a Hunter. Drizzt is the Trope Codifier for the Dual Wielder Ranger that was tacked to the original concept, which was more of a way to turn the Elf racial class into a proper class. (Do note that AD&D 1E Rangers could cast both Druid and Magic User spells, before going their own list by AD&D 2nd.) Geralt...someone who uses what's essentially Alchemy is pretty unique, IMO, but I don't really see Geralt as a Ranger. Personally, I consider Native (Northern, Central and Southern) American hunters more akin to the concept of a Ranger than anything else, though their contact with civilization is scarce; they would be a good start, and then adding the idea of being the "line" between nature and civilization strengthens that. So yeah: I can see why you'd consider them unworthy of being examples.

(And, just so you know: I don't like Drizzt either, or Faerunian Drows. Vulkoorim are my kind of Drow anyways.)



I feel they went a bit too close to 4E, where everything was a power. Somewhere towards Essentials, where most of your class features were new powers or ways to modify your Basic Attack. PF 2nd ties so much to feats, trying to get in track with all of this can be a headache.

Just now, I was modifying a playtest build I made with the official content, and...while I feel more comfortable with it as a character (compared to my attempt in making a PF 1e character, which felt so worthless), it's still a bit too far from being a build I like (compare to my Paladin builds in 3.5 and 5e, or my Warrior --> Templar spec build in Dragon Age, which I really like a lot). Had to leap a lot of hurdles to figure out what I wanted from the class itself (levels 4, 6 and to an extent 14 are just so horrible! And 1st level isn't that great either), and I had to use a liberal application of Multiclass Archetype feats (for Sorcerer) to feel a bit more comfortable with my build. Shield Ally is kinda trash, since it's restricted by range, which is generally a big no-no in metaplay, and they took many of the ways you could get more powers (and limited the uses of your powers, since you get only one or two uses per encounter, so to speak). Most of the time, I feel that I'm either attacking or...well, attacking; if I didn't have access to Sorcerer spellcasting, I'd feel useless, since the fancy maneuver thingies are pretty much exclusive to Fighter and Ranger.

But, enough ranting. PF 2e is simultaneously simple (the concept of Traits and symbols to shorthand info is pretty swell) and complex (everything is feats, everything is fiddly numbers), and I feel they did that just to distance themselves much more from their "parent" system.

Which brings me back to my original point. If your argument is that all classes can be boiled down into archetypes of the 4 basic classes, why don't we? Paladins are just a hybrid of fighters because their identity is warriors crossed with priests, warlocks are just magic users crossed with priests, druids are just priests crossed with magic users... it's a similar format to second edition.

Why do you uniquely single out rangers when every other class in D&D can have the same thing done? It's not for lack of identity, as every class has that identity problem. Is it the mechanics? I'll agree they could use some fine tuning. Just because the mechanics need tuning doesn't mean that the class lacks identity though.

I get the feeling that your complaint is that the Ranger lacks that clean X+Y as above. Which is completely fine; not every class _has_ to fit into some arbitrary spectrum. We're not playing WoW where everyone is either a DPS, tank, or healing spec. This just brings us back to "your personal feelings don't make objective fact"...

[Garfunion]

Additional charges to my take on ranger.

Seeker
Replaces Primeval Awareness
You can use your action and expend one ranger spell slot to focus your awareness on a region 1 mile around you for one minute. Choose one of the following options;
•You can sense whether the following types of creatures are present: aberrations, celestials, dragons, elementals, fey, fiends, and undead. This feature doesn’t reveal the creatures’ location or number.
•If you touch the footprints/tracks of a creature that are no more than one day old, you learn the exact distance, which direction they are moving, and at what pace.

Each spell slot you spend above 1st level increases the miles by five.

[GlenSmash!]

It also helps fit certain character tropes.

Sure Drizzty ones, but it rules you right out of other character tropes, Aragorny ones.


Rangers not having longbows and short swords seems off.

Yup.

Especially considering even rogues get more martial weapon proficiencies than this.

Wait... is this an underhanded way to get me to play a Rogue as Ranger substitute?

Well played Garfunion. Well played.

[T.G. Oskar]

Which brings me back to my original point. If your argument is that all classes can be boiled down into archetypes of the 4 basic classes, why don't we? Paladins are just a hybrid of fighters because their identity is warriors crossed with priests, warlocks are just magic users crossed with priests, druids are just priests crossed with magic users... it's a similar format to second edition.

Why do you uniquely single out rangers when every other class in D&D can have the same thing done? It's not for lack of identity, as every class has that identity problem. Is it the mechanics? I'll agree they could use some fine tuning. Just because the mechanics need tuning doesn't mean that the class lacks identity though.

I get the feeling that your complaint is that the Ranger lacks that clean X+Y as above. Which is completely fine; not every class _has_ to fit into some arbitrary spectrum. We're not playing WoW where everyone is either a DPS, tank, or healing spec. This just brings us back to "your personal feelings don't make objective fact"...

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! You completely lost me.

At what point did I mention that my argument was that all classes should just be archetypes of the four main classes? I used Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard because they're the most easily identifiable - they're the classic team, even though I'd dare to say you don't really need a team like such. I used them as an example of the distinction between identity (what the class IS?) and purpose (what the class DOES?), and then I went for the Ranger to point out it has an identity AND a purpose that's clear enough. At no moment I mentioned that no other class than Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard should exist; in fact, I argue for the complete opposite. I stand for the Ranger as a class; in fact, the issue I have with the OP is that the title is intellectually dishonest because it was never meant to invite a discussion that would "change its mind"; quite the opposite, it was meant to provide ideas on how to make the Ranger a subclass.

In fact, I was debating that the Ranger actually HAS an identity. What I felt Galithar was missing was purpose, and was intentionally confusing one for the other - then, Sir Solifuge argued that there is no such thing as purpose, and that identity is debatable. Galithar then mentioned it was never about purpose, that his issue with the Ranger was that it lacked identity. My position is that the Ranger's identity is that of being a hunter and a woodsman, and I also agreed with, curiously, your concept of identity. In fact, I agreed with it because it encapsulates very well its purpose; keeping the boundaries between nature and civilization. The "how" would be the mechanics, and that's basically the core of the debate.

Perhaps the confusion was what I explained after. I challenged the remark that nobody likes the Ranger (as I mention that it's not that everybody hates the Ranger, but that people want to like it and find themselves unable to), and then I go all the way to "nobody's gonna be happy until WotC fixes it", which is more of a response to Sir Solifuge's post, which ended by mentioning that either position is valid because the Ranger lacks a mechanical means to create new identities.

So, if I made you think I was in the "Ranger as subclass" group, I apologize. Most of my issues with the OP and paladinn is because I believe the contrary. As I said; I'm willing to work with the idea of playing with the Ranger as-is (except I haven't had the chance), with no fixes. I do believe the Ranger needs some love, but I also believe that the Ranger deserves to be a class. In my previous post (which is just as long, I know), I mentioned that, using the 5e class design philosophy (a class has to be broad enough to allow for multiple options within the same class, or else it works better as a subclass that defines it), the Ranger actually has enough broadness. The Beastmaster is a very different subclass from a Hunter (one learns to fight with beasts, the other learns specialized methods of combat), and from a Horizon Walker (particularly since this subclass encompasses the identity and purpose of the Ranger, but through the lens of Planes other than the Material; hence, teleportation and etherealness as features). They all represent aspects of the same thing, but are actually quite different in flavor, even if some of the mechanics might be similar. I mean...why haven't the devs at WotC revived the Bloodhound as a Ranger Archetype? I feel House Tharashk bounty hunters are definitely Rangers at heart.

But again...whatever made you think that? I must have been slightly sleep-deprived if my long post made you think I was supporting the idea of the Ranger as a subclass...

[Garfunion]

Sure Drizzty ones, but it rules you right out of other character tropes, Aragorny ones.
Aragon had fighter levels, we know this because he wears full plate armor at the end.

Also try not to focus so much on the name of the scimitar, it is a light slashing weapon(machete). Very useful to cut down foliage, to blaze a trail for others. If you look online at scimitar pictures, some have strong curves while others have very little curve, which looks pretty close to Legolas’s “knifes”.

Yup.

Especially considering even rogues get more martial weapon proficiencies than this.

Wait... is this an underhanded way to get me to play a Rogue as Ranger substitute?

Well played Garfunion. Well played.
Legolas is probably full ranger, he is able to quickly shoot arrows with his shortbow and then quickly switch to two-weapon fighting. Which my Weapons of The Wild feature allows.

Here is a question; why would a ranger learn and use a Maul, Greataxe, Flail, or any other heavy weapon? They wouldn’t, most wilderness experts like to travel light.

I also feel the Barbarian should not have all martial weapon proficiencies, instead maybe 1-2 two-handed martial weapons.

[Tanarii]

The problem being that for all that D&D talks about having three pillars, it only supports one of them. Making exploration and roleplaying more than a couple of die rolls between you and progress, let alone making them engaging, is 100% up to the DM. When the rules put so much focus on combat, any class that doesn't have something unique to do in combat is going to come off as boring, because combat is where the largest part of a player's impression of a class comes from.Yup. D&D greatly suffers from a lack of wilderness exploration, which is where rangers shine. Until Tomb of Anihilation, there wasn't a lot of point in bring Rangers to an AL table. I did it twice anyway, with a Beastmaster once, and it was still a blast. Otoh as a grognard I can have fun with any charcater, having been trained to roll them up on 3d6 in order and like it. But one of the Ranger's two defining features, Natural Explorer, didn't get used very much.

Conversely, IMC Rangers are pretty valuable. It involves a lot of wilderness exploration through dangerous terrain, and navigating without getting lost or being automatically surprised when ambushed in the process is a critical skill, even when trying to get to a known adventuring site.

Modern D&D is greatly lacking in the wilderness adventure mechanics. To contrast, look at the Mutant Zero line of products, and their latest fantasy line Forbidden Lands by Free League. It uses a single central mechanic. It has a not-very-complex set of exploration rules, and slightly more complex combat rules. It has a Hunter (spellless archer ranger) class that works, including a Natural Explorer analogue that still obviates certain survival checks, and a Beastmaster analogue path, but both at a resource cost. But unlike modern D&D, these mechanics actually work. At least in my playtesting so far. (The only downside is the single central mechanic is dice pools and successes ... so many damn dice!)

[GreyBlack]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! You completely lost me.

At what point did I mention that my argument was that all classes should just be archetypes of the four main classes? I used Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard because they're the most easily identifiable - they're the classic team, even though I'd dare to say you don't really need a team like such. I used them as an example of the distinction between identity (what the class IS?) and purpose (what the class DOES?), and then I went for the Ranger to point out it has an identity AND a purpose that's clear enough. At no moment I mentioned that no other class than Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard should exist; in fact, I argue for the complete opposite. I stand for the Ranger as a class; in fact, the issue I have with the OP is that the title is intellectually dishonest because it was never meant to invite a discussion that would "change its mind"; quite the opposite, it was meant to provide ideas on how to make the Ranger a subclass.

In fact, I was debating that the Ranger actually HAS an identity. What I felt Galithar was missing was purpose, and was intentionally confusing one for the other - then, Sir Solifuge argued that there is no such thing as purpose, and that identity is debatable. Galithar then mentioned it was never about purpose, that his issue with the Ranger was that it lacked identity. My position is that the Ranger's identity is that of being a hunter and a woodsman, and I also agreed with, curiously, your concept of identity. In fact, I agreed with it because it encapsulates very well its purpose; keeping the boundaries between nature and civilization. The "how" would be the mechanics, and that's basically the core of the debate.

Perhaps the confusion was what I explained after. I challenged the remark that nobody likes the Ranger (as I mention that it's not that everybody hates the Ranger, but that people want to like it and find themselves unable to), and then I go all the way to "nobody's gonna be happy until WotC fixes it", which is more of a response to Sir Solifuge's post, which ended by mentioning that either position is valid because the Ranger lacks a mechanical means to create new identities.

So, if I made you think I was in the "Ranger as subclass" group, I apologize. Most of my issues with the OP and paladinn is because I believe the contrary. As I said; I'm willing to work with the idea of playing with the Ranger as-is (except I haven't had the chance), with no fixes. I do believe the Ranger needs some love, but I also believe that the Ranger deserves to be a class. In my previous post (which is just as long, I know), I mentioned that, using the 5e class design philosophy (a class has to be broad enough to allow for multiple options within the same class, or else it works better as a subclass that defines it), the Ranger actually has enough broadness. The Beastmaster is a very different subclass from a Hunter (one learns to fight with beasts, the other learns specialized methods of combat), and from a Horizon Walker (particularly since this subclass encompasses the identity and purpose of the Ranger, but through the lens of Planes other than the Material; hence, teleportation and etherealness as features). They all represent aspects of the same thing, but are actually quite different in flavor, even if some of the mechanics might be similar. I mean...why haven't the devs at WotC revived the Bloodhound as a Ranger Archetype? I feel House Tharashk bounty hunters are definitely Rangers at heart.

But again...whatever made you think that? I must have been slightly sleep-deprived if my long post made you think I was supporting the idea of the Ranger as a subclass...

Apology accepted and I apologize for not thoroughly reading your wall of text. That's my bad.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Yeah that was my sticking point too.

I can see very little reason why a Barbarian would get proficiency with Martial Weapons and a Ranger would not.
Barbarians get martial weapon proficiency because greataxes and most other big, two-handed weapons are martial weapons (and big two-handed weapons are a barbarian standard). By the same token, as long as weapons like scimitars and longbows are martial weapons, rangers will get martial weapon proficiency.
I guess you could throw together something where rangers didn't get greataxes and barbarians didn't get longbows, but putting aside some specific character concepts, D&D seems adverse to splitting up martial weapon proficiency for any primary-warrior classes—and all the more so, with all the ways it's trying to make multiclassing unneeded.



Yup. D&D greatly suffers from a lack of wilderness exploration, which is where rangers shine...
Modern D&D is greatly lacking in the wilderness adventure mechanics.
If only more people recognized the connection between those points. If you don't write mechanics for a subsystem beyond "Tell the ranger to roll a d20 and wing it," nobody's going to think it's an important subsystem and only those DMs who put in the effort to write their own mechanics are going to make it engaging.
Same with the roleplaying pillar. Well, not roleplaying per se, but social encounters, and I think part of the problem is how those two are conflated. "You can't have social mechanics, because social encounters are for roleplaying, not mechanic-ing!" Except that roleplaying is supposed to be a guide for how you handle all encounters, even the most nail-biting combat.

[Kane0]

If only more people recognized the connection between those points. If you don't write mechanics for a subsystem beyond "Tell the ranger to roll a d20 and wing it," nobody's going to think it's an important subsystem and only those DMs who put in the effort to write their own mechanics are going to make it engaging.
Same with the roleplaying pillar. Well, not roleplaying per se, but social encounters, and I think part of the problem is how those two are conflated. "You can't have social mechanics, because social encounters are for roleplaying, not mechanic-ing!" Except that roleplaying is supposed to be a guide for how you handle all encounters, even the most nail-biting combat.

Agreed that the combat pillar got far more attention than the other two, but i dont think that is a reason to axe the ranger nor excuse its flaws (both in and out of that combat pillar)

And we shouldnt use the ranger as a vehicle to correct the exploration pillar, just as we shouldnt use the ranger to fix TWF by proxy.

[Bigmouth]

I hope that most of us can agree that the exploration 'pillar' shouldn't be hung around the neck of the Ranger.
Rangers need to be fun and contribute in combat first and foremost.
I suppose having played D&D for nearly 40 years I don't feel RP needs much if any mechanical support. Once upon a time there weren't any social skills and it certainly didn't keep us from roleplaying. (If anything, it was the opposite).
Exploration is pretty much the same. If hexcrawls are your jam, you don't need much help to make them fun. IMO the mechanical benefits of Favored Environment (or Natural Explorer on the UA Revised) don't actually make the exploration more fun. If anything they reduce the fun by removing the difficulties of terrain. (If Aragorn was a ranger, travelling through the mountains would have been as easy as a walk in the park.)
I can imagine all sorts of spells that could be added to the Ranger list that would make them the pinnacle of exploration (summoning watercraft at low levels. Spells that let you get horses over obstacles. Creating rope bridges, temp bridges. Spells that transform your clothing so it fits the needs of the environment. Parkas for everybody! Automapping as you explore. Various and sundry camp enhancements-bonus to hit dice rolls for recovery, wards and protections. Ranger versions of rope trick.) Would they make exploration more fun? Would they outweigh the lack of fun in the combat build?

[Tanarii]

Rangers need to be fun and contribute in combat first and foremost.
Fun is subjective, but I certainly had fun with both my Hunter and Beastmaster Rangers.

However, anyone complaining about Rangers failing to contribute to combat either plays in unique campaign circumstances (like a 5MWD), or is focusing on comparisons to GWM/PAM builds, or just isn't paying attention. Rangers don't fall down on combat contribution.

[GlenSmash!]

Aragon had fighter levels, we know this because he wears full plate armor at the end.Aragorn probably does have fighter levels, but he remains an iconic Ranger.

Also he only gets Plate in the films and only in a ceremony not in combat. In the novels he gets a chain shirt at Edoras that he wears until the end of combat int he trilogy.

Side note, the producers wanted Aragorn to wear plate for the last big combat but Viggo Mortensen felt it didn't suit the character of a Ranger and the style of fighting he'd been using over the course of the trilogy and had them change it to a chain shirt. You can see it in the Return of the King behind the scenes footage on the extented films dvds or blue rays.


Also try not to focus so much on the name of the scimitar, it is a light slashing weapon(machete). Very useful to cut down foliage, to blaze a trail for others. If you look online at scimitar pictures, some have strong curves while others have very little curve, which looks pretty close to Legolas’s “knifes”.

Legolas is probably full ranger, he is able to quickly shoot arrows with his shortbow and then quickly switch to two-weapon fighting. Which my Weapons of The Wild feature allows.

That's a big negative on Legolas being a Ranger. Legolas does absolutely zero tracking, except for looking over a long distance which he only does at the behest of the actual ranger in the party, Aragorn. The guy who can put his ear to the ground and ignore the sound of close horsemen to hear a smaller party of orcs that's on foot and father away. That's Rangering right there. Legolas is a Dex fighter though and through.

Also he uses a Galadhrim longbow for most of the trilogy (movie or books) a gift from Galadriel. A martial weapon used by all the woodscafty Lothlorien elf marchwardens. Hell the longbow was used across many different real world primitive cultures since the stone age. (oh and in the books it's only one knife, not two but I digress fairly majorly by this point).

One last LotR point. You can actually fairly well gauge the difference between a Fighter with some wilderness skills and Ranger by comparing and contrasting Legolas and Aragorn.

Legolas has been fighting orcs and giant spiders in the forests his home for hundreds of years, but he can't track hobbits amidst a horde of orcs, or do the ear to the ground thing like the much younger but vastly more well traveled Aragorn can.

He probably has Survival and Perception Proficiency, but lacks awesome Ranger class features like Aragorn has.

Features that the 5e Ranger arguably lacks. I say arguably for Tanarii's benefit. Actually I also think the Ranger has them but find them unsatisfying nonetheless.


Here is a question; why would a ranger learn and use a Maul, Greataxe, Flail, or any other heavy weapon? They wouldn’t, most wilderness experts like to travel light.

Remember D&D Rangers do not inhabit our world, but a vastly more dangerous world populated with Dragons, Giants, Hordes of Orcs, hobgoblins, skeletons, etc. We shouldn't solely judge them based on real world examples, although even a historical-ish example like Natty Bumppo carried a Kentucky long-rifle which is by no means a light weapon.

My point is Rangers adapt, and if thing likes Spells and Martial weapons would be useful for Rangering in a D&D world, and I argue that they are, the Ranger is likely practice with them.


I also feel the Barbarian should not have all martial weapon proficiencies, instead maybe 1-2 two-handed martial weapons.

What makes those 1-2 two handed martial weapons fundamentally different from other ones that proficiency in one would not transfer over to another?

Also it's very difficult to gauge your changes to the ranger when you changing other classes in your head too.

Just out of curiosity what proficiecies do you give the Paladin?


Barbarians get martial weapon proficiency because greataxes and most other big, two-handed weapons are martial weapons (and big two-handed weapons are a barbarian standard). By the same token, as long as weapons like scimitars and longbows are martial weapons, rangers will get martial weapon proficiency.
I guess you could throw together something where rangers didn't get greataxes and barbarians didn't get longbows, but putting aside some specific character concepts, D&D seems adverse to splitting up martial weapon proficiency for any primary-warrior classes—and all the more so, with all the ways it's trying to make multiclassing unneeded.

Longbows are found a across many primitive cultures. Even in FR lore they are a favored weapon of the Uthgardt barbarians.

Stripping them away from Barbarians doesn't fit the fiction for me.

Hell even Paladins have that proficiency. When's the last time you saw a longbow wielding paladin?

[GreatWyrmGold]

Agreed that the combat pillar got far more attention than the other two, but i dont think that is a reason to axe the ranger nor excuse its flaws (both in and out of that combat pillar)

And we shouldnt use the ranger as a vehicle to correct the exploration pillar, just as we shouldnt use the ranger to fix TWF by proxy.
Oh, I agree. I just gripe too much about how 5e pretends it's reduced its combat focus without doing more than adding some extra spaces to its character sheet. (Which is a good start, yet barely a drop in the bucket.)



Longbows are found a across many primitive cultures.
So? Barbarians aren't a mishmash of Polynesia, Mesoamerica, the Great Plains, etc; they're specifically inspired by the berserkers of Scandinavia (well, once you trace all the inspirations to their roots).


Even in FR lore they are a favored weapon of the Uthgardt barbarians.
Better argument, but not perfect. There are also monks and wizards in fantasy fiction who use swords; should all wizards and monks get sword proficiency by default?


Stripping them away from Barbarians doesn't fit the fiction for me.
Hell even Paladins have that proficiency. When's the last time you saw a longbow wielding paladin?
Yeah, I'm not actually in favor of splitting up martial weapons like that; I think it's kinda silly on any class for which combat isn't an afterthought (unless it's based around a very specific fighting style, a la ranger).

[Tanarii]

Features that the 5e Ranger arguably lacks. I say arguably for Tanarii's benefit. Actually I also think the Ranger has them but find them unsatisfying nonetheless.I can't argue with unsatisfying. That's a personal experience. The only thing worth noting about personal experience is it will vary based on person and situation.

My personal experience was: I found Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy unsatisfying in AL/DDEX single-session adventures. Those adventures are well within expected parameters for the 5e game btw. But I would expect to find them satisfying if I signed up for Tomb of Anihilation.

Feedback I get on players that have actually tried them in my campaign, a wilderness zone with site-based (outdoor & dungeon) exploration campaign, is some like them and some don't. Most don't like the Beastmaster mechanics, despite it being plenty powerful.

But like warlocks, I can always tell when a player has been reading about Rangers online. They have an excessively negative attitude towards them for no particular reason. Players that have played them without preconceptions never end up disliking them that much.

[Schwann145]

So? Barbarians aren't a mishmash of Polynesia, Mesoamerica, the Great Plains, etc; they're specifically inspired by the berserkers of Scandinavia (well, once you trace all the inspirations to their roots).
Are you sure you want to make that argument? Because those Scandinavian warriors were not barechested idiots frothing at the mouth with giant weapons - they were properly armored, tended to use swords and shields, etc. They looked faaar more like Fighters than anything like Barbarians. ;)




Anyway! To the topic of Ranger identity? Simply put, Rangers are warriors who are masters of both their environment and taming the wild. They're survivalists who can endure, even thrive, in locales that would be the end of most others. While Fighters are crossing blades in the arena or marching to war, while barbarian tribes are raiding and pillaging or warring with each other over petty matters of honor and glory, while Paladins are questing on holy missions, Rangers are busy keeping the wild at bay, defending and guiding civilization from and through the harshness of mother nature and the fey and all other manner of danger.
Some spend their time hunting down monsters to keep villages safe. Some tame the beasts of the wild, finding more kinship in the wilderness than in the city. Most also work as Scouts and Guides to navigate through harsh terrain that others simply cannot, or as bounty hunters and lawmen who track down their quarry better than any other. Some go even further, adapting themselves even to other planes and learning to survive in climates far harsher than that of the prime material plane.

You simply can't wrap up all that a Ranger is and can do in one Fighter subclass. Yes, some of their mechanics are lackluster and poorly designed, and extra unfortunately those mechanics are part of the chassis and not simply limited to one or two bad subclasses, but that's no reason to scrap them as their own class.

[Kane0]

I hope that most of us can agree that the exploration 'pillar' shouldn't be hung around the neck of the Ranger.
Rangers need to be fun and contribute in combat first and foremost.

I can imagine all sorts of spells that could be added to the Ranger list that would make them the pinnacle of exploration (summoning watercraft at low levels. Spells that let you get horses over obstacles. Creating rope bridges, temp bridges. Spells that transform your clothing so it fits the needs of the environment. Parkas for everybody! Automapping as you explore. Various and sundry camp enhancements-bonus to hit dice rolls for recovery, wards and protections. Ranger versions of rope trick.) Would they make exploration more fun? Would they outweigh the lack of fun in the combat build?
Well ideally you wouldn't want to intentionally make a class deficient in one pillar just so you can make them good in another, like for example making bards useless in a fight because you gave them so many social benefits. You'd want to be able to contribute to all three with particular specialties and niches.
Those spell concepts look great actually, if the Ranger used prepared spells rather than known (which I and many others homebrew to be the case) these would fit really well. Have you already drafted them up somewhere?



Anyway! To the topic of Ranger identity? Simply put, Rangers are warriors who are masters of both their environment and taming the wild. They're survivalists who can endure, even thrive, in locales that would be the end of most others. While Fighters are crossing blades in the arena or marching to war, while barbarian tribes are raiding and pillaging or warring with each other over petty matters of honor and glory, while Paladins are questing on holy missions, Rangers are busy keeping the wild at bay, defending and guiding civilization from and through the harshness of mother nature and the fey and all other manner of danger.
Some spend their time hunting down monsters to keep villages safe. Some tame the beasts of the wild, finding more kinship in the wilderness than in the city. Most also work as Scouts and Guides to navigate through harsh terrain that others simply cannot, or as bounty hunters and lawmen who track down their quarry better than any other. Some go even further, adapting themselves even to other planes and learning to survive in climates far harsher than that of the prime material plane.


I've posted this before but I suppose it bears repeating, my views on ranger 'identity'. I try to stay away from pure flavor as that can vary a lot.

- Where the Rogue hides, the Ranger seeks
- Where the Druid reveres nature, for the Ranger it is a tool
- Where the Barbarian is brutal and direct, the Ranger is cunning and crafty
- Where the Fighter and Monk rely on attack quantity and the Rogue relies on attack quality, the Ranger sits in the middle with the Barbarian and Paladin
- Where the Paladin prioritizes burst damage, the Ranger focuses on consistency

- Rangers fight smarter not harder
- Rangers are equal parts lone wolf and team player
- Rangers primarily operate on the 'second line' or 'flank', much like Rogues and Monks

Rangers, like all classes, should get some unique items (like pets and traps) and it's fine to share things with other classes. What isn't OK is lazily copying features or removing aspects of play.

Rangers aren't just hunters, woodsmen, predators or survivalists. They are Batman their own entity that has evolved over time and like most classes aren't given justice if reduced to a single character inspiration or simple descriptors.
Okay that might be overstating it, but hopefully you get the idea.

[Kane0]

The fighter is a guy who fights; it's his title, his job, his methodology.

The Ranger is the slightly more martial, slightly less casty bard. He's a jack of all trades. Able to carry himself in a fight. Able to apply his skills to a task. Able to accumulate useful spells to round him out.

If anything, it should be a bard subclass.

But probably, it should just be the Ranger, it's own class, and their abilities should reflect that design space of "generic adventurer" a little better.

I remember someone a while back equated the martial classes like
Barbarian = orange
Paladin = pear
Fighter = fruit
Monk = pineapple
Ranger = banana
Rogue = lemon
Which I found both amusing and accurate

I suppose you could say the Bard is a warrior-thief-mage mix with a leaning towards the thief and mage parts, and the Ranger is a warrior-thief-priest mix with a leaning towards the warrior part. A generic adventurer would be something straight down the middle of them all with no particular leaning. Imagine a d8 hit die halfcaster that had a half-wizard-half-cleric spell list, extra attack, expertise and not much else apart from subclass.

[GreatWyrmGold]

A generic adventurer would be something straight down the middle of them all with no particular leaning. Imagine a d8 hit die halfcaster that had a half-wizard-half-cleric spell list, extra attack, expertise and not much else apart from subclass.
Sounds like the bastard child of the factorum and one of those generic classes from 3.5's Unearthed Arcana book.



Are you sure you want to make that argument? Because those Scandinavian warriors were not barechested idiots frothing at the mouth with giant weapons - they were properly armored, tended to use swords and shields, etc. They looked faaar more like Fighters than anything like Barbarians. ;)
No historical culture had barechested idiots frothing at the mouth with giant weapons. Well, all cultures have some people like those, but all cultures' actual warriors were properly armored and tended to use swords and shields (or whatever weapons were appropriate for their wars). But the idea of the barbarian has its roots in legends about Scandinavian berserkers. It's not a perfect match (the original legendary berserkers were more like werebears than D&D barbarians, which makes them bear-chested idiots), but the connections are deep and clear.
The connection between those barechested idiots and Native Americans or Polynesians or whatever is...I guess there are some quasi-Native-Americans in the Dragonlance books which are called barbarians? Not that they act like typical D&D barbarians, they act like quasi-Native-American warriors, but I guess that's technically a connection...

[Bigmouth]

Well ideally you wouldn't want to intentionally make a class deficient in one pillar just so you can make them good in another, like for example making bards useless in a fight because you gave them so many social benefits. You'd want to be able to contribute to all three with particular specialties and niches.
Those spell concepts look great actually, if the Ranger used prepared spells rather than known (which I and many others homebrew to be the case) these would fit really well. Have you already drafted them up somewhere?
I agree that you wouldn't want to short a class in one pillar just because they are good in another, but I do feel that that is something that goes on. Fighters and Bards definitely feel like they are given shorter sticks in Social/Interaction and Exploration because of their concentration in fighting. Rangers feel like they are lackluster in combat when compared to Paladins, Fighters, Barbarians and I think some of that probably could be due to them being perceived as being great in exploration. I suppose it is a niche of sorts, but IMO I just don't think exploration packs the punch of a true pillar at most tables. If the pillars were a sports car, combat might be the engine, rp might be the chassis and exploration is the interior. (cup holders is actually what came to mind, but that might be TOO dismissive of exploration.)


The Ranger is the slightly more martial, slightly less casty bard. He's a jack of all trades. Able to carry himself in a fight. Able to apply his skills to a task. Able to accumulate useful spells to round him out.

If anything, it should be a bard subclass.

But probably, it should just be the Ranger, it's own class, and their abilities should reflect that design space of "generic adventurer" a little better.



I suppose you could say the Bard is a warrior-thief-mage mix with a leaning towards the thief and mage parts, and the Ranger is a warrior-thief-priest mix with a leaning towards the warrior part. A generic adventurer would be something straight down the middle of them all with no particular leaning. Imagine a d8 hit die halfcaster that had a half-wizard-half-cleric spell list, extra attack, expertise and not much else apart from subclass.

I think that Ranger should definitely be a class on it's on, but the more I talk about the ranger I think that if I had to make it a subclass, it would be of the bard. If I was forced to make a ranger from scratch, I think the bard would be the class I used as a launching point. In Kane0's other thread, I said that I think the true 'Identity' of the ranger is Adventurer. The person in the party who is prepared for every potential problem. Maybe not the best at any particular thing but someone who easily can step in to do whatever is needed. The entire build of the bard fits with that notion (with the obvious exception of performance...which could re-skinned as experience IMO)

Also, no. I've not written up any of those spells you mentioned Kane0. If I was going to work on the bard inspired Ranger I might, as I think having a spell list that felt more like a ranger than some haphazard druid cast-off list would go a long way towards making them feel more fun/more complete/unique.

[Tanarii]

If the pillars were a sports car, combat might be the engine, rp might be the chassis and exploration is the interior.
In almost every game of D&D that I've played in 35 years, exploration has been a far bigger component than social interactions. Even in BECMI, when negotiating was assumed to be something you did during encounters. Exploration is typically more than combat encounters, unless your DM teleports you from creature encounter to creature encounter.

The few exceptions I've had involved exceptionally small groups of players, 3 or less. (And were mostly set in the 2e Historical splat book series.)

Now if you want to specifically talk about wilderness exploration, that's a different thing. But we're talking about the Exploration Pillar here. That's each and every interaction your character has with the fantasy environment, be it wilderness, dungeon, urban, inside buildings, wherever they are.

[Kane0]

Also, no. I've not written up any of those spells you mentioned Kane0. If I was going to work on the bard inspired Ranger I might, as I think having a spell list that felt more like a ranger than some haphazard druid cast-off list would go a long way towards making them feel more fun/more complete/unique.

Something to do while i'm bored at work today then, watch this space!

Conjure Raft
2nd level Conjuration (Ritual)
Casting Time: 1 Minute
Range: Touch
Duration: Concentration, up to one hour
Components: S, M
The piece of wood touches expands and turns into a square raft 10 feet long and 10 feet wide. This craft can support up to two large creatures, four medium creatures or six small creatures on calm waters.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the raft is 5 feet longer and wider, supporting one large, two medium or three small creatures more for each slot above 1st.

Bounding Mount
1st level Transmutation
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: Touch
Duration: Concentration, up to one hour
Components: V, S
For the duration of the spell, one beast creature you touch has their jump distance doubled and gains advantage on Dexterity ability checks and saving throws.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, you can target one additional creature for each slot level above 1st.

Rope Bridge
2nd level Transmutation (Ritual)
Casting Time: 1 Minute
Range: 60 feet
Duration: Concentration, up to ten minutes
Components: S, M
The length of rope you are holding magically anchors itself to up to three surfaces you can see within range, creating a rope bridge that is 5 feet wide between those spaces that can support up to 500 pounds. Each 5 foot length has an AC of 13 and 20 hit points. Reducing a length to 0 hit points destroys it and might cause the bridge to collapse at the DM’s discretion.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, the range of the spell increases by 15 feet for each slot level above 2nd.

Adaptive Apparel
1st level Transmutation
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: Touch
Duration: 8 Hours
Components: V, S
Up to four sets of clothing you touch changes to most suit the climate you find yourself in, granting the wearer advantage on saving throws against extreme heat or cold for the duration of the spell.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, you can touch an additional two sets of clothing for each slot level above 1st.

Amanuensis
Transmutation Cantrip
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: 10 Feet
Duration: Instantaneous
Components: V
One set of calligraphers or cartographers tools you can see within range produces an accurate record of the message or illustration you dictate.

Obscure Camp
1st level Illusion (Ritual)
Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: 20 feet
Duration: 8 Hours
Components: V, S, M
The area in a 20 foot radius around you is magically obscured from those attempting to locate it, dimming campfires and shrouding smoke. Any creature outside of the area of the spell has disadvantage on any Wisdom (Perception) or Intelligence (Investigation) checks to find your hidden campsite.

Safeguard Shelter
2nd level Abjuration
Casting time: 1 minute
Range: 20 feet
Duration: 8 Hours
Components: V, S, M
The area in a 20 foot radius is magically warded from those attempting to enter it. The spell fails if its area includes more than six creatures. Creatures and objects within the area when you cast this spell can move freely, all other creatures must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw against your Spell DC in order to enter the area. Spells and objects are unaffected.

[Snails]

I agree that you wouldn't want to short a class in one pillar just because they are good in another, but I do feel that that is something that goes on. Fighters and Bards definitely feel like they are given shorter sticks in Social/Interaction and Exploration because of their concentration in fighting. Rangers feel like they are lackluster in combat when compared to Paladins, Fighters, Barbarians and I think some of that probably could be due to them being perceived as being great in exploration. I suppose it is a niche of sorts, but IMO I just don't think exploration packs the punch of a true pillar at most tables. If the pillars were a sports car, combat might be the engine, rp might be the chassis and exploration is the interior. (cup holders is actually what came to mind, but that might be TOO dismissive of exploration.)

I do agree that enforced tradeoffs between Pillars is an implied design principle.

IMHO there is an unwritten fourth Pillar: Flexibility. Spellcasters get this for cheap. Non-spellcasters pay through the nose.

That is why many editions sport Rangers and Monks and Paladins that tend to be weak, because they "should" be grateful for being second or third fiddle at many things. A spellcaster is allowed to be quite effective at all three Pillars today by virtue of the choice of prepared spells. The other non-spellcaster classes are put in a meta-level cage fight against each other, where every gain must be paid for by losing territory elsewhere or knocking another class down a peg.

It is perhaps why Ranger and Paladin are casters (and Monks are weird casters in their own way). For the 5e Paladin, how the spell slots are a flexible resource that can be burned as fuel for their martial fighting seems to work very well. Hunter's Mark is a reasonable pip for the Ranger, although I admit I am less satisfied with how it works out.

[GlenSmash!]

So? Barbarians aren't a mishmash of Polynesia, Mesoamerica, the Great Plains, etc; they're specifically inspired by the berserkers of Scandinavia (well, once you trace all the inspirations to their roots).

I'm not sure if that's precisely true I always Robert E. Howard's Conan was the progenitor to the original kit.

Though I do note that Berserkers fought with weapon and shield, not big two handed weapons so the concept has certainly grown beyond that, if that is it's origin. In fact historically, any record of completely unarmored warriors from the iron age on had them using shields.

I also note that Norse longships required ever other man to have a longbow. I guess those may all have been non-berserkers vikings or multiclasses?

We've probably strayed quite a bit from the topic though.

[Garfunion]

Here is my take on the Ranger. (Take 3)

I'm trying to focus the ranger more as a Bounty Hunter.

Proficiencies
•Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields •Weapons: Simple weapons and scimitar
•Tools: none
•Saving Throws: Strength, Dexterity
•Skills: Choose three from Animal Handling, Athletics, Insight, Investigation, Nature, Perception, Stealth, and Survival

Equipment
You start with the following equipment, in addition to the equipment granted by your background:
• (a) scale mail or (b) leather armor
• (a) two scimitar or (b) two simple melee weapons
• (a) a dungeoneer’s pack or (b) an explorer’s pack
• A pair of manacles
• A shortbow and a quiver of 20 arrows

(Favorite enemy is being moved & replaced)

(Remove Favorite Terrain)

(1st level) Well Traveled
-Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel.
-You have advantage on any d20 roll you make with Survival skill.
-Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as setting up camp, foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger.
-When you set up or clear a campsite for a short or long rest, you make it difficult for other creatures to detect your campsite. Creatures attempting to detect your campsite have disadvantage on their Wisdom (Perception & Survival) rolls.

(1st level)Weapons of The Tracker
(Flavor text)
When you use the Attack action on your turn and are wielding a shortbow, sling, two simple weapons or scimitars in each hand, or a quarterstaff in two hands, you can make one additional weapon attack as a bonus action.

Seeker
You can use your action and spend one minute to touch the footprints/tracks of a creature that are no more than one day old (3 days old if it is your favored prey). For the next minute you learn the creature’s exact distance, which direction they are moving, and at what pace. You may use this feature a number of times per day equal to your Wisdom modifier.

(2nd level) Remove Fighting Style

(2nd level) Favored Prey
Beginning at 2nd level, you have significant experience studying, tracking, hunting, and even talking to a certain type of creatures.

Choose a type of favored prey: aberrations, beasts, celestials, constructs, dragons, elementals, fey, fiends, giants, monstrosities, oozes, plants, or undead. Alternatively, you can select two races of humanoid (such as gnolls and orcs) as favored prey. You gain the following benefit listed below;

• You may add twice you Wisdom modifier(minimum 2) on Wisdom (Survival) checks to track your favored enemies. You also have advantage on any Intelligence checks to recall information about them.
• You learn one language of your choice that is spoken by your favored prey, if they speak one at all.
• When you attack your favored prey with a simple weapon or scimitar, you add 2 to the attack and damage rolls.

You choose one additional favored prey, as well as an associated language, at 6th and 14th level. As you gain levels, your choices should reflect the types of monsters you have encountered on your adventures.

This feature does Not stack with the fighting style class feature.

(2nd level) Spellcasting
Unchanged but the spell list has changed.

(6th level) Greater Weapons of The Tracker
You gain additional benefits listed below;
•Attacking at long range doesn’t impose disadvantage on your simple weapon attacks.
•You can draw a simple thrown weapon as part of the same action you attack with it. •You can retrieve any unattended thrown weapon as a free action.

(12th level) Master Weapons of The Tracker
You gain additional benefits listed below;
•Your simple weapons and scimitar critical strike on a 19-20.
•Your simple weapons’ and scimitar’s damage die increases to a d8.
•Creatures do not gain the benefits of half cover and 3/4 cover from any attack you make against them from a simple weapon or scimitar.

[ErdrickOfAliaha]

So, really late to the party here, but to address the initial question, Ranger, if a sub class, should be a martial subclass of Druid.

However, I strongly prefer it remain its own class. I haven't played enough 5e to be sure exactly what's off with it in this ed, but something definitely is. IME, 2e had the best Ranger. 3x had the ultimate multi class Ranger. (Find a class that doesn't mesh well with Ranger in 3x, I dare you).

They just don't "feel" right. Firstly, to make Beastmaster viable, the Ranger's companion should be nearly on par or even equal to the Druid's. With the martial/caster divide I don't believe this is OP.

As a Hunter, you almost need to stay at the rear edge of the vision limit to remain both effective at ranged combat and also function as a tactical leader, which is what I think the Ranger excels at. IMO, the Ranger, at least as much as the Fighter, understands how to use both the terrain an limited numbers against superior foes.

[Kane0]

So, really late to the party here, but to address the initial question, Ranger, if a sub class, should be a martial subclass of Druid.


'Circle of the Avenger (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?550878-Druid-Circle-of-the-Avenger)' ?
'Circle of Power (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?588397-Druid-circle-of-power)' ?
'Circle of Iron (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?583944-Druid-Circle-of-Ironwood)' ?
'Circle of Stone (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?583800-Melee-Druid-Subclass-Circle-of-Stone)' ?


I haven't played enough 5e to be sure exactly what's off with it in this ed, but something definitely is.
You're far from the only one to feel that way. Its easy to do some digging but basically the exploration features take away from the act of exploration, the PHB beastmaster is a bit clunky and the 'main' class features are either situational and DM/campaign dependant or underwhelming for when you get them.

[paladinn]

'Circle of the Avenger (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?550878-Druid-Circle-of-the-Avenger)' ?
'Circle of Power (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?588397-Druid-circle-of-power)' ?
'Circle of Iron (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?583944-Druid-Circle-of-Ironwood)' ?
'Circle of Stone (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?583800-Melee-Druid-Subclass-Circle-of-Stone)' ?

"Circle of Life" (Cue Lion King music)

[Crgaston]

Every time an anti-Ranger or Rebuild Ranger or whatever thread comes up, all the counter-proposals make me become more and more convinced the only mistake the Devs made with the Ranger was not having Natural Explorer apply in all natural terrains.

This, and being prepared casters.

I have played Rangers in 1e, 2e, 3.5e and 5e and have had fun with them all. The 5e version of Ranger, while maybe not the best designed class, has plenty of tools to be an Explorer, and Adventurer and a Warrior.

If all you're playing is dungeon crawls, then yeah, maybe not the best choice.

But having a class that can be competent in mobility, stealth, scouting, ranged DPR, healing, CC, light buffs, overland movement, tactical maneuvering, and spearheading ambushes and assaults?

Yes.

For those of you getting hung up on specific fantasy archetypes of "Ranger Identity," I do see where you're coming from. But those archetypes aren't why I want to play a Ranger.

(Also, please understand that my perspective doesn't include Beastmaster... I am not a big fan of this trope but understand that others are, so any deficiencies as a Companion class I won't address, outside of suggesting that a spell similar to Find Steed would be a worthy addition to the Ranger list.)

I want to play Robert Rogers, Marion Francis, Daniel Morgan, Nathaniel Greene, Pancho Villa... on down the line to Randy Shughart, Gary Gordon, Andy McNabb and Chris Kyle, for more recent examples.

Rangers are guerrilla warriors. Special Forces. Pathfinders. Para Rescue. Delta Force.

As they level up, they have the tools to become leaders.

At level 5 they can lead a stealth mission of local militia with PWT. They can leave town after the prisoner transport and move fast enough off the roads to get ahead and set up an ambush with Spike Growth to keep the enemy in the kill zone.

At level 9 they become SEAL team leaders with Water Breathing. They can lead a team undetected through the rivers, aqueducts, or sewers... assault an island or raid a docked enemy ship.

With Magic Initiate: Wizard they can get Mending to minimize arrow loss and gear wearing out, Message to deliver stealthy tactical commands, and Find Familiar for eyes-in-the-sky scouting.

Rangers have the tools to get a team inside a BBEG's (or BBECult/System/Gov't's) defenses and wreak havoc.

Heck, back in 1e there was a restriction that forbade more than 3 Rangers working together at a time. Can you imagine having to DM for a whole party of well-played Rangers? It'd be a nightmare.

So, no, I don't think they need to be a subclass. I'm happy with having a class dedicated to being a Guerrilla Warlord.

Could I build something similar as a Fighter/Rogue, Fighter/Druid or some other multiclass?

Sure.

Do I also think Ranger benefits from multiclassing?

Also sure.

But Ranger has plenty of Identity all on its own, as far as I'm concerned.

[Arkhios]

This, and being prepared casters.

I have played Rangers in 1e, 2e, 3.5e and 5e and have had fun with them all. The 5e version of Ranger, while maybe not the best designed class, has plenty of tools to be an Explorer, and Adventurer and a Warrior.

If all you're playing is dungeon crawls, then yeah, maybe not the best choice.

But having a class that can be competent in mobility, stealth, scouting, ranged DPR, healing, CC, light buffs, overland movement, tactical maneuvering, and spearheading ambushes and assaults?

Yes.

For those of you getting hung up on specific fantasy archetypes of "Ranger Identity," I do see where you're coming from. But those archetypes aren't why I want to play a Ranger.

(Also, please understand that my perspective doesn't include Beastmaster... I am not a big fan of this trope but understand that others are, so any deficiencies as a Companion class I won't address, outside of suggesting that a spell similar to Find Steed would be a worthy addition to the Ranger list.)

I want to play Robert Rogers, Marion Francis, Daniel Morgan, Nathaniel Greene, Pancho Villa... on down the line to Randy Shughart, Gary Gordon, Andy McNabb and Chris Kyle, for more recent examples.

Rangers are guerrilla warriors. Special Forces. Pathfinders. Para Rescue. Delta Force.

As they level up, they have the tools to become leaders.

At level 5 they can lead a stealth mission of local militia with PWT. They can leave town after the prisoner transport and move fast enough off the roads to get ahead and set up an ambush with Spike Growth to keep the enemy in the kill zone.

At level 9 they become SEAL team leaders with Water Breathing. They can lead a team undetected through the rivers, aqueducts, or sewers... assault an island or raid a docked enemy ship.

With Magic Initiate: Wizard they can get Mending to minimize arrow loss and gear wearing out, Message to deliver stealthy tactical commands, and Find Familiar for eyes-in-the-sky scouting.

Rangers have the tools to get a team inside a BBEG's (or BBECult/System/Gov't's) defenses and wreak havoc.

Heck, back in 1e there was a restriction that forbade more than 3 Rangers working together at a time. Can you imagine having to DM for a whole party of well-played Rangers? It'd be a nightmare.

So, no, I don't think they need to be a subclass. I'm happy with having a class dedicated to being a Guerrilla Warlord.

Could I build something similar as a Fighter/Rogue, Fighter/Druid or some other multiclass?

Sure.

Do I also think Ranger benefits from multiclassing?

Also sure.

But Ranger has plenty of Identity all on its own, as far as I'm concerned.

Couldn't agree more (especially about the idea of a spell with a similar function as Find Steed; in fact, ranger could have a class feature that allows them to cast Animal Friendship so that the effect lasts until the ranger releases the animal from service).

Anyway, well said.

[Sindal]

This, and being prepared casters.

I have played Rangers in 1e, 2e, 3.5e and 5e and have had fun with them all. The 5e version of Ranger, while maybe not the best designed class, has plenty of tools to be an Explorer, and Adventurer and a Warrior.

If all you're playing is dungeon crawls, then yeah, maybe not the best choice.

But having a class that can be competent in mobility, stealth, scouting, ranged DPR, healing, CC, light buffs, overland movement, tactical maneuvering, and spearheading ambushes and assaults?

Yes.

For those of you getting hung up on specific fantasy archetypes of "Ranger Identity," I do see where you're coming from. But those archetypes aren't why I want to play a Ranger.

(Also, please understand that my perspective doesn't include Beastmaster... I am not a big fan of this trope but understand that others are, so any deficiencies as a Companion class I won't address, outside of suggesting that a spell similar to Find Steed would be a worthy addition to the Ranger list.)

I want to play Robert Rogers, Marion Francis, Daniel Morgan, Nathaniel Greene, Pancho Villa... on down the line to Randy Shughart, Gary Gordon, Andy McNabb and Chris Kyle, for more recent examples.

Rangers are guerrilla warriors. Special Forces. Pathfinders. Para Rescue. Delta Force.

As they level up, they have the tools to become leaders.

At level 5 they can lead a stealth mission of local militia with PWT. They can leave town after the prisoner transport and move fast enough off the roads to get ahead and set up an ambush with Spike Growth to keep the enemy in the kill zone.

At level 9 they become SEAL team leaders with Water Breathing. They can lead a team undetected through the rivers, aqueducts, or sewers... assault an island or raid a docked enemy ship.

With Magic Initiate: Wizard they can get Mending to minimize arrow loss and gear wearing out, Message to deliver stealthy tactical commands, and Find Familiar for eyes-in-the-sky scouting.

Rangers have the tools to get a team inside a BBEG's (or BBECult/System/Gov't's) defenses and wreak havoc.

Heck, back in 1e there was a restriction that forbade more than 3 Rangers working together at a time. Can you imagine having to DM for a whole party of well-played Rangers? It'd be a nightmare.

So, no, I don't think they need to be a subclass. I'm happy with having a class dedicated to being a Guerrilla Warlord.

Could I build something similar as a Fighter/Rogue, Fighter/Druid or some other multiclass?

Sure.

Do I also think Ranger benefits from multiclassing?

Also sure.

But Ranger has plenty of Identity all on its own, as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah. I agree

Paladins go on a crusade
Barbarians go on a rampage
Fighters go to war or hold the line
Rangers, go on 'missions'

We just need all the right features to go with it. Some of them are there already. Some need work.

The revised ranger is honestly the closest we've gotten.

[Kane0]

Couldn't agree more (especially about the idea of a spell with a similar function as Find Steed; in fact, ranger could have a class feature that allows them to cast Animal Friendship so that the effect lasts until the ranger releases the animal from service).

Anyway, well said.


Re Beast Companion as a spell:


Find Companion
2nd-level Conjuration
Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: 30 feet
Components: V, S, M
Duration: Instantaneous

You summon a spirit that assumes the form of an animal. Choose a beast that is of large size or smaller and that has a challenge rating of 1/4 or lower. Appearing in an unoccupied space within range, the companion has the statistics of the chosen form.
Your companion acts independently of you on your initiative, but it always obeys your commands.
When within 100 feet you can communicate with your companion telepathically, and when you cast a spell with a range of self you can choose to touch your companion to also target them with that spell.
As an action, you can dismiss your companion permanently.
A companion that drops to 0 hit points disappears, leaving behind no physical form. If you cast this spell while you already have a companion, you instead restore your companion to its hit point maximum and can cause it to adopt a new form that meets the same requirements above.
At Higher Levels: If you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, the companion is up to CR 1/2. If you use a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the companion is up to CR 1. If you use a spell slot of 5th level or higher, the companion is up to CR 2.

Sidenote: I would have scaled Find Familiar and Find Steed in a similar way, especially in the case of the Pally. No point having two spells doing what one can.



10characters.

[Crgaston]

Find Companion
2nd-level Conjuration
Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: 30 feet
Components: V, S, M
Duration: Instantaneous

You summon a spirit that assumes the form of an animal. Choose a beast that is of large size or smaller and that has a challenge rating of 1/4 or lower. Appearing in an unoccupied space within range, the companion has the statistics of the chosen form.
Your companion acts independently of you on your initiative, but it always obeys your commands.
When within 100 feet you can communicate with your companion telepathically, and when you cast a spell with a range of self you can choose to touch your companion to also target them with that spell.
As an action, you can dismiss your companion permanently.
A companion that drops to 0 hit points disappears, leaving behind no physical form. If you cast this spell while you already have a companion, you instead restore your companion to its hit point maximum and can cause it to adopt a new form that meets the same requirements above.
At Higher Levels: If you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, the companion is up to CR 1/2. If you use a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the companion is up to CR 1. If you use a spell slot of 5th level or higher, the companion is up to CR 2.

Sidenote: I would have scaled Find Familiar and Find Steed in a similar way, especially in the case of the Pally. No point having two spells doing what one can.

Yep, that would do it.

[Gallowglass]

You know, the more I think about it I feel like the Ranger has the shadowrun problem.

In shadowrun, if you have never played it, there is a unique quality of any game in that there are three games happening.

The game everyone else is playing
The game the hacker is playing
The game the rigger is playing.

Everyone else is playing the standard fight the bad guys, find the mission objective, interact with the world game
But one player is playing a hacker and he's playing his own "I'm in cyberspace, fighting cyber things" game
And one player is playing a rigger and playing the "car chases FTW game."

When the hacker or rigger are doing something everyone else is sitting around. When everyone else is doing something, the hacker and rigger can TECHNICALLY be doing something but they have spent all their build points on things for their own games that they are pretty useless in the main game.

There are other games like this, but I feel like shadowrun best encapsulates the issue. You ever try playing a white wolf game with vampire, vampire, vampire, werewolf, wraith? Yeah that wraith sticks out like a sore thumb.

The ranger feels a little like this. The ranger -wants- to be playing a slightly different game than everyone else. They want to be playing a game where they have to use skills to live off the land, to deal with things like survival and boy-scout merit-badge earning. But D&D just doesn't support that game well. Never has really. Either they make it too tough or they make is so trivial that you might as well skip it.

So you end up skipping all those "wilderness interaction" things that the ranger wants to do and you are left with a rigger trying to be meaningful in the main game. So he ends up feeling like a slightly gimped fighter multiclassed with a significantly gimped druid.

Thinking about it that way, yeah, i think it would be fine as a fighter or rogue subclass.

[KorvinStarmast]

I
My personal experience was: I found Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy unsatisfying in AL/DDEX single-session adventures. Those adventures are well within expected parameters for the 5e game btw. But I would expect to find them satisfying if I signed up for Tomb of Anihilation. My Ranger kept us from getting lost in ToA, since the DM said "jungle/forest" are equivalent for favored terrain. Ranger really felt at home in ToA. Those two class features were pretty sweet, even though we didn't have a lot of giants in our encounters. (My ranger's favored enemy was based on back story: Giants)
If I had been meta gaming, I'd likely have picked undead as favored enemy since so many undead are in that campaign.

[Kane0]

You know, the more I think about it I feel like the Ranger has the shadowrun problem.

In shadowrun, if you have never played it, there is a unique quality of any game in that there are three games happening.

The game everyone else is playing
The game the hacker is playing
The game the rigger is playing.

Everyone else is playing the standard fight the bad guys, find the mission objective, interact with the world game
But one player is playing a hacker and he's playing his own "I'm in cyberspace, fighting cyber things" game
And one player is playing a rigger and playing the "car chases FTW game."


You know that actually sounds pretty interesting if it could be designed around, could we be tongue in cheek and call it the metagame?

Edit: But to respond directly, the simplest answer I can come up with is 'then stop making the ranger revolve around exploration'

[PoeticallyPsyco]

After polling my players, they like this idea enough that I'm going to build this and make it my official replacement.

First, Favored Enemy and Foe Slayer had to go. Good riddance.

Next, I moved Primeval Awareness to level 1 and changed it to not requiring spell slots- you can use it 1+Wisdom modifier times per day, and it always lasts 1 minute. This is an important new concept conceit, since knowing their enemies is a big part of figuring out how best to prepare.

You gain Hunter's Tools at level 2. There are three categories of tools: tonics, toxins, and traps. The creation of any of them requires one minute, 5 gp x level worth of ingredients, and the expenditure of a spell slot. You can forage for the necessary ingredients for any of them within 10 minutes with a successful Wisdom (Survival) check of DC 10+ the level of the expended spell slot. It may be easier or harder to gather what you require in certain types of terrain, up to DM discretion.

All tonics, toxins, and traps lose their potency after 24 hours of creation.

Tonics are more volatile than potions by nature. Drinking a second tonic while the first is still active poisons you for one hour. Drinking a third or more while at least two tonics are active gives you a level of exhaustion.

Toxins are special poisons that can be applied to one slashing or piercing weapon, 20 pieces of ammunition, or a trap or object that causes slashing or piercing damage as an action. They remain potent for one minute after application. Toxins do not intermingle well- if you apply a toxin to something where another toxin or poison has already been applied, it supplants and replaces them, as it breaks them down harmlessly. This does not stop multiple poisons or toxins from affecting a creature, however.

Traps come in two forms- stationary and portable. Stationary traps cannot be moved from the spot they are placed without disrupting it. Portable traps, like bombs and caltrops, act as regular objects and are often throwable.

At level 20, gain the ability Ad Hoc. You may create any Hunter's Tool with a single action so long as you already have the necessary ingredients. You may also switch out one ranger spell you know with any other ranger spell after a short rest.

These are my basic thoughts before I start building the Hunter's Tools. Thoughts?

I like it, but I think at least some of it should be just one Ranger subclass (Hunter? Witcher if you want to be on the nose).

I'll suggest a second subclass, because I'm feeling real nostalgic for 4e (especially Warlord) right now: The Guide, as a re-imagining of Favored Terrain rather than Favored Enemy. EDIT: although now that I've started working on it, several of these have no relation to 4e Warlord or Ranger, and are just abilities I thought were cool or thematic, and some of them would probably work for all Rangers or other subclasses.

Rather than on preparing for specific enemies, the Guide supports his group by using his knowledge of terrain, mobility, and cooperation in the face of a force larger than oneself. Here are some ideas for class features, in no particular order.

"Walk It Off" (not super attached to that name) twice per short rest, a ranger can use a bonus action to allow an ally (including the ranger) to expend an HD, regaining HP equal to the amount rolled + either their Con or the Ranger's Con, whichever is higher. The ally must be able to see or hear the ranger, or this ability has a range of touch.

"Step Like I Do" allies within 30ft of you while you are conscious and can be either seen or heard by them are less effected by difficult terrain. Instead of every 5ft of movement costing 10ft, every 10ft of movement (rounded down) costs 15ft of their speed. The ranger may benefit from this feature as well (although I'm tempted to just make rangers immune to difficult terrain).

"Here's What You Need" rangers can provide gear for their party. This gear is juryrigged and only lasts 8 hours before breaking down (the use of the mending spell can increase this to 12 hours), and cannot be sold. The ranger can create any gear from the Adventuring Gear table (PHB pg 150) that doesn't have a limited number of uses (e.g. acid flasks or rations). Creating 1 item in this way takes 10 minutes of foraging, but a Guide can create 6 identical items in just 30 minutes. The ranger can do this for a specific item once per short rest, though they can create multiple different items per short rest.

"Here's What You Really Need" high level Guides can greatly expand the options of their party. They may use "Here's What You Need" to create unique equipment that grants the character using it one movement speed (climb, swim, or glide) equal to half their land speed. The glide speed can be used to travel horizontally or downwards, but not upwards, and every 15ft traveled horizontally results in a 5ft loss in altitude (DM may add additional rules or change the existing ones based on prevailing wind conditions). The swim speed gear includes 5 minutes air supply, which can be shared between multiple characters with the gear.

"Coordinator" A Guide may use their bonus action to sacrifice some of their movement speed, allowing an ally within 30ft that can see or hear the Guide to immediately move an amount equal to the speed sacrificed. This cannot be used to allow an ally to move that normally couldn't (for instance, because they are paralyzed or restrained), and this movement may be subject to Opportunity Attacks and reduced as normal by difficult terrain (though remember the "Step Like Me" ability). Additionally, the Guide may split this granted movement between multiple allies eligible to receive it as they desire. A ranger may not sacrifice movement he has already used (so if he has already moved 20ft of 30, he can only sacrifice up to 10ft).

"Distracting Attack" whenever a Guide hits with an attack against an opponent, an ally within 30ft (of the Guide or struck opponent) that can see or hear the Guide can use their reaction to move 5ft. This movement ignores difficult terrain and doesn't provoke Opportunity Attacks, but the ally must actually be able to move (cannot be restrained, paralyzed, or unconscious, for instance).

"Wise in All Things" ... and the sooner your friends realize this, the better off they will be. A number of times per short rest equal to your Wisdom modifier, if an ally is making a skill check in a skill they are untrained in but you are trained in, they may use your modifier instead of their own. In combat, you may use this ability as a reaction to make a saving throw for an ally; if you use this on the turn the ally would roll, you roll instead of them, otherwise you must wait at least until their turn is over, but your throw is made in addition to any they have made and causes no negative consequences if your roll fails (e.g. on a death saving throw, if you're not replacing the ally's save, failing your roll won't bring them or you any closer to death).

[paladinn]

Thinking about it that way, yeah, i think it would be fine as a fighter or rogue subclass.

Let the church say Amen!

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Here's my thoughts.

5e would greatly benefit from a class similar to the Warlord in 4e. A support role based around granting tactical options to the party as much as boosting their numbers.

Ranger would greatly benefit from a unique mechanical identity.

You can probably see where I'm going with this. Ranger should be retooled into a support class akin to 4e's Warlord. Their identity as woodsmen, warriors, and guides that are experts in their field/prepared for everything and pass that on to their party members lends itself very well to this. And it would really stand out compared to the other classes. Casters can do buff spells, but limited spell slots and concentration make buffing the whole party impractical. Paladins have their auras and often sub-class abilities, but those are relatively limited in scope. A class with a focus on mundane buffs, like gear and movement options, wouldn't step on either of their toes, and would make a great addition to the martial roster.

[paladinn]

Here's my thoughts.

5e would greatly benefit from a class similar to the Warlord in 4e. A support role based around granting tactical options to the party as much as boosting their numbers.

Ranger would greatly benefit from a unique mechanical identity.

You can probably see where I'm going with this. Ranger should be retooled into a support class akin to 4e's Warlord. Their identity as woodsmen, warriors, and guides that are experts in their field/prepared for everything and pass that on to their party members lends itself very well to this. And it would really stand out compared to the other classes. Casters can do buff spells, but limited spell slots and concentration make buffing the whole party impractical. Paladins have their auras and often sub-class abilities, but those are relatively limited in scope. A class with a focus on mundane buffs, like gear and movement options, wouldn't step on either of their toes, and would make a great addition to the martial roster.

Isn't the Battlemaster supposed to be the 5e equivalent of the Warlord?

[Kane0]

That and the PDK/Banneret, both of which aren't quite the real deal.

[Crgaston]

You know, the more I think about it I feel like the Ranger has the shadowrun problem.

In shadowrun, if you have never played it, there is a unique quality of any game in that there are three games happening.

The game everyone else is playing
The game the hacker is playing
The game the rigger is playing.

Everyone else is playing the standard fight the bad guys, find the mission objective, interact with the world game
But one player is playing a hacker and he's playing his own "I'm in cyberspace, fighting cyber things" game
And one player is playing a rigger and playing the "car chases FTW game."

When the hacker or rigger are doing something everyone else is sitting around. When everyone else is doing something, the hacker and rigger can TECHNICALLY be doing something but they have spent all their build points on things for their own games that they are pretty useless in the main game.

There are other games like this, but I feel like shadowrun best encapsulates the issue. You ever try playing a white wolf game with vampire, vampire, vampire, werewolf, wraith? Yeah that wraith sticks out like a sore thumb.

The ranger feels a little like this. The ranger -wants- to be playing a slightly different game than everyone else. They want to be playing a game where they have to use skills to live off the land, to deal with things like survival and boy-scout merit-badge earning. But D&D just doesn't support that game well. Never has really. Either they make it too tough or they make is so trivial that you might as well skip it.

So you end up skipping all those "wilderness interaction" things that the ranger wants to do and you are left with a rigger trying to be meaningful in the main game. So he ends up feeling like a slightly gimped fighter multiclassed with a significantly gimped druid.

Thinking about it that way, yeah, i think it would be fine as a fighter or rogue subclass.

Yeah, this isn't inaccurate. Taking advantage of a Ranger's abilities does take a DM who has a persistent, dynamic world built and is willing to let you exercise some narrative control and engage in Combat as War. Fortunately I am privileged to have played with such DMs. Without a DM who is willing to respond to your plans and execution thereof, a lot of Ranger potential falls by the wayside.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Isn't the Battlemaster supposed to be the 5e equivalent of the Warlord?

Kind of. The Battlemaster is more akin to 3.5's Tome of Battle; cool abilities that run off a slightly to moderately limited resource and enhance the effect of your attacks beyond "I hit for X damage".

EDIT: Upon looking at the available options again, I admit that they actually did take quite a few classic Warlord abilities as maneuvers (Commander's Strike, Distracting Strike, Maneuvering Attack, and Rally are the one's I'd especially want to replicate in a Warlord!Ranger). I've never seen even one of them used in play or discussed in a optimization guide, but that could very well be my limited experience with the edition rather than a reflection of their popularity/effectiveness. Other people's thoughts? Regardless, I think that the fairly limited uses makes these maneuvers less than ideal for a support role, and think that a class entirely dedicated to similar principles would still be able to shine, just as Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster don't even come close to making Wizard redundant (though Fighter 3 might become a very popular multiclass, depending on how it was implemented).

Warlord (and also a decent chunk of ToB for that matter) is far more about affecting the party than affecting the enemies. For instance, a level 1 At-Will power for Warlords was a basic attack that let an ally instantly Shift 1 (think 3.5's 5ft step) if it hit. Another one simply let an ally attack instead of you1. And a cool encounter power (also 1st level) let you attack with a thrown weapon for some extra damage, and also granted that extra damage to attacks made by allies adjacent to you (in 5e I'd drop the extra damage for the character with the power, most likely). A Ranger utility power let allies replace their skill modifier with yours if its better. Honestly I could go on about awesome 4e powers for quite a while, so I'll cut myself off there. The point I'm trying to get across is that Warlocks filled a unique niche by focusing on support effects that could be achieved with nothing but tactical acumen, coordination with the team, training, and inspiring charisma; they were martial support characters, and that made them distinct as well as a valuable addition to any party2. The closest thing 5e has to them is Purple Dragon Knight (widely regarded as weak/lame) or Paladins, and Paladins approach support in a very different way (excepting the overlap of healing).

I think Warlords weren't ported to 5e because they are built around tactical combat, which doesn't mesh well with the theater of the mind 5e embraced. In fairness, they're almost certainly right about that interaction, but I nonetheless genuinely believe the Warlord role would be a fantastic addition to the edition, and Ranger both lacks a distinct (or at least well-liked) mechanical identity but has a thematic identity that would very easily work with Warlord3. Rebuilding Ranger to have abilities (and maybe spells, but class abilities are the big one here) based around moving teammates around the battlefield during the Ranger's turn, coordinating attacks, and working together for skill challenges (possibly in addition to more traditional buffs and healing) would kill two birds with one stone, fixing the most criticized class in the game while simultaneously adding and filling an entirely new niche (or filling the support niche in an entirely different way; however you prefer to look at it).


1. A popular style of Warlord build is the "Lazylord", built to not have any powers that don't work by helping some other player, leaving them with no powers that they can use alone. Not the strongest build in the game, but hilarious (especially if they get separated from the group), and the fact that this is even possible - much less viable and popular - shows that a support class built along the lines that allowed this is totally a workable idea.

2. And more importantly, Warlords were fun to play, and while the first time I played one my party was skeptical, by the end of the first combat they were loving the options and synergies my powers opened up for them.

3. Rangers are woodsmen, experts of skill and survival. I think 5e struggles in taking this out of the exploration pillar and into the combat pillar without competing with either Fighters or Rogues. However, let's look at that a different way: Rangers are guides, supporting and directing the party in the exploration tier, and it is a very short step from that to a support role like that of the Warlord in combat. Frankly, I think this a far more natural expression of the Ranger's woodsman identity than specializing to fight certain foes or stealth, both of which lead to questions like "Why isn't this just a fighter/rogue subclass". (For the record, I wouldn't be opposed to splitting the Ranger class into subclasses for multiple other classes, especially if they synergized well when multiclassing, but I think that this is a better solution).

[Arkhios]

Isn't the Battlemaster supposed to be the 5e equivalent of the Warlord?


That and the PDK/Banneret, both of which aren't quite the real deal.


Kind of. The Battlemaster is more akin to 3.5's Tome of Battle; cool abilities that run off a slightly to moderately limited resource and enhance the effect of your attacks beyond "I hit for X damage".

EDIT: Upon looking at the available options again, I admit that they actually did take quite a few classic Warlord abilities as maneuvers (Commander's Strike, Distracting Strike, Maneuvering Attack, and Rally are the one's I'd especially want to replicate in a Warlord!Ranger). I've never seen even one of them used in play or discussed in a optimization guide, but that could very well be my limited experience with the edition rather than a reflection of their popularity/effectiveness. Other people's thoughts? Regardless, I think that the fairly limited uses makes these maneuvers less than ideal for a support role, and think that a class entirely dedicated to similar principles would still be able to shine, just as Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster don't even come close to making Wizard redundant (though Fighter 3 might become a very popular multiclass, depending on how it was implemented).

Warlord (and also a decent chunk of ToB for that matter) is far more about affecting the party than affecting the enemies. For instance, a level 1 At-Will power for Warlords was a basic attack that let an ally instantly Shift 1 (think 3.5's 5ft step) if it hit. Another one simply let an ally attack instead of you1. And a cool encounter power (also 1st level) let you attack with a thrown weapon for some extra damage, and also granted that extra damage to attacks made by allies adjacent to you (in 5e I'd drop the extra damage for the character with the power, most likely). A Ranger utility power let allies replace their skill modifier with yours if its better. Honestly I could go on about awesome 4e powers for quite a while, so I'll cut myself off there. The point I'm trying to get across is that Warlocks filled a unique niche by focusing on support effects that could be achieved with nothing but tactical acumen, coordination with the team, training, and inspiring charisma; they were martial support characters, and that made them distinct as well as a valuable addition to any party2. The closest thing 5e has to them is Purple Dragon Knight (widely regarded as weak/lame) or Paladins, and Paladins approach support in a very different way (excepting the overlap of healing).

I think Warlords weren't ported to 5e because they are built around tactical combat, which doesn't mesh well with the theater of the mind 5e embraced. In fairness, they're almost certainly right about that interaction, but I nonetheless genuinely believe the Warlord role would be a fantastic addition to the edition, and Ranger both lacks a distinct (or at least well-liked) mechanical identity but has a thematic identity that would very easily work with Warlord3. Rebuilding Ranger to have abilities (and maybe spells, but class abilities are the big one here) based around moving teammates around the battlefield during the Ranger's turn, coordinating attacks, and working together for skill challenges (possibly in addition to more traditional buffs and healing) would kill two birds with one stone, fixing the most criticized class in the game while simultaneously adding and filling an entirely new niche (or filling the support niche in an entirely different way; however you prefer to look at it).


1. A popular style of Warlord build is the "Lazylord", built to not have any powers that don't work by helping some other player, leaving them with no powers that they can use alone. Not the strongest build in the game, but hilarious (especially if they get separated from the group), and the fact that this is even possible - much less viable and popular - shows that a support class built along the lines that allowed this is totally a workable idea.

2. And more importantly, Warlords were fun to play, and while the first time I played one my party was skeptical, by the end of the first combat they were loving the options and synergies my powers opened up for them.

3. Rangers are woodsmen, experts of skill and survival. I think 5e struggles in taking this out of the exploration pillar and into the combat pillar without competing with either Fighters or Rogues. However, let's look at that a different way: Rangers are guides, supporting and directing the party in the exploration tier, and it is a very short step from that to a support role like that of the Warlord in combat. Frankly, I think this a far more natural expression of the Ranger's woodsman identity than specializing to fight certain foes or stealth, both of which lead to questions like "Why isn't this just a fighter/rogue subclass". (For the record, I wouldn't be opposed to splitting the Ranger class into subclasses for multiple other classes, especially if they synergized well when multiclassing, but I think that this is a better solution).

I heard someone say Warlord?

Check this out: Base Class: Warlord (https://tinyurl.com/yyfmeceb)

[paladinn]

I heard someone say Warlord?

Check this out: Base Class: Warlord (https://tinyurl.com/yyfmeceb)

How would this differ from a 5e version of the 3x Marshal?

One of the things I Seriously disliked about 4e was "requiring" the use of a mat and minis. At the same time, I find myself disliking the "superiority dice" mechanic of the Battlemaster.

It seems like the main point of some of these sort of classes is to grant some sort of "healing" without magic

Of course none of this has anything to do with rangers..lol

[Garfunion]

One of the things I Seriously disliked about 4e was "requiring" the use of a mat and minis. At the same time, I find myself disliking the "superiority dice" mechanic of the Battlemaster.

It seems like the main point of some of these sort of classes is to grant some sort of "healing" without magic.
I really want to voice my positive thoughts and feelings about 4e’s class design and how each class had its own unique mechanics and role which really helped create an identity for them but

*insert Kermit the frog drinking tea meme*

That is not what this thread is about.

[Kane0]

Eh, as long as we argue if it should be part of the ranger I think we're fine :smallbiggrin:

I reworked the PDK Fighter into a Warlord, as I've tried making full classes in the past and my tables just don't use them so now I just do subclasses instead.
I personally don't see the link between Warlord and Ranger (mechanically speaking), if you ask me Warlord is just the thing that Fighter needs to take away that generic status and give them a proper 'identity'

And while we're on tangents, Arcane Archer should have been a Ranger subclass...

Edit: And yeah, the 4e Warlord is a development of the Martial and similar from 3rd. It didn't pop out of nowhere, it was just its moment in the sun.

Edit again:

I heard someone say Warlord?

Check this out: Base Class: Warlord (https://tinyurl.com/yyfmeceb)

I did! It's a strong attempt, but I have my qualms.

[Whit]

A subclass would be a good idea. Although with multiple archetype already it wound he hard. It could fit in under Druid fighter or rogue. Since it has Druid spells, I would place it as a Druid type sub class

[Galithar]

A subclass would be a good idea. Although with multiple archetype already it wound he hard. It could fit in under Druid fighter or rogue. Since it has Druid spells, I would place it as a Druid type sub class

The only issue with making a Druid subclass is that it's then a full caster. You can't reduce casting ability with a subclass (I mean TECHNICALLY you could, but it's just really bad design) it had to be from a martial (or at most half caster) base class or it has to revolve purely around the fact that it's a full caster.

[Whit]

Why can’t it state that at lvl X yuh start lvl 1 spell casting on Druid chart

[Galithar]

Why can’t it state that at lvl X yuh start lvl 1 spell casting on Druid chart

Because the base class is built around being a full caster. You would have to add more into the subclass to make up for stripping things from the base. It's the same reason Fighter had a few issues with making a Subclass (though they are fewer) because of things like heavy armor proficiency. Everyone here seems to agree a Ranger doesn't need heavy armor.

It could be done, it would just stomp all over the unified simplicity of 5e.

[paladinn]

And while we're on tangents, Arcane Archer should have been a Ranger subclass...

Hmm you could morph the Ranger into the Archer class.. AA as a subclass..

You may have found the "Ranger's" niche :smallbiggrin:

[paladinn]

A subclass would be a good idea. Although with multiple archetype already it wound he hard. It could fit in under Druid fighter or rogue. Since it has Druid spells, I would place it as a Druid type sub class

Isn't the Moon Druid already a "martial Druid"?

Then there's always the Ancients Paladin..

Funny.. lot's of people have argued against restoring the Ranger to a Fighter subclass, and now people want to make it a Druid subclass! Smh

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Hmm you could morph the Ranger into the Archer class.. AA as a subclass..

You may have found the "Ranger's" niche :smallbiggrin:

I think that part of Ranger's problem is that in previous editions it was the archery niche; sure you could replicate it or supplement it with any number of other classes, but they were replications and supplements; Ranger may not have been the best, but it was the standard. This was especially true in 4th edition, which really leaned into the Legolas archetype, and there I think it's fair to say that they were the best around at archery.

But in 5e that style of trick-shot archery is much better represented by Battlemaster Fighter, and Ranger has lost a chunk of its identity as a result.

[Kane0]

Funny.. lot's of people have argued against restoring the Ranger to a Fighter subclass, and now people want to make it a Druid subclass! Smh

Well to be fair those of us that weren't keen on the ranger being a fighter subclass aren't seeming very vocal about them being a druid subclass. I can only speculate, but perhaps they've either checked out of the thread or reckon what they've already said still stands.

[paladinn]

I think that part of Ranger's problem is that in previous editions it was the archery niche; sure you could replicate it or supplement it with any number of other classes, but they were replications and supplements; Ranger may not have been the best, but it was the standard. This was especially true in 4th edition, which really leaned into the Legolas archetype, and there I think it's fair to say that they were the best around at archery.

I guess that's how they got away with the Ranger being the martial "controller" class in 4e. I always wondered how they were going to have a martial class as a controller.

It's funny.. the original Ranger had nothing to do with archery at all..lol

[GlenSmash!]

Well to be fair those of us that weren't keen on the ranger being a fighter subclass aren't seeming very vocal about them being a druid subclass. I can only speculate, but perhaps they've either checked out of the thread or reckon what they've already said still stands.

There's no point in making the same arguments again at this point.

No new information has entered the thread as far as I can tell.

And no I don't think it makes sense as a Druid subclass as you'd have to remove full spellcasting and wildshape, and at that point you have pretty much made a different class anyway.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

I've already talked at length about how I think Ranger could be remade successfully into a Warlord-like class, keeping the fluff but losing most of the crunch in the process. That's one solution to the lackluster mechanics of the class, but in my last post I mentioned I wouldn't be opposed to splitting Ranger into multiple subclasses for various base classes, and I'd like to expand on that as a solution. Note that my experience with 5e is limited, so feel free to point it out if I've missed something important.

Let's start with Druid (I'll add the other classes some other time, either in this post or a later one). They're a natural fit for acquiring a 'rangery' subclass, what with their obvious thematic connections. Further, I think Druid is a good destination for the animal companion (maybe call it the "Circle of Companionship").

You could do this by just giving them a scaling companion, but then you're back to Ranger's problem of keeping track of (and balancing) essentially two PCs, and moreover overlaps with the Circle of the Shepard's summoning animal friends. Instead, I'd do it by abstracting the animal companion mechanic. The companion isn't a full creature with HP and attack bonuses and damage; it's an extension of your abilities and actions. Likewise, it benefits from any buffs you have active on yourself (mainly relevant for attack bonuses, but hey, that's Share Spells out of the way right there).

Druid spells focus on battlefield control and to a lesser extent damage, and all circles except Spores are apparently a bit lacking in uses for their bonus actions and reactions. So, we give the "Circle of Companionship" the ability to direct their animal companion using these actions. Probably the first ability is a reaction to let the animal companion attack anyone that damages the Druid (if your loyal companion can't do this, then what's even the point?). Make an attack roll, do damage on a hit. (What to roll? Use your proficiency for the attack, naturally... maybe double proficiency rather than adding a specific ability score? I'll leave balancing the damage to someone that actually knows a bit more about what they're talking about.) You may use this ability even if unconscious or otherwise unable to act, though the restrained condition limits this ability to melee range (kind of just spitballing with that limitation). Might want to include a limitation about needing line of sight/effect to the attacker to use this (and/or limiting the maximum range), but honestly I'm loving the image of the party pinpointing the location of an invisible attacker thanks to the irate bird attacking them.

Next ability; this is another one you want fairly early in your career (maybe as early as 2nd level), to make the animal companion feel meaningful. As a bonus action, inflict a debuff to a single foe as your wolf/bird/horse/bear hamstrings/goes for the eyes/rushes them. For the specific debuff, disadvantage on anything seems too powerful, so I'm thinking subtract proficiency bonus (or maybe a fraction of the Druid levels the character has, to prevent multiclassing cheese) from one of the opponent's AC/Saving Throws/Skill Checks (/maybe Movement Speed?) for the next attack they take or save/skill check/ability check (or movement?) they have to make. I'm not sure if giving each type of animal different abilities is a good idea or not, but if so this would be the place to do it, giving each animal a specific debuff rather than letting the Druid choose from one of them each time. Although, once again I find myself loving the idea of a Druid's animal companion distracting a guard to debuff their Perception while the Rogue steals the keys (anything from "Oh my gods, this cat is so cute" to "Nine Hells, this horse just pooped on my shoe" to "What are the wolves howling at?"), so I don't want to limit that to a single type of animal companion. Probably add a note that the Druid can also use their standard action for Aid Another on an ally taking advantage of the debuff.

Bestial Ferocity (for your standard action, animal attacks twice)... could actually be an interesting addition to the Druid list of abilities. I think I'd prefer something more like a familiar, though, using the animal companion to deliver a touch spell at range (although now that I've said that, I don't actually know if Druids have any touch range spells). Maybe give both of them together as the 14th level ability, or just one as the 6th or (more likely) 10th. I'd also keep the caveat that this can be used in place of an Extra Attack, because that facilitates multiclassing between the split Ranger subclasses, but that's just personal preference.

Feral Senses from OG Ranger would make another good addition, though honestly the same could be said for any subclass based on the Ranger.

Sacrifice. Your animal companion takes a hit meant for you. You may negate any one attack, spell, or other effect as a reaction upon it hitting you. However, should you do so, you lose the benefit of your animal companion (and thus all Circle of Companionship abilities except the spell list) until your companion recovers, which it does after you tend to it for one short rest or long rest. Honestly, this might be a little strong, but it's cool and flavorful so I'm mentioning it anyway. I wouldn't give this ability away any earlier than 6th level, and maybe not until 14th. I'm open to any suggestions for balancing it.

Defense Fighting Style. Rename this to be more thematic, obviously, but a +1 to AC thanks to your animal companion distracting attackers or nudging you out of the way would be cool (and far more appropriate than the other Ranger fighting styles). Maybe make this part of the reactionary 'damage attacker' ability. Or just cut it entirely; being hard to hit is hardly core to the identity of Ranger or Druid.

[Some sort of movement ability]. This is another one of those 'first on the cutting board' suggestions, but it offends my sensibilities to give a character an animal companion that could be a horse, and then not let them ride it for extra speed. The problem is, animal companions that work as mounts are the only ones this makes sense for. Maybe just add Find Steed to the Circle Spells instead (at a higher level than Paladins get it of course), or make it one of several options available at a level, perhaps alongside Defensive Fighting Style, Feral Senses, Bestial Ferocity, and touch spell delivery (and/or leave it up to the player to justify how their sparrow lets them move faster).

[T.G. Oskar]

Funny.. lot's of people have argued against restoring the Ranger to a Fighter subclass, and now people want to make it a Druid subclass! Smh

Well, I don't. I'm still firm in the idea that Ranger should be its own class. However, if the OP originally limited turning the Ranger into a Fighter subclass, and then got convinced into making it a Rogue subclass through argument, then it's not illogical that people would argue it as a Druid subclass. It's...part of the purpose of the thread, I assume?

But yeah: as Kane0 said, there's very little to discuss, other than what seems interesting, and even that's mostly tangential. Such as these two things.


You know, the more I think about it I feel like the Ranger has the shadowrun problem.

In shadowrun, if you have never played it, there is a unique quality of any game in that there are three games happening.

The game everyone else is playing
The game the hacker is playing
The game the rigger is playing.

Everyone else is playing the standard fight the bad guys, find the mission objective, interact with the world game
But one player is playing a hacker and he's playing his own "I'm in cyberspace, fighting cyber things" game
And one player is playing a rigger and playing the "car chases FTW game."

When the hacker or rigger are doing something everyone else is sitting around. When everyone else is doing something, the hacker and rigger can TECHNICALLY be doing something but they have spent all their build points on things for their own games that they are pretty useless in the main game.

[...]

The ranger feels a little like this. The ranger -wants- to be playing a slightly different game than everyone else. They want to be playing a game where they have to use skills to live off the land, to deal with things like survival and boy-scout merit-badge earning. But D&D just doesn't support that game well. Never has really. Either they make it too tough or they make is so trivial that you might as well skip it.

So you end up skipping all those "wilderness interaction" things that the ranger wants to do and you are left with a rigger trying to be meaningful in the main game. So he ends up feeling like a slightly gimped fighter multiclassed with a significantly gimped druid.

Even if I don't agree with the end argument (turn the Ranger into a subclass), I think I should point out a few things.

For example: the only archetype that really suffers from the "Shadowrun" problem in actual Shadowrun games is the Decker (SR4e renamed it Hacker, but SR5e restored the Decker name, since it's the iconic name). Riggers can specialize in fine control of vehicles, but for the most part, they contribute with drones and brute-forcing machinery. In particular, they can be superb scouts (send a small drone, preferably a flying one, equipped to the rim with cameras and sensors, and send it away on scouting purposes; then, when you find out what you want, switch to a combat drone and unleash your guns. The Mage also has its own "minigame" if they're the only ones with access to Astral Projection.

The Decker, on the only hand, has to specialize SO MUCH on decking that it's not funny. On the Matrix, they're godlike (and both Otaku pre 4e and Technomancers onwards are more godlike, since they're basically decking mages), but they do jack crud outside of the Matrix, at least no better than a Face character would (except the Face could be some sort of Pornomancer). Furthermore, they barely get any support from other players, who pretty much either have to spend their time doing nothing (so that the Matrix portions end up faster), or the Decker gets a ton more actions and focus than the players because they're hotlinking, therefore acting thrice as fast as the rest of the party. Even driver Riggers act basically on the same timeframe as the rest of the party, and if a car chase gets bloody, everyone with guns can just release them and fire away. (Melee Sammies and Adepts are hosed, though.)

But, I get the idea: Rangers are so focused on the exploration side of the game that they're basically forced to play their little game. It's not like Rogues and Monks can play the same game (i.e., scout ahead), but Rangers are better suited at exploration. However, I don't see it as the "Shadowrun" problem because a) other people can help you scout and b) it's not like the Ranger enters its own timeframe where they get basically 3 turns per round to 1 turn of the entire party, facing its own enemies without support from anyone else. And they can contribute rather effectively in combat with some preparation (say, Hunter's Mark + Archery + subclass, or Healing Spirit for OOC healing). So, I don't see Rangers as actually playing their own game, but rather, the class features being so focused on being ribbons; I could agree on the fact that the Rangers don't get much from their actual class features to aid the combat portion, and that D&D has traditionally focused almost entirely on the combat side of things, but it's not like ALL of their class features don't contribute. I mean...the Mastermind Rogue is almost all social-focused, and they STILL have the ability to use Help as a bonus action, which is pretty darn awesome.


Eh, as long as we argue if it should be part of the ranger I think we're fine :smallbiggrin:

I reworked the PDK Fighter into a Warlord, as I've tried making full classes in the past and my tables just don't use them so now I just do subclasses instead.
I personally don't see the link between Warlord and Ranger (mechanically speaking), if you ask me Warlord is just the thing that Fighter needs to take away that generic status and give them a proper 'identity'

And while we're on tangents, Arcane Archer should have been a Ranger subclass...

Like these two ideas; that said, AA has the issue that it has a lot of overlap. The Swashbuckler is easier to place as a Rogue because they add some much needed combat support to a class that relies on a specific form of combat, but the AA's shtick is mostly "I can fire magic arrows". It can easily be either a Fighter subclass (without spellcasting ability) or a Ranger subclass (depending on the Ranger's spell slots...which would actually give it a cool counterpart to the Paladin's Smite feature), but not one over the other to be honest.

As I said before, the Warlord/Marshal concept is right on the edge of "being a class" and "being a subclass", because you could work a base chassis with various concepts (tribal warchief akin to a Barbarian, a strategist, a warpriest, even the War Mage), but those could be likewise justified as subclasses for other classes (Barbarian tribal warchief, Fighter strategist, Cleric War Priest, Wizard War Mage; in fact, the last two already exist in some point, and as said by others, the Battlemaster and the PDK split some of the concepts of a strategist). It has an identity and a purpose, but their issue is that they're kinda hosed by 5e's design philosophy - they're broad enough that a subclass doesn't make them justice, but too narrow that you can't get many subclasses out of it, so it's on that blind spot.

You could argue the Ranger is on that same "blind spot", but WotC has worked well enough to give them various concepts (a specialized Hunter, a Beastmaster, an Underdark specialist in the Gloom Stalker, a planar Ranger with the Horizon Walker, and a mage-killer with the...Monster Slayer?) and the opportunity for more (Bloodhound/Consecrated Harrier, to pursue and capture quarry? You could also have the 4e Warden manifest as a Ranger subclass, giving them their own form of Wild Shape and their own goodies, since they already get Guardian of Nature as a spell), so they're not exactly in that blind spot IMO.

[bronzemountain]

In a world of warriors who excel because of skill (fighters), fury (barbarians), devotion (paladins), and precision (rogues), I think there is definitely room for warriors who rock because of their unique understanding of enemies and terrain (rangers). Sure, exploration and wilderness survival and all of that is nice, but those are basically ribbons. The 5e Ranger conflates these things in problematic ways. In some ways, it inverts what should be in a subclass and what should be in the core class, largely by neutering Favored Enemy (which should be the core class-defining combat mechanic, the way smite and sneak attack are for paladins and rogues respectively) and dropping all the damage boosting into subclasses (which is where the flavorful stuff should live).

For me, the design principles of the Ranger as a stand-alone class would be:

Unique understanding of enemies is the core combat-boosting mechanic for Rangers (ie. Favored Enemy)
Different types of connection to nature and natural magic should be the variations for subclasses
Spell selection should allow for personal PC customization beyond that


To that end, Favored Enemy needs to be damage-dealing again, no question. And potentially more dynamic. For instance, I would probably give Beasts/Monstrosities as free Favored Enemies to all rangers. Maybe allow for more modular and varied bonuses for FE (ie. I know how to get the jump on goblins, and I know how to hit giants where it hurts).

And natural connection as the subclass engine provides interesting options. So you can have one class where natural connection manifests as tactical terrain mastery. The subclass has the ability to derive benefit from any terrain, and different terrain types provide different bonuses. And a subclass where natural connection manifests a friendship with animals (beastmaster/falconer/summoner/etc). A subclass where the ranger gains magical power from the land instead of terrain superiority. And a subclass where the ranger can infuse nature's power into her weapons (ahem, arcane archer). A subclass about the ranger's nature connection making them a stealthy ambush predator. Etc.

I think that feels like a well justified stand-alone class, in keeping with the other classes.

[GlenSmash!]

In a world of warriors who excel because of skill (fighters), fury (barbarians), devotion (paladins), and precision (rogues), I think there is definitely room for warriors who rock because of their unique understanding of enemies and terrain (rangers).

*ahem* "Let the church say amen!"

[paladinn]

*ahem* "Let the church say amen!"

Again, I ask, what is the class' "thing"? Any character can accumulate skills for wilderness exploration, especially with the Outlander background.

Clerics and wizards are the baseline divine/arcane casters. Fighters.. well.. fight. Paladins smite. Sorcerers have metamagic. Rogues sneak attack. Bards perform and know stuff. Druids wildshape. I'd still choose to make paladins, bards, druids and sorcs subclasses, but at least they have a "thing". I still don't know of one "thing" that would make the ranger really unique. And as long as there isn't one, it doesn't need to be a separate class.

The only thing that comes close is some sort of studied/hunter's mark/ prey/ target/whatever; but I've yet to see a good reformulation of that. And the vengeance paladin gets hunter's mark as-is.

[GlenSmash!]

Again, I ask, what is the class' "thing"? Any character can accumulate skills for wilderness exploration, especially with the Outlander background.

Clerics and wizards are the baseline divine/arcane casters. Fighters.. well.. fight. Paladins smite. Sorcerers have metamagic. Rogues sneak attack. Bards perform and know stuff. Druids wildshape. I'd still choose to make paladins, bards, druids and sorcs subclasses, but at least they have a "thing". I still don't know of one "thing" that would make the ranger really unique. And as long as there isn't one, it doesn't need to be a separate class.

The only thing that comes close is some sort of studied/hunter's mark/ prey/ target/whatever; but I've yet to see a good reformulation of that. And the vengeance paladin gets hunter's mark as-is.

The class's thing was what I quoted in post you quoted.

It's ok that you don't think that's enough to justify a class. It's also ok that other people think it is enough to justify a class.

And "Fighters well fight?" How is that a "thing" by your own definition of "thing"?

Do Barbarians not fight? Do Rogues not fight? Do Paladins not fight? Do Monks not fight?, Do Valor Bards, Swords Bards, Bladelocks, Artificers, Bladesingers not fight?

[PoeticallyPsyco]

The only thing that comes close is some sort of studied/hunter's mark/ prey/ target/whatever; but I've yet to see a good reformulation of that. And the vengeance paladin gets hunter's mark as-is.

Simple enough; just steal 4e's. Bonus action to mark the closest opponent within 30ft; you may add 1d8 damage to an attack that has hit this opponent once per turn (this extra damage applies only to this opponent). You may have only one marked opponent at a time; marking a new opponent removes the mark on the previous opponent. Throw in some appropriately scaling damage and that should work.

Wow that's a lot of semicolons; I wonder why.

[Garfunion]

(2nd level) Remove Fighting Style

(2nd level) Favored Prey
Beginning at 2nd level, you have significant experience studying, tracking, hunting, and even talking to a certain type of creatures.

Choose a type of favored prey: aberrations, beasts, celestials, constructs, dragons, elementals, fey, fiends, giants, humanoid, monstrosities, oozes, plants, or undead. You gain the following benefit listed below plus an additional benefit tied to your favored prey;
• You may add twice you Wisdom modifier(minimum 2) on Wisdom (Survival) checks to track your favored enemies. You also have advantage on any Intelligence checks to recall information about them.
• You learn one language of your choice that is spoken by your favored prey, if they speak one at all.
——Aberrations: You can telepathically speak to any creature within 20ft of you, if you speak a language they understand.
——Beasts: Your attacks with simple weapons or scimitars deal an extra 2 damage.
——Celestial: When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you reduce its fly speed by 20ft for one minute. Each additional hit reduces its speed further. If it’s fly speed is reduced to 0, it falls safely to the ground.
——Constructs: Your simple weapons and scimitars count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.
——Dragons: You are immune to the frightened condition.
——Elementals: At the end of a long rest you can choose to gain resistance to one elemental damage type of your choice; cold, fire, lightning, or thunder damage. The effect last until you take a long rest.
——Fey: You have advantage on saving throws against being charmed, and magic can’t put you to sleep.
——Fiends: You can spend (free action) a 1st level spell slot or higher to suspend any magical darkness within 60ft centered around you for one hour.
——Giants: The first 10ft of movement you take on your turn does not provoke opportunity attack.
——Humanoids: When you roll a natural 16 or higher on an attack roll and hit, the creature drops one weapon it is holding.
——Monstrosities: Your attacks with simple weapons or scimitars gain a +2 to the d20 rolls.
——Oozes: Squeezing or occupying another creatures space does not impose disadvantaged of your attack rolls
——Plants: You gain immunity to the poison condition and resistance to poison damage.
——Undead: When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, the creature can not regain hit points until the start of your next turn.

You choose one additional favored prey, as well as an associated language, at 6th and 14th level. As you gain levels, your choices should reflect the types of monsters you have encountered on your adventures.

This feature does Not stack with the fighting style class feature.

[paladinn]

(2nd level) Remove Fighting Style
.
.
.
This feature does Not stack with the fighting style class feature.

Well you did just remove the feature..

[paladinn]

Well you did just remove the feature..
I'd keep the fighting style, open it up to Any style. Paladins have a style And they smite. Rangers can have a style And mark.

For the favored prey/mark/etc., while fighting that particular foe or race or ??, the ranger gets a bonus to-hit, AC and saves due to knowing said foe. Whether that's based on proficiency or level is up to y'all. There's the ranger's "thing".

If you want to give bonuses based on chosen terrain (like resistance to x), that would be cool too. Give animal handling and maybe danger sense (life the barbarian - the ranger in BECMI had it first). So then you have at least 3 benefits to being a nature boy. And you don't even need spells.

Boom

[Garfunion]

Well you did just remove the feature..


I'd keep the fighting style, open it up to Any style. Paladins have a style And they smite. Rangers can have a style And mark.

For the favored prey/mark/etc., while fighting that particular foe or race or ??, the ranger gets a bonus to-hit, AC and saves due to knowing said foe. Whether that's based on proficiency or level is up to y'all. There's the ranger's "thing".

If you want to give bonuses based on chosen terrain (like resistance to x), that would be cool too. Give animal handling and maybe danger sense (life the barbarian - the ranger in BECMI had it first). So then you have at least 3 benefits to being a nature boy. And you don't even need spells.

Boom

Fighting style is capable of increasing your range attack or your damage modifier by 2. I didn’t want it to stack with the new Favored Prey feature.

[paladinn]

Fighting style is capable of increasing your range attack or your damage modifier by 2. I didn’t want it to stack with the new Favored Prey feature.

Make it a bonus to-hit and AC, not to damage. Rangers should know the weeknesses and strengths of their foes, so it makes sense.

[Garfunion]

Make it a bonus to-hit and AC, not to damage. Rangers should know the weeknesses and strengths of their foes, so it makes sense.
The fighting style archery increases your ranged attacks by 2 and the fighting style dueling increases one handed weapon damage by 2.

The weapons of the wild/tracker feature I posted provides two weapon fighting and an extra attack with certain ranged weapons. Favored Prey; Beast gives a +2 to damage and Monstrosities gives a +2 to attack.

My changes to the ranger I posted earlier provide a more unique combat style for the Ranger

[TwrLrd]

For what its worth, to come out of lurking and throw in my two cents. I think the ranger is fine being a class, but is more like a nebula to other classes being stars. Problem I can see with ranger just being a fighter subclass is that developing your skills in the wild you're not going to spend alot of your day doing physical combat training like a fighter would, walking yeah, but a ranger will be patrolling the land for danger when he isn't sorting out his needs, but of course still fights. Rogue is a better fit, but something is still mildly off, its hard to put my finger on it, best I can put it is the most they share in common is focusing on a particular set of skills and a preference for setting up surprise attacks outside of that they don't overlap as base ideas. Druid to me is the land, where the ranger is the man who lives on it and wants to protect it, it can work but is tangential to the ranger, I'd more want a ranger subclass that can burn spell slots to wildshape.

I think its important for the ranger base to simply be solid and preferably open ended with its abilities. Referencing me comparing the ranger being a nebula, I think the ranger base needs additional focus from its subclasses to focus it onto the particular blend of ranger that a player would want to evoke, some like beast masters and some like breaking down monsters for tasty loot. I've homebrewed up my own take on the ranger base, but focused on what having survived in the wilds would teach them that they might take with them on their adventures as a mix of blessings their connection to the land gives and what they learned living off it. The original ranger base to me works best as an NPC class really that comes with you for your adventure somewhere before sauntering off with his animal companion when you say goodbye and teleport off to another continent. The flavour of the abilities are fine and gets across someone who loves the land he lives in and fights off the dangers in it, I still think the favoured enemy is unneccessarily focused flavour wise but everything else makes sense, its more the narrow execution to me that holds it back.

For the homebrew if anyone is curious, ended up with exchanging favored enemy for more general focuses on being good at tracking a particular quarry on a given day and developing using poisons/oils to put on arrows to exploit any weaknesses they know about their enemies. Swapped natural explorer for more of a series of choices of extra spells known they could a few times a day. Primeval awareness became more like a metal detector for interesting stuff in a smaller radius (terrible description but its funny so I'll go with it). Morphed landstride into knowing misty step and getting 1 free cast a day. Hide in plain sight was replaced with a cheaper/earlier generalist ability in natural explorer's replacement so it became another 'extra spell you know with free cast' ability. Vanish I'd removed like hide in plain sight and put in a slightly better feral senses and feral senses became another choice of an extra spell known and 1 free cast per day. And finally foe slayer, which I'd kinda folded into the arrow/oil crafting was replaced with a 'if your mortal enemy is somewhere on the material plane he will not be able to hide from you and you deal slightly more damage to him' type ability. Got no ranger players to test it with yet, but it was fun to do. The animal companion I've also 'fixed' but I'm still mulling over if I like it or not, but I've kinda made it work acknowledging it'll probably always be a bit too strong, but made sure it is something the entire party benefits from as well and put a couple speed bumps into.

[paladinn]

Ok, I have a little time, so I thought I'd explain my thought processes on this. Please forgive if this ends up being a novella.

I've played and DM'ed D&D since B/X, and am familiar with every version from OD&D to 5e. The OD&D ranger (from the Strategic Review) was heavily modeled on Aragorn, and tried to replicate the kinds of things he did in LotR. Rangers were fighters, first and foremost. Fighters didn't get ASI's or feats or weapon specialization back then; they just got tougher, hit better and harder as they leveled-up. Paladins were D&D-official with the Greyhawk suppliment; they also were fighters, but had better saves, protection from evil, healing, detect evil and "dispel evil" (and No spells), and were very difficult to qualify for. Rangers had many "favored enemies" (any humanoids or giants), tracking ability, surprise ability, and the ability to use ESP/scrying items (probably due to Aragorn using a palantir). They could also cast cleric and magic-user spells (there were no druids then, and Aragorn did a little healing and was ok against the ringwraiths).

Over the years, in 1e-3x, rangers morphed a lot. They way they were envisioned seemed to vacilate between a rogue/fighter hybrid, a junior druid, a beastmaster, the default archery class or a two-weapon fighter, none of which really fit the Aragorn mold. I know that, for many, Drizzt has become the modern model for a ranger; but other than using the 2 scimitars, I'm not sure how well the class even fits the Drizzt mold.

With all that said, here are what I would think to be the essentials of a ranger class, if it is to be a "class:

1. Fighting style. This has typically leaned toward archery or 2-weapon, but Aragorn was neither. I would allow any weapon style, including Aragorn's great-weapon style.

2. Tracking. This should be a no-brainer. I would include some abilities to detect the presence of creatures in the area. Aragorn's "ear-to-the-ground" thing comes to mind.

3. Nature abilities. Survival, animal handling, woodland stride. If a "favored terrain" is used, it should grant a resistance of some sort (cold, heat, etc.)

4. Stealth. This should not be equivalent to a rogue's abilities, but greater than what a fighter would normally get. Surprise, hide, vanish, evasion, maybe dodge.

5. Enhanced senses. BECMI (the VotPA "druidic knight") gave danger sense. Some ability to fight unseen enemies.

6. Combat ability. Either let "favored enemies" include all humanoids and giants, as in OD&D/1e, or change to some version of hunter's mark. Bonus to hit and AC, and possibly to saves due to "knowing your enemy".

I would argue that all this would make a decent "main class", and wouldn't even need spells to be effective. I Don't know what archetypes would be good, other than maybe beastmaster. I would also suggest that, if these things are Not present, a ranger would do better as a fighter subclass. The extra ASI's and more extra attacks would greatly benefit a ranger. And if druid spells are wanted, make it like the EK and use the druid spell list.

More than $.02 worth, but there you have it.