Should the ranger just be a fighter subclass?

[Throne12]

So I was talking with my group. I said the ranger class should be split up and made into subclasses for other classes. I broke it down like this.

Fighter
1. Horizon Walker
2. Hunter
3. A Ranger sudclass with favorite enemy & terrain and ect

Rogue
1.Gloom stalker

Barbarian
1 Monster Hunter.

Druid
1. Beast Master


So what are yall options? Should the ranger class be split up.

[Kane0]

I'd rather not, because you could apply the same argument for the majority of classes and at some point the pool of options is reduced.

Also, the design space the ranger takes up can't be squished into subclasses in their entirety, so something will always be lost.

Edit: I wonder if this stems from your group thinking 'Ranger isn't a good enough class on it's own' leads to the solution of breaking it up and spreading its bits amongst other classes. I prefer to fix the class rather than take that approach.

[AntiAuthority]

So I was talking with my group. I said the ranger class should be split up and made into subclasses for other classes. I broke it down like this.

Fighter
1. Horizon Walker
2. Hunter
3. A Ranger sudclass with favorite enemy & terrain and ect

Rogue
1.Gloom stalker

Barbarian
1 Monster Hunter.

Druid
1. Beast Master


So what are yall options? Should the ranger class be split up.

I'm looking at this from a thematic point of view... Kind of, but I don't think you're taking it far enough. Originally, the Ranger was a sub-class for the Fighter in earlier editions of D&D. With later editions the Ranger class became more its own thing, gaining class features and such.

Taking it a step further (maybe too far, depending on who you ask), from a thematic viewpoint, I think Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian and Ranger should be merged into one class to better capture the feel of a warrior that's able to survive in the wilderness, aim for vital points and get an adrenaline boost instead of someone that just hits people really hard.

That said, the Ranger has been cemented as its own thing after several editions, so it would be unlikely WotC (and players) would want to do this for fear of getting rid of the identity of one of the iconic classes of the game.

[eunwoler]

I think Ranger has a big enough legacy at this point that like Barbarian, cutting it down further would be needlessly reductionist. Why should it be? It has enough attached flavor and its own niche as a survivalist nature gish with good mobbing abilities.

[Willie the Duck]

I am in agreement with the 'not really' crowd, but mostly in that I see no reason why we should be removing the option of a separate ranger class. 5e seems to be all about having massively multiple ways of accomplishing the same character concept. What is really missing is a fighter archetype that, like the scout archetype for rogues, allows you to play* a ranger-esque fighter, if you so want to.
*moreso than anyone with the outlander background being least partway to that concept.

[GlenSmash!]

I'd make the Barbarian a Fighter subclass before I would make the Ranger one.

[fbelanger]

Replacement won’t be an option.
Adding sub class seem a better solution.
That way we can use the Fighter EK frame to build a 1/3 caster for ranger, paladin, bard.
And we can use the fighter archetype frame to build a spell less ranger, bard, paladin.
some probably already exist in dm guild product.

[Morty]

Ranger is definitely not a class that must or should exist. I don't think it should be a fighter subclass, but that's because I think fighters are a bad class as well. Shoving every "martial" concept under its umbrella makes such characters even more boring and one-note than they already are.

Splitting it up among other classes like the OP is suggesting is probably a better idea. A better option would be to merge it with druids or barbarians into a proper class, but that's a far more effort-intensive scenario.

[Dienekes]

In my opinion, whether an archetype should be a subclass or a class depends mostly on two things:

1) Does the concept require mechanical distinction in order to get the appropriate feel?

2) Can the concept be broadened into subcategories that each play off that mechanical distinction in different opposing ways?

To take the Barbarian for instance, the concept requires the rage feature as something mechanically distinct from the Fighter. That alone is not enough to make it it’s own class. After all rage could just be a feature you gain at 3rd level. However, can we think of a lot of opposed methods of using rage differently to make subclasses of its own? And I’d say yes. There could be rages that make you into a speedy whirling dervishes, rages that make you an unkillable juggernaut, rages that turn you into some sort of animal or lycanthrope, rages that just make you “perfectly in the flow of combat,” rages that have a sort of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde quality where it represents a new person coming out, and more.

So Barbarian to me is a class that you could get the basic idea as a subclass, but a full class works better.

As to the Ranger, it’s in a weird place, because it doesn’t really have a defined centralizing mechanic like Ki Points, Rage, Sneak Attack, or Smite and Auras. At best it has some Ranger only spells. Other than that it’s central mechanic is Favored Foe and Natural Explorer. Neither of which are really mechanical interesting enough to be developed and explored. So on that grounds yeah the Ranger probably could be a development off of the go to generic class the Fighter.

However, the concept of the Ranger can really easily be divided into different subcategories: animal guy, trapper, scout, some sort of investigative urban bounty hunter, or any other weird type of hunter you can think of feels like it should be a distinct subcategory. But none of them really play off the same mechanic in any meaningful way.

If I was building this from the ground up, I actually would keep the Ranger it’s own separate class. But I’d first give it its own mechanic. Personally I’m a fan of Quarry hunting-like abilities designed in such a way to work with any weapon combo you can think of (as in not stomping on two-weapon users Bonus Action). But that’s just me.

[ezekielraiden]

Reductionism for its own sake is highly overrated.

[eunwoler]

Do you guys know of the Hume the philosopher dude? Guy was the one who brought up the bundle theory for objects and stuff... so an object is not really an inherent thing, it's just a collection of properties and relationships.

Now the Barbarian, Ranger, there's no one thing that defines them as each other. Hell maybe there are tons of features different between edition barbarians. But they each have enough properties and relationships that you can take a look at a canister filled with ranger and say, yep, that's the ranger class.

Both barbarian and ranger have unclear definitions but are clear enough bundles. No need to cut the fat further, they're both delicious pieces of pork even if one piece is quite underpowered and has a bad capstone.

[Specter]

All the classes you need in the game are Fighter, Rogue and Magic User. Everything else is fluff.

[Morty]

All the classes you need in the game are Fighter, Rogue and Magic User. Everything else is fluff.

And at that point, you have a point-buy system with extra steps.

[JNAProductions]

Either classes like Fighter should go or classes like Ranger should go.

One is INCREDIBLY broad, able to cover vast amount of concepts in its fluff.
The other is reasonably specific-while fluff can still be changed, by default, it's got a lot of baggage.

[ezekielraiden]

All the classes you need in the game are Fighter, Rogue and Magic User. Everything else is fluff.


And at that point, you have a point-buy system with extra steps.

As said: Reductionism for its own sake is highly overrated.

D&D has always made classification an important thing--and I mean both the actual meaning of that term, and the cute pun "class-ification." There's a reason we had "race as class" long ago, even if that reason isn't terribly applicable with the modern system. There's a reason Paladin went from a historical term to *the* word for a "knight of faith"; why Ranger went from a novel-specific title to *the* word for a warrior-of-the-waste. D&D trades in such solid, chunky concepts, gives them a life of their own both in and outside the rules.

Pure point-buy systems have plenty of merits. But they aren't what made--or makes--D&D.

Of course, this doesn't mean that infinite proliferation is a good thing. I think most people recognize that, for example, the insane kudzu-like growth of prestige classes (and new classes, variant classes, ACFs, etc. ad nauseam) in 3rd edition was far too much. Even Pathfinder eventually had to admit defeat on that front (it's one of the many reasons they made a 2nd edition). Class proliferation for its own sake is just as overrated as class reductionism.

Some classes exist because of precedent. Consider, for example, how poorly the Druid did in that one poll WotC made. It came in last place, even behind the Warlord. But if 5e had published without a Druid? People would have rioted just as badly as they did when 4e published without a playable gnome race, even though almost nobody plays gnomes. Precedent matters. Likewise, some classes exist because they fulfill a useful function. Notably, your list lacks healing, and modern D&D requires some amount of healing above baseline in order to function; DMs may houserule things to address that, but to invoke such things risks Oberoni fallacy (that is, that it isn't a problem because you can houserule the problem away).

[LibraryOgre]

I'd make the Barbarian a Fighter subclass before I would make the Ranger one.

TBH, I could see making the Barbarian a Ranger subclass, too. And I think the Ranger works pretty well as a Rogue subclass, leveraging the rogue's manueverability.

The problem is, IMO, that Rangers have tended to over-specialize since 2e. The 1e ranger was a grab-bag mix meant to emulate Aragorn... the 2e ranger made them all dual-wielding light fighters and animal lovers with piddly magic that came way too late, and ingrained racism. 3e kinda doubled down on 2e, though they put the magic earlier, and made the racism more flexible. 4e, really, was one of the better iterations of the ranger, within its oeuvre, since they focused on the idea of them being Martial Strikers, and leveraged the system to reflect that.

[Lupine]

I say no for a simple reason. You have artificer as the arcane half caster (wizard as full.). You have paladin as the divine half caster (cleric as full.). The ranger completes the set: ranger as nature half-caster (druid as full)

If ranger was a fighter subclass, we’d be missing the nature half caster, as the subclass would be a third caster, at most (like the eldritch knight)

[Throne12]

All the classes you need in the game are Fighter, Rogue and Magic User. Everything else is fluff.

I would disagree here all you need is a martial & mancer aka fighter and caster.

[Snails]

Reductionism for its own sake is highly overrated.

Agreed.

Ranger is sufficiently iconic to this game genre that a new player needs a simple way of accomplishing something that seems close enough to what is in his head.

Sub-classes of other things has a lot of appeal from the point of view of cleaning up mechanics. Reading through three different classes and planning through how the sub-classes serve the PC concept through the first six levels is a fine exercise for expert players. But this exercise fails the simple test of providing what a new player very reasonably expects from his first level character.

IMHO, the OP's idea makes a lot of sense in a system closer to 3e, where mixing classes was pretty easy and low cost (perhaps too low cost, but that is another discussion). The real benefits come when it makes sense to blend, say, 2 levels of Fighter/HorizonWalker with 3 levels of Rogue/Gloomstalker, and the PC actually scales in some reasonable way. But that kind of thing is a Nice-To-Have, much less important that serving the newbie.

[Morty]

Either classes like Fighter should go or classes like Ranger should go.

One is INCREDIBLY broad, able to cover vast amount of concepts in its fluff.
The other is reasonably specific-while fluff can still be changed, by default, it's got a lot of baggage.

That's more or less what it boils down to, yes.


As said: Reductionism for its own sake is highly overrated.

D&D has always made classification an important thing--and I mean both the actual meaning of that term, and the cute pun "class-ification." There's a reason we had "race as class" long ago, even if that reason isn't terribly applicable with the modern system. There's a reason Paladin went from a historical term to *the* word for a "knight of faith"; why Ranger went from a novel-specific title to *the* word for a warrior-of-the-waste. D&D trades in such solid, chunky concepts, gives them a life of their own both in and outside the rules.

Pure point-buy systems have plenty of merits. But they aren't what made--or makes--D&D.

Of course, this doesn't mean that infinite proliferation is a good thing. I think most people recognize that, for example, the insane kudzu-like growth of prestige classes (and new classes, variant classes, ACFs, etc. ad nauseam) in 3rd edition was far too much. Even Pathfinder eventually had to admit defeat on that front (it's one of the many reasons they made a 2nd edition). Class proliferation for its own sake is just as overrated as class reductionism.

Some classes exist because of precedent. Consider, for example, how poorly the Druid did in that one poll WotC made. It came in last place, even behind the Warlord. But if 5e had published without a Druid? People would have rioted just as badly as they did when 4e published without a playable gnome race, even though almost nobody plays gnomes. Precedent matters. Likewise, some classes exist because they fulfill a useful function. Notably, your list lacks healing, and modern D&D requires some amount of healing above baseline in order to function; DMs may houserule things to address that, but to invoke such things risks Oberoni fallacy (that is, that it isn't a problem because you can houserule the problem away).

I should clarify that I think rangers are a bad class - it's just that fighters are likewise bad and removing rangers or making them into a fighter subclass does little to address the underlying problem. Classes, as a concept, have merit. Classes as D&D uses them right now are a result of 20 years of ad-hoc additions with no rhyme or reason.

[Man_Over_Game]

Either classes like Fighter should go or classes like Ranger should go.

One is INCREDIBLY broad, able to cover vast amount of concepts in its fluff.
The other is reasonably specific-while fluff can still be changed, by default, it's got a lot of baggage.

That about summarizes my thoughts.

Difference is, though, we already have subclasses.

If you're going to focus on more specifics, like with Ranger over Fighter, why bother having subclasses in the first place?

Why go
Specific -> More Specific
When you can just go
Broad -> More Specific

Personally, I feel that the Eldritch Knight should have been able to be duplicated with just a Wizard + Fighter Multiclass and good mechanics, rather than a Fighter-specific subclass that effectively does the same thing.

Arcane Archer is basically a simplified Ranger. It wouldn't take that much work to implement more changes to incorporate more of a sense of identity as to what kind of "Ranger" you'd be as a Fighter Subclass. Not all Totem Barbarians are the same (although most ARE Bears, but that's a different problem).

[GooeyChewie]

Are we talking about what should happen in 5e? In that case, I don't think WotC should eliminate classes. Changes that big should be saved for new editions.

Are we talking about what should have happened when 5e was introduced? I think they could have made Ranger a subclass of fighter, similar to Eldritch Knight but with Druid spells. I think WotC would have wanted to add another class in that case, to stay at 12 classes. Maybe take out Battlemaster Fighter and replace it with a martial commander style class inspired by 4e's Warlord?

Are we talking about a hypothetical 6e? In that case, I would prefer to keep Ranger and allow them to stand out at ranged combat. In 5e, Fighters and Rogues can make just as good if not better ranged martial combatants. If I were making 6e, I would not give Fighters or Rogues proficiency with ranged weapons (they could still use thrown weapons), and I would make Finesse only work if your class or subclass has a specific ability to turn it on. That way Fighters would specialize in Strength melee and thrown weapons, Rogues would specialize in Dexterity melee and thrown weapons, and Rangers would specialize in Ranged weapons. (I have ideas for how I would handle other classes, but they aren't particularly related to Rangers being too similar to Fighters and Rogues, so I'll stop there.)

[Garfunion]

I still think Ranger class should have been a ranged attack focused class.

However the more I look at the barbarian I wonder how easy it would actually be to replace the rage feature with the quarry feature. Having the special attacks features the barbarian gets now be usable with finesse and ranged attacks.
And then have the rage feature become an archetype of this class allowing you to spend a use of your quarry to enter a rage.

Hmm

[Mr Adventurer]

I wonder - how does an Arcane Archer compare with a bow-focused Ranger, using the appropriate spells?

[Throne12]

I wonder - how does an Arcane Archer compare with a bow-focused Ranger, using the appropriate spells?

At lv 5

Ranger 1d8+dex+1d6 with 2 attacks this is a longbow and hunters mark can do this all day.
AA fighter 1d8+dex+2d6 with one attack there are a few arcane shots with 1d6 or no damage. The fighter will get 4 shots if hes lucky. If playing like wotc thought people should with two short rest then its 6 shots.

[Man_Over_Game]

At lv 5

Ranger 1d8+dex+1d6 with 2 attacks this is a longbow and hunters mark can do this all day.
AA fighter 1d8+dex+2d6 with one attack there are a few arcane shots with 1d6 or no damage. The fighter will get 4 shots if hes lucky. If playing like wotc thought people should with two short rest then its 6 shots.

Not quite accurate. The Arcane Archer has one that deals 2d6 to all creatures within 10 feet of the attack, while another does 2d6 and another 2d6 unless that creature wastes an action or a minute before moving.

Additionally, you're unlikely to use Hunters Mark for more than 1-2 encounters per use.

With a +4 mod:

Ranger is at roughly 12 damage per attack, 24 per round.

Fighter is at 8.5 damage per attack, 17 per round, 34 in the first round from Action Surge attacks and about 14 more from Grasping Arrow, of which you have two shots per day.

So for the sake of simplicity and saying no Short Rests and just one long encounter, the Fighter basically lands 62 damage in the first two rounds, while the Ranger deals 48 in the same amount of time.

Ranger catches up 7 points at a time, so they are even after Round 4.

Of course, this isn't taking into account:
the Ranger Subclass (~+4 per round for the Ranger)
the value of control effects (Grasping Shot slows)
feats (Fighters get more)
Short Rests (+17 per Short Rest for the Fighter)

but that should be easy to deduce with this foundation.


Overall, I'd say combat is in the favor of the Fighter, but skills/exploration is in the favor of the Ranger. Which nobody was surprised of.

[Samayu]

I would much prefer an a la carte system of advancement, rather than a class/level system. Then I could take whichever talents I thought fit my character idea. And we wouldn't be arguing over whether the ranger should exist as a class or subclass.

This is my biggest disappointment about playing D&D instead of the other games I used to play.

[Man_Over_Game]

I would much prefer an a la carte system of advancement, rather than a class/level system. Then I could take whichever talents I thought fit my character idea. And we wouldn't be arguing over whether the ranger should exist as a class or subclass.

This is my biggest disappointment about playing D&D instead of the other games I used to play.

GURPS might be to your liking, although I feel that it kinda lacks tactics or color some of the time.

[thereaper]

I think the Ranger would actually make more sense as a Rogue subclass. The Barbarian, meanwhile, should be a Fighter subclass.

[Nifft]

Mmm.

Barbarian could be a Ranger subclass. That unifies "woodsy weapons weirdos" into a single cohesive framework. Rages could be fueled by spell slots. Paladins could be a subclass of Ranger (having the same casting progression), or could become some kind of part-Cleric prestige class. Like a Ranger, a Paladin gets a special pet, so work those into a single feature -- perhaps like Warlock gets the secondary Tome / Blade / Chain, the Ranger could choose between gaining a pet or something else.

Fighter could be a Rogue subclass, or vice-versa. That unifies "mundane melee mercenaries & miscreants" into a single cohesive framework. This also echoes the 3.5e UA variants (SA Thug Fighter / Feat Rogue).

The major categories of melee weapon PCs would thus be divided into Tough Urban vs. Skilled Outdoors, with Religious as a less-common 3rd category (Clerics & Druids).


I don't really love the idea of making Sorcerer into a Bard subclass, but they'd probably be better off.

[Specter]

I would disagree here all you need is a martial & mancer aka fighter and caster.

Also skills.

[Kane0]

Also skills.

Nah just roll skills into those classes, primarily the martial.

I mean, you could reduce it all to 'adventurer' but then you still have to differentiate somehow so really all you've done is delay your choice of 'class' by a few levels.

[Specter]

Nah just roll skills into those classes, primarily the martial.

I mean, you could reduce it all to 'adventurer' but then you still have to differentiate somehow so really all you've done is delay your choice of 'class' by a few levels.

Wizards can also swing a staff, but they're not good at it. You need someone to be a skill specialist in the DUNGEONS & Dragons game.

[thereaper]

Wizards can also swing a staff, but they're not good at it. You need someone to be a skill specialist in the DUNGEONS & Dragons game.

And it should be the warrior. Neither the mundane Fighter nor the mundane Rogue are big enough tents in the face of spellcasters. But combined into one chassis they come close.

[Mr Adventurer]

GURPS might be to your liking, although I feel that it kinda lacks tactics or color some of the time.

I've only played a minimum of GURPS, though own a lot of the 3e books and the 4e core, but it's always looked to me as though it could result in intensely tactical play. I'm surprised you've found it otherwise!

[FabulousFizban]

D&D is as much a cultural artifact as it is a games ruleset. The classes that have come about have a history and a purpose to them. They are, in a word, iconic. To remove the ranger is to stop playing d&d, and begin playing some other permutation. Better to devise a unique role for ranger, than drop the idea altogether. The game might be well served by reorganizing the domains of the pantheon of classes. Maybe ranger should take over some of the duties of druid, maybe rogue should steal some things from ranger. This isn't without precedent: Hermes traded music to Apollo, Pan became Bacchus, etc. These things happen in a well organized mythos.

[Specter]

And it should be the warrior. Neither the mundane Fighter nor the mundane Rogue are big enough tents in the face of spellcasters. But combined into one chassis they come close.

Yeah, but the thing that started D&D wasn't 'magical vs. mundane', it was 'guys of different skillsets get together to murder and loot'. Even in one of the classic covers you have a rogue in dark clothes stealing an eye from a statue. Now clearly that guy and the guy in full plate armor could never be the same guy, without even factoring in stealth, sleight of hand and trap engineering.

I'm also pretty sure that Gandalf would agree, since he insisted on taking a guy with zero combat experience to be his burglar instead of just using one of the fighters.

[Morty]

Better to devise a unique role for ranger, than drop the idea altogether.

I've seen people try to do this in official and unofficial material for 15 years now. It hasn't worked yet. 4E came closest, but even there "ranger" is basically a mobile skirmisher with a lot of wilderness survival baggage who can't fight in melee without dual-wielding for mysterious reasons.

[Dienekes]

Yeah, but the thing that started D&D wasn't 'magical vs. mundane', it was 'guys of different skillsets get together to murder and loot'. Even in one of the classic covers you have a rogue stealing an eye from a statue. Now clearly that guy and the guy in full plate armor could never be the same guy, without even factoring in stealth, sleight of hand and trap engineering.

I'm also pretty sure that Gandalf would agree, since he insisted on taking a guy with zero combat experience to be his burglar instead of just using one of the fighters.

And that’s why the types of warrior and magic user got differentiated into different classes over the years. Like exactly why. Are we consolidating to only what is strictly necessary or not?

I see no reason why said martial class could not choose to focus more on their skills than the combat aspects of their class. Just as I expect some mages to not have every spell.

[Man_Over_Game]

Yeah, but the thing that started D&D wasn't 'magical vs. mundane', it was 'guys of different skillsets get together to murder and loot'.

I get that, but between:
Fighting Guy
Skill Guy
Magical Nature Guy

Do we need Fighting Skill Nature Guy? And the answer could be "yes", but not with 5e's skill system. Rather, not with everything revolving around a system that encourages nonspecialists to succeed.

The reason Clerics, Druids, and Wizards all stand out, despite having almost identical overall mechanics, is by having unique abilities that only they can use. But the Ranger deals with tracking people, hiking through a wilderness and hiding, which can already be done without throwing your entire class identity into it.

So my belief is either that:

The Ranger needs more than just being Fighting Nature Skill Guy
Or
The Ranger didn't deserve to exist in 5e.

Because it's kinda sad that I can just be a Scout Rogue or an Arcane Archer and basically do almost all of the things a Ranger can do, with just a few variations on bonuses and attack specifics. 1/12 of your content shouldn't be that easily replaced.

[Specter]

And that’s why the types of warrior and magic user got differentiated into different classes over the years. Like exactly why. Are we consolidating to only what is strictly necessary or not?

I see no reason why said martial class could not choose to focus more on their skills than the combat aspects of their class. Just as I expect some mages to not have every spell.

Ok, we're going into this with different assumptions, so I can't make you agree with me, but here are mine:

1) A basic amount of uniqueness has to go into each class
Considering the nature of the Dungeons and Dragons game, is there enough for the classic rogue to be explore a dungeon and fight/seduce/intimidate/deceive dragons? Yes, there is. Some would argue that the rogue could be the quintessential one-man party, a la Indiana Jones, but I find that's a moot point.

2) Each class needs one core mechanic at its center to be essential
Fighter: attack & defense. Magic user: magic (duh). Rogue: skills.
In that case you would say 'well everybody's got skills', to which I'd say 'wizards can also fight with swords'. The rogue is the one class that picks up thieves' tools, and the one class that can double proficiency values and take 10 on tests and etc.

Also, could the rogue be useful without ever using swords/armor or casting spells? Yes, he could.

3) Every class available in this basic system should be a building block to other 5e classes
So
Barbarian=Fighter
Bard=Magic User+Rogue
Cleric=Magic User
Druid=Magic User
Fighter=duh
Monk=Fighter+Rogue or Fighter+Magic User, depending on your world
Paladin=Fighter+Magic User (cleric).
Ranger=Fighter+Magic User+Rogue (which is perhaps why these threads keep popping up)
Rogue=duh
Sorcerer=Magic User
Warlock=Magic User (with perhaps a bit of rogue depending on abilities)
Wizard=Magic User

Notice that unless we have rogue as a base class, we never get Bard and Ranger, and perhaps not even Monk.

So you can have different assumptions than mine, but I'm pretty confident these were taken into account from the beginning (especially having Lord of the Rings in mind like I said above) and used as a starting point for the basic classes.


I get that, but between:
Fighting Guy
Skill Guy
Magical Nature Guy

Do we need Fighting Skill Nature Guy? And the answer could be "yes", but not with 5e's skill system. Rather, not with everything revolving around a system that encourages nonspecialists to succeed.

The reason Clerics, Druids, and Wizards all stand out, despite having almost identical overall mechanics, is by having unique abilities that only they can use. But the Ranger deals with tracking people, hiking through a wilderness and hiding, which can already be done without throwing your entire class identity into it.

So my belief is either that:

The Ranger needs more than just being Fighting Nature Skill Guy
Or
The Ranger didn't deserve to exist in 5e.

Because it's kinda sad that I can just be a Scout Rogue or an Arcane Archer and basically do almost all of the things a Ranger can do, with just a few variations on bonuses and attack specifics. 1/12 of your content shouldn't be that easily replaced.

Then we go back to what I said: every class could simply be Fighter, Magic User and Rogue.

I can 100% guarantee you that we don't need Paladins (Fighter+Cleric) or Warlocks (different Sorcerers) also, but for some reason we don't see those threads always popping up.
Ranger's main schtick is that it's not just Fighter+Magic User or Fighter+Rogue, but Fighter+Magic User+Rogue. It's not 100% necessary for mechanics, but most things aren't either.

[Dienekes]

I get that, but between:
Fighting Guy
Skill Guy
Magical Nature Guy

Do we need Fighting Skill Nature Guy? And the answer could be "yes", but not with 5e's skill system. Rather, not with everything revolving around a system that encourages nonspecialists to succeed.

The reason Clerics, Druids, and Wizards all stand out, despite having almost identical overall mechanics, is by having unique abilities that only they can use. But the Ranger deals with tracking people, hiking through a wilderness and hiding, which can already be done without throwing your entire class identity into it.

So my belief is either that:

The Ranger needs more than just being Fighting Nature Skill Guy
Or
The Ranger didn't deserve to exist in 5e.

Because it's kinda sad that I can just be a Scout Rogue or an Arcane Archer and basically do almost all of the things a Ranger can do, with just a few variations on bonuses and attack specifics. 1/12 of your content shouldn't be that easily replaced.

This is pretty much exactly what I was going for when I described the need for mechanical distinction is necessary for classes.

Now admittedly, what constitutes mechanical distinction differs between people. Some people just find representative balance as reason enough. There’s a half-cleric class. Therefore there should also be a half-druid and a half-wizard.

I personally don’t disagree exactly but I think without a unique mechanical foundation to give it a personality, then it won’t feel like a unique class. Just a check on a box.


Ok, we're going into this with different assumptions, so I can't make you agree with me, but here are mine:

1) A basic amount of uniqueness has to go into each class
Considering the nature of the Dungeons and Dragons game, is there enough for the classic rogue to be explore a dungeon and fight/seduce/intimidate/deceive dragons? Yes, there is. Some would argue that the rogue could be the quintessential one-man party, a la Indiana Jones, but I find that's a moot point.

2) Each class needs one core mechanic at its center to be essential
Fighter: attack & defense. Magic user: magic (duh). Rogue: skills.
In that case you would say 'well everybody's got skills', to which I'd say 'wizards can also fight with swords'. The rogue is the one class that picks up thieves' tools, and the one class that can double proficiency values and take 10 on tests and etc.

Also, could the rogue be useful without ever using swords/armor or casting spells? Yes, he could.

3) Every class available in this basic system should be a building block to other 5e classes
So
Barbarian=Fighter
Bard=Magic User+Rogue
Cleric=Magic User
Druid=Magic User
Fighter=duh
Monk=Fighter+Rogue or Fighter+Magic User, depending on your world
Paladin=Fighter+Magic User (cleric).
Ranger=Fighter+Magic User+Rogue (which is perhaps why these threads keep popping up)
Rogue=duh
Sorcerer=Magic User
Warlock=Magic User (with perhaps a bit of rogue depending on abilities)
Wizard=Magic User

Notice that unless we have rogue as a base class, we never get Bard and Ranger, and perhaps not even Monk.

So you can have different assumptions than mine, but I'm pretty confident these were taken into account from the beginning (especially having Lord of the Rings in mind like I said above) and used as a starting point for the basic classes.


And I think this mentality is inherently flawed. Because by its nature it means there are some classes that do not participate in huge swaths of play. And that class becomes the martial. Unless you’re going all out that the Rogues can’t make attacks and deal sneak attack, that means the mage can participate in the dungeons and the dragons. The Rogues participate in the dungeons and the dragons. And the martials participate in just the dragons. Which is bad design in my opinion.

[Morty]

The entire idea of there being "combat classes" and "skill classes" along with the hard split between combat skills and non-combat skills, is inherently flawed. You'll note that there's no such thing as combat and non-combat magic classes - each one of them can focus on combat as much or as little as the player wants, sometimes from day to day.

[Man_Over_Game]

This is pretty much exactly what I was going for when I described the need for mechanical distinction is necessary for classes.

Now admittedly, what constitutes mechanical distinction differs between people.

I think a simple way of putting it is just to make sure that there is always a reason why one option is better than another.

Barbarians are better than Monks because they can take a hit. Monks are better than Barbarians because they're so agile that they only take a hit when they want to.

Which is fine from a defense/mobility standpoint. Offensively...they're almost identical in what they provide.

Drawing a comparison between Barbarian and Ranger is good, as they both do very different things in almost every way. However, comparing Barbarian to Fighter, or Ranger to Fighter, really ends up making everyone feel a lot more generic. "Why be a Barbarian when a Fighter can be just as good of a melee combatant?" "Why be a Ranger when the Fighter can be just as good of a ranged combatant?"

It also impacts the Fighter, too. Having the same design goals for two classes makes them both feel generic. The difference is, being an "Everyman's Warrior" is part of the Fighter's core identity, while being mysterious and talented is part of the Ranger's. As a result, the Fighter simply stays true to the "fiction" by being more generic, while the Ranger just feels washed out.


And I think this mentality is inherently flawed. Because by its nature it means there are some classes that do not participate in huge swaths of play. And that class becomes the martial. Unless you’re going all out that the Rogues can’t make attacks and deal sneak attack, that means the mage can participate in the dungeons and the dragons. The Rogues participate in the dungeons and the dragons. And the martials participate in just the dragons. Which is bad design in my opinion.

The entire idea of there being "combat classes" and "skill classes" along with the hard split between combat skills and non-combat skills, is inherently flawed. You'll note that there's no such thing as combat and non-combat magic classes - each one of them can focus on combat as much or as little as the player wants, sometimes from day to day.

Well, yes and no. Everyone should be able to contribute in every situation, but everyone should also be specialized for a specific type of situation (or being a generalist, if that's their schtick).

Take the example of a Barbarian in a ranged combat scenario. He can protect someone, he can try to engage through cover, and he can attempt to use his throwing weapons. He has options, they just aren't ideal.

Min-maxing a Fighter for skills isn't ideal, same with Sorcerers for melee combat, or Barbarians to be the archer. And that's fine. Your decisions in the character building process should carry weight.

Problem is, if you built a Rogue for the ideal goal of "skills", and someone else build a Ranger for the same goal, they'd almost be identical (in a broad viewpoint, of course. There's obviously going to be some mild differences between Sneak Attack and x2 buffed attacks). You could say that your decision between choosing Ranger vs. Rogue wouldn't have mattered all that much, yet picking your class should be the most important decision in the character-building process.



Consider, for a moment, what kind of character you'd suggest to me if I wanted to play:
An archer that scouted out weaknesses in his opponents before sniping them with powerful long ranged attacks, moderately effective at Stealth to avoid capture, and was pretty tough to get cornered in the moments when he does get caught.
A few options include:

Gloomstalker Ranger
Monster Slayer Ranger
Horizon Walker Ranger
Hunter Ranger
Battlemaster Fighter
Samurai Fighter (with Alert/Observant)
Arcane Archer (with Alert/Observant)
Kensei Monk
Inquisitive Rogue
Elf Scout Rogue


Those are all valid options that don't require any multiclassing, and they have fairly similar strengths and weaknesses (in regards to my goals).

So do I feel special, or generic?




Good game design doesn't punish players by saying "you can't do that", but instead says "you probably shouldn't do that most of the time".
Still a punishment, but now you're adding more weight for the player's choices rather than taking them away. Like Barbarians and archers. The more obvious the choice, the less game there is.

For the other half, not adding enough punishment for performing in "suboptimal territory" leads to the list above, where choosing between Option A vs. Option B is difficult, not because they both have equal pros-and-cons, but because they have the same pros-and-cons, and so your player decision doesn't really matter.

Which is why I think the winning strategy is to make sure every choice has a good number of "optimal situations" and "suboptimal situations" they can be in that are unique to them, but only punish/reward how efficient those choices were rather than taking them away.

Mages can't use their class features in an Antimagic field: Bad game design.
Mage Slayer injures mages who cast/concentrate on spells while near you, or improves your ability to hinder them from your attacks: Good game design.

As soon as you start introducing denial mechanics, they can only be surpassed by other forms of denial. Sentinel is better than Mage Slayer. Fly outperforms Expeditious Retreat. Lore's Bardic Inspiration outperforms Valor's. Shield is better than False Life. AC is worth more than HP. Grapple is better than Shove.

You can kinda see the same issue with MTG: The best mechanics are the ones that remove, not weaken, your opponent's options (things like Hexproof, Flying, Unblockable, Indestructable, etc). As a result, the higher level of play you get into, the fewer choices you're able to make, and the less game there is. A million cards in the game, with a million more decisions you could make, and less than 1% of those choices matter.

Similar to 5e in that way (in regards to decision-making in high level play), which is ironic if you consider they're both owned by the same company. Although, in defense to MTG's marketing, it's a good strategy for pushing out new cards by making the old ones obsolete.

Although, you don't have to take away something interesting like Fly to make a good game, you just have to allow a suboptimal solution. Maybe characters can reduce their maximum HP temporarily to perform extraordinary physical feats, like increasing your jump height. Always an option, just not always a good one.

5e accomplishes this by giving everyone throwing weapons and having Fly be removed through dealing with Concentration or its duration, although having a solution be to wait out the 1 minute duration (10 rounds) is kind of unrealistic in a game where most encounters end by turn 5.



That's not saying denial is entirely bad, but it needs to be something deserved on the afflicted. I'd deserve to lose my magic if I walked into an Antimagic field, because I knew the punishment for doing so. In a way, a player must opt into losing out on his options in order to take them away, and even then it must have been chosen over another valid option.

Put another way: Drinking a potion that turns you into a monster takes away a lot of your options, but simply knowing that puts the weight of the loss on the choice of drinking it; having options taken away from a player isn't a problem when they want it.

[Morgaln]

I think a simple way of putting it is just to make sure that there is always a reason why one option is better than another.

Barbarians are better than Monks because they can take a hit. Monks are better than Barbarians because they're so agile that they only take a hit when they want to.

Which is fine from a defense/mobility standpoint. Offensively...they're almost identical in what they provide.

Drawing a comparison between Barbarian and Ranger is good, as they both do very different things in almost every way. However, comparing Barbarian to Fighter, or Ranger to Fighter, really ends up making everyone feel a lot more generic. "Why be a Barbarian when a Fighter can be just as good of a melee combatant?" "Why be a Ranger when the Fighter can be just as good of a ranged combatant?"

It also impacts the Fighter, too. Having the same design goals for two classes makes them both feel generic. The difference is, being an "Everyman's Warrior" is part of the Fighter's core identity, while being mysterious and talented is part of the Ranger's. As a result, the Fighter simply stays true to the "fiction" by being more generic, while the Ranger just feels washed out.




Well, yes and no. Everyone should be able to contribute in every situation, but everyone should also be specialized for a specific type of situation (or being a generalist, if that's their schtick).

Take the example of a Barbarian in a ranged combat scenario. He can protect someone, he can try to engage through cover, and he can attempt to use his throwing weapons. He has options, they just aren't ideal.

Min-maxing a Fighter for skills isn't ideal, same with Sorcerers for melee combat, or Barbarians to be the archer. And that's fine. Your decisions in the character building process should carry weight.



The question is, why? Lankhmar's Grey Mouser is about as good of a combatant as his friend Fafhrd, even though their archetypes are rogue and warrior respectively. Conan the Barbarian has burglary skills rivalling the best thieves in his world, is an expert sailor and in later years has all the skills necessary to lead a kingdom. Gandalf is as good a swordsman as any of the nine companions (except maybe Aragorn). By D&D standards, these are impossible, even though these are some of the most iconic stories that the game is based on.
I personally prefer point-buy; in fact, my two preferred system both combine a class system with point-buy, because these concepts are not mutually exclusive:
Werewolf:the Apocalypse has you choose a class during character creation; said class determines a few of your starting stats and what pool of gifts (=spells) you have access to. Where you take your character from there is completely up to you. (Note that I'm well aware that oWoD is a deeply flawed system that has a lot of problems of its own, so I'm not saying it is overall better than D&D, just different.)
The Dark Eye gives each class a point value in the system depending on the amount of bonuses that class provides. Said bonuses cover what is considered basic abilities for that class, but what you do with your remaining points afterwards is completely up to you. Want a druid proficient in jousting? Weird but entirely possible. Your barbarian has extensive religious knowledge from all the temples he robbed? No problem. Your fighter is an expert in court dances. Go ahead, and if your fighter is nobility (e. g. a knight), that even makes sense.
The real difference to D&D here is that these systems don't tie your fighting ability to your class. If you want to be an expert warrior, you'll probably choose a fighter class anyway, but it doesn't force you down that pass to the exclusion of everything else and allows you to branch out in different directions if you feel like doing so.

[Man_Over_Game]

The question is, why? Lankhmar's Grey Mouser is about as good of a combatant as his friend Fafhrd, even though their archetypes are rogue and warrior respectively. Conan the Barbarian has burglary skills rivalling the best thieves in his world, is an expert sailor and in later years has all the skills necessary to lead a kingdom. Gandalf is as good a swordsman as any of the nine companions (except maybe Aragorn). By D&D standards, these are impossible, even though these are some of the most iconic stories that the game is based on.


But those are stories. You don't really care about how heroic Frodo is or what his abilities are. He was told to do a job to save the world, he did it, world saved. An NPC compared to Gandalf.

In fact, everyone (except for a select few) in LotR is an NPC compared to Gandalf.

In a multiplayer game, you don't want to feel like an NPC. You want your allies to rely on you, while you rely on them. It allows you to directly confront problems that you'd otherwise assume failure if you based it on your own capabilities. Conquering fear. Making your strengths feel heroic.

I play a lot of MOBAs, the kind of game that takes a lot of teamwork. I have a particular job, to heal. If I don't do that, we lose. If my tank doesn't do his, we lose. If I tried to outdamage someone, we lose. I succeed in scenarios that I'd know I'd fail in if I attempted it alone. It's why those games are so stressful, because you're constantly in positions where you'd fail without the intervention of 4 strangers accomplishing things you never could. And you're their stranger too.

It's thrilling as hell. Exactly the kind of thing I'd hope for at a table.

[KorvinStarmast]

I play a lot of MOBAs, the kind of game that takes a lot of teamwork. I have a particular job, to heal. If I don't do that, we lose. If my tank doesn't do his, we lose. If I tried to outdamage someone, we lose. I succeed in scenarios that I'd know I'd fail in if I attempted it alone. It's why those games are so stressful, because you're constantly in positions where you'd fail without the intervention of 4 strangers accomplishing things you never could. And you're their stranger too.

It's thrilling as hell. Exactly the kind of thing I'd hope for at a table.
Heh, and the Bilgewater stuff is up on DDB. (LoL shared content, not balanced).
I am doomed.

[Morty]

Well, yes and no. Everyone should be able to contribute in every situation, but everyone should also be specialized for a specific type of situation (or being a generalist, if that's their schtick).

Take the example of a Barbarian in a ranged combat scenario. He can protect someone, he can try to engage through cover, and he can attempt to use his throwing weapons. He has options, they just aren't ideal.

Min-maxing a Fighter for skills isn't ideal, same with Sorcerers for melee combat, or Barbarians to be the archer. And that's fine. Your decisions in the character building process should carry weight.

The major and persistent problem here is that the fighter and barbarian aren't actually particularly specialized even in the event of direct, melee combat. They do fine in their own way - but other characters can match or outstrip them, casters in particular. Compare that to... well, just about any other game, where if I make a combat-specialized character who neglects non-combat abilities, I can at least be confident they'll be a murder-blender whenever combat happens.

Another problem is that rogues, bards and rangers become the "skill specialist" classes, but each of them carry baggage. What if I want a character who's good at some particular skills - good enough to warrant Expertise - but I don't particularly feel like being a thief, woodsperson or musician? I'm up the creek without a paddle. The rogue admittedly downplays the thief aspect nowadays, but that just makes it a watered-down mess akin to the fighter.

[Snails]

And it should be the warrior. Neither the mundane Fighter nor the mundane Rogue are big enough tents in the face of spellcasters. But combined into one chassis they come close.

This.

The magical realm is effectively much bigger than the mundane when it comes to PC class abilities. Squaring off non-spellcaster classes to directly compete with each other for a unique niche inevitably robs them of effectiveness, because the uniqueness is created by imposing incompetence on one class as much as enhancing ability in another. 5e is less bad in this respect than 3e, but the basic problem is still there.

It is conceivable to have more than one chassis, but I think it is important recognize the sub-classes have to be allowed to substantially overlap, as if we did not care how many chassises are being employed to arrive at the sub-classes.

[Man_Over_Game]

The major and persistent problem here is that the fighter and barbarian aren't actually particularly specialized even in the event of direct, melee combat. They do fine in their own way - but other characters can match or outstrip them, casters in particular. Compare that to... well, just about any other game, where if I make a combat-specialized character who neglects non-combat abilities, I can at least be confident they'll be a murder-blender whenever combat happens.

Had a theory for a perfect game. Each "Set" option (like a class or a feat) comes with a balanced set of COMBAT mechanics and NONCOMBAT mechanics.

So you pick the Beastmaster set, you get options to control a beast companion, you can talk to animals, they're less hostile to you, etc. Cool stuff.

But then you want to be something a bit more..."versatile". Like a brawler. Thing is, you have no idea what kind of NONCOMBAT mechanics a brawler would have, so you just let the player pick from a generic list of them. Things like "being aware of people's hostile intents" or "you casually have a supernatural reaction speed, great for tricks or catching people unawares".

The idea is, you can't compare combat elements to noncombat elements, just like you can't compare apples to oranges.

You can, however, give everyone an apple and everyone an orange, and then have them compare. You won't end up in situations where a Bard has to pick between Actor to be fun and Inspiring Leader to be powerful.

So why choose, when the player will never be in a situation where both are applicable?

So now you can pick the Beastmaster set to talk to animals, or you can pick the Beastmaster set to control an animal companion in combat, and both types of players have nothing to complain about.




In this regard, I think 5e screwed up, as there are many instances where you can either get a noncombat feature or a combat feature, when both elements can be important in the same game.

This can become a balancing issue when something like the Warlock can sacrifice all of his noncombat features to bump his combat, but the Ranger cannot.

Put another way, the Warlock can be catered to fit at any table, while the Ranger doesn't have that option. So the table has to cater to him, which is why a lot of DMs hate the Ranger class in particular.

[Morgaln]

But those are stories. You don't really care about how heroic Frodo is or what his abilities are. He was told to do a job to save the world, he did it, world saved. An NPC compared to Gandalf.

In fact, everyone (except for a select few) in LotR is an NPC compared to Gandalf.

In a multiplayer game, you don't want to feel like an NPC. You want your allies to rely on you, while you rely on them. It allows you to directly confront problems that you'd otherwise assume failure if you based it on your own capabilities. Conquering fear. Making your strengths feel heroic.

I play a lot of MOBAs, the kind of game that takes a lot of teamwork. I have a particular job, to heal. If I don't do that, we lose. If my tank doesn't do his, we lose. If I tried to outdamage someone, we lose. I succeed in scenarios that I'd know I'd fail in if I attempted it alone. It's why those games are so stressful, because you're constantly in positions where you'd fail without the intervention of 4 strangers accomplishing things you never could. And you're their stranger too.

It's thrilling as hell. Exactly the kind of thing I'd hope for at a table.

Ah, I see, we have fundamentally different expectations from RPGs. For me, story is why I sit down at a table. I don't care so much what a character can do, I care about who that character is and where his experiences take him (literally and figuratively). If I want a game that is primarily about skill, I will go for a board- or videogame, because I feel those are better suited for it. So I guess we have to agree to disagree, because we are coming from completely different angles here and would never debate on the same ground.

[Morty]

The idea is, you can't compare combat elements to noncombat elements, just like you can't compare apples to oranges.


Other games do it approximately all the time. Where D&D is different is that combat is such an overwhelmingly dominant part of the game that you can't afford not to be good at it. But making sure everyone picks an equal number of combat and non-combat abilities could be a way to do it. 4E almost did it, but didn't go through with it.

[Man_Over_Game]

Ah, I see, we have fundamentally different expectations from RPGs. For me, story is why I sit down at a table. I don't care so much what a character can do, I care about who that character is and where his experiences take him (literally and figuratively). If I want a game that is primarily about skill, I will go for a board- or videogame, because I feel those are better suited for it. So I guess we have to agree to disagree, because we are coming from completely different angles here and would never debate on the same ground.

I don't necessarily mean that in a tactical game aspect. My party's bard likes to have backup when he talks smack, and my party's barbarian likes someone who can haggle for his lunch.

It's about accomplishing more together than you could apart. That wouldn't mean nearly as much if everyone was a Gandalf, capable of solving anything by yourself.

Sure, there was some minor stuff he couldn't do by himself:

Risking getting corrupted, dangerous for a LOTR angel like Gandalf.
Didn't have the stamina to just magic badguys away all the time.
Couldn't be in two places at once.



Other than that, I don't think he wouldn't have just solved all of his problems by himself. Sure enough, most of his help were soldiers and NPCs.

Relying on people is risky, and overcoming it builds trust. I want my players to interact with each other's actions, not just play a bunch of solo campaigns at the same time.

I don't want Gandalf's and Frodo's relationship at my table.

I want Legolas's and Gimli's: Different, equals, but sometimes one of them is more equal.

[Democratus]

Into the Unknonwn (a 5e/OSR mashup) has the Ranger as a specialty of the Rogue. It works really well.

It combines all of the classes in a way that feels very natural to me:

Fighter
- Battle Master (Mighty Deeds)
- Regular Fighter (Sword & Board, 2 Weapon, Great Weapon, Deadeye/Archer)

Priest
- Cleric
- Druid

Rogue
- Thief
- Drifter (Ranger)
- Acrobat
- Mountebank (Bard)

Magic User
- Wizard
- Warlock
- Sorcerer

[ezekielraiden]

For those calling for class hyper-reduction (e.g. only 2-4 total classes):

Do you truly value innate flavor so little? Is an automatic story element truly so pointless or offensive to you?

[Man_Over_Game]

For those calling for class hyper-reduction (e.g. only 2-4 total classes):

Do you truly value innate flavor so little? Is an automatic story element truly so pointless or offensive to you?

Do you always use such loaded questions?

Do you feel that a question can be hindered by bias?

There's a difference between those two sentences. Is yours an attack or a question?

[Morty]

For those calling for class hyper-reduction (e.g. only 2-4 total classes):

Do you truly value innate flavor so little? Is an automatic story element truly so pointless or offensive to you?

I'm sure you could rephrase your argument in a way that's not a strawman attacking a position no one has actually held.

[Dienekes]

For those calling for class hyper-reduction (e.g. only 2-4 total classes):

Do you truly value innate flavor so little? Is an automatic story element truly so pointless or offensive to you?

Personally, I actually really like when flavor and mechanics coincide. And I agree that having many classes could in theory allow the mechanics to better represent that flavor. I just don’t think wizards of the coast is actually all that good at implementing it. I mean, they’re fine. But I still don’t really get why obtaining your magic through bargaining with a mystical patron makes you a Short Rest caster. Wouldn’t that make more sense for the magic class that has all their magic be internal? Since they can get tired and can’t cast anymore. It’s odd to me that because of the way that ASIs work the class that’s all about being the bigger and stronger actually can max Str after the class that is supposed to gain their power through martial skill. It’s weird that the class that’s all about using fast light weapons only can make one attack, while the guy in the heaviest armor and a massive weapon makes more attacks per second than anyone else.

And there is also the problem that these classes can leave a lot of gaps. The one that’s been stuck in D&D for awhile is the mundane skill guy who isn’t tied to being a backstabby thief.

[Amnestic]

I wouldn't scrap the Ranger (Fighter-Druid) for any more reason than I'd scrap a Paladin (Fighter-Cleric)

You could, if you wanted to, argue the reverse - making Eldritch Knight its own separate class to complete the trifecta of Fighter+[Magic (Arcane, Divine, Nature)] classes. I'd rather see that happen than rangers become a subclass, and there's some fighter-arcanist subclass ideas that might benefit from it like spellbreakers, maybe take Bladesinger off wizard and give it to this hypothetical standalone EK class.

[Specter]

For those calling for class hyper-reduction (e.g. only 2-4 total classes):

Do you truly value innate flavor so little? Is an automatic story element truly so pointless or offensive to you?

This discussion started with the statement that there are only 3 classes you NEED. But obviously people WANT more.

[LibraryOgre]

I would much prefer an a la carte system of advancement, rather than a class/level system. Then I could take whichever talents I thought fit my character idea. And we wouldn't be arguing over whether the ranger should exist as a class or subclass.

This is my biggest disappointment about playing D&D instead of the other games I used to play.

I wrote a set of rules for 2nd edition that let you create your class. (https://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/2019/10/a-cp-based-ad.html)

I've been tempted to try and do that for 5e, but it's a bigger project than I want to work on.

[ezekielraiden]

Do you always use such loaded questions?

Do you feel that a question can be hindered by bias?

There's a difference between those two sentences. Is yours an attack or a question?
Yes, when people act like any position other than their own is irrational. Which, y'know, has happened several times in this thread already.

Yes, it can. I was challenging bias by making openly biased questions to, implicitly, call out the bias I was seeing.

You can see what I said as an attack if you like, though that wasn't the intent. People talking about what you "need" in a fiction-driven, opt-in, leisure-time activity should consider that "needs" maybe don't apply to such a thing, and maybe shouldn't act like their position is the only objective stance to take, since they're starting from a false premise. (That is, that "needs" of the discussed kind even apply to a leisure-time activity in the first place.)


I'm sure you could rephrase your argument in a way that's not a strawman attacking a position no one has actually held.
I'm not. I'm challenging a fundamental premise (that "needed" classes are even remotely relevant) by aggressively challenging those assumptions in as biased a presentation as the one given.

Yes, I can be more diplomatic. I in fact was earlier, and it accomplished very little. Being a fly in the ointment gets much more attention. I literally said that we should keep in mind that proliferation (the opposite of extreme reduction) for its own sake is also bad, and most people ignored it.


Personally, I actually really like when flavor and mechanics coincide. And I agree that having many classes could in theory allow the mechanics to better represent that flavor.
Absolutely! Which is why I'm pretty opposed to reductionism for its own sake, which is usually defended with statements like "you only need X" or "Y is basically the same thing as Z, so they shouldn't be different." Unfortunately, that tends to be either the only, or effectively the only, pro-reductionism position in threads like this. (There's also the "death to classes, pure point-buy for all!" position, but that's a non-starter for a variety of reasons.)


I just don’t think wizards of the coast is actually all that good at implementing it.
Sure. Despite the statements from Mearls and others, it's actually very difficult to do any part of the design process: math, theme, and structure. To clarify, math is "does the class succeed at the play-goals defined by the game?"; theme is "does the class have the aesthetics and narrative desired by the community?", and structure is "do the elements of the class produce a desirable play experience?" All three are critical parts of the design process--it doesn't matter if the class "works" (has correct math) and is thematically "tight" (has a solid thematic niche) if it's dull or frustrating to play. Unfortunately, WotC has gotten the idea that theme is the only important element...causing them to sideline, and therefore often fumble, the other two. You really can't skimp on any of them, which is part of why it's so infuriating to hear things like "math is easy, theme is hard."


But I still don’t really get why obtaining your magic through bargaining with a mystical patron makes you a Short Rest caster. Wouldn’t that make more sense for the magic class that has all their magic be internal? Since they can get tired and can’t cast anymore. It’s odd to me that because of the way that ASIs work the class that’s all about being the bigger and stronger actually can max Str after the class that is supposed to gain their power through martial skill. It’s weird that the class that’s all about using fast light weapons only can make one attack, while the guy in the heaviest armor and a massive weapon makes more attacks per second than anyone else.
For sure. I have my problems with 5e's overall design as well, but at least to me this is something of a side-conversation. That is, you seem to be getting bogged down in the narrow specifics of 5e implementations, whereas the overall tone of the conversation has been more high-concept, saying that no implementation of Ranger (5e or otherwise) merits its own class.


And there is also the problem that these classes can leave a lot of gaps. The one that’s been stuck in D&D for awhile is the mundane skill guy who isn’t tied to being a backstabby thief.
Unfortunately, the problem with some of these gaps is that they are induced by the requirements of the wider scope. Regardless of audience feelings on the matter (which are too diverse and complex for me to ever do justice to), D&D is a combat-oriented game. It need not be a combat-only game; it need not even be a combat-primary game. But it has never been the case--in any edition--that D&D has been "about" playing as non-combatants. Even Commoners have BAB--sure, it's terrible and they bring almost nothing else to the table, but the point is that it is there. Or, to turn that statement around, if you generate stats for a creature, you are implicitly saying that it is at least possible to fight that being, which means it is possible to kill that being, no matter how little sense this makes.

So: this mundane-skill-but-not-backstabby-thief character must include combat capability--combat is one of the "pillars." (I would phrase this in what I consider more formal terms: Combat is an intended activity, so all characters must by design be at least minimally capable of it, even if they never actually use those capabilities.) But this abuts the Backstabby-thief, and thus must differentiate itself along some meaningful axis, while also (potentially) stepping on the Fighter's toes, since it is a class geared toward combat.

Of course, my answer to this would be "you want a Warlord," since the Warlord is specifically defined by flexibility of stats and being reasonably well-schooled. By having different leadership styles focused on each of the mental stats, the class encourages players to pick whatever skills they find relevant. It may not be perfectly the breadth of skill one would like from a "skillful-but-not-thief" character, but it accomplishes much of the same task. (If the Ranger had been spell-less to begin with, making one subclass a "Druid EK" analogous to the Fighter/Wizard EK, IMO that would have completely closed the gap here, but I digress.) Sadly, there is no 5e Warlord, and at this point not likely to ever be.

Any time you have a system like this though, where you have pre-packaged classes, there will always be gaps, smaller and smaller as the number of classes rises. Thus there will always be a trade-off between gap-filling, niche-protection, and amount of material you can publish in a single volume. I, for example, adored the theme, math, and structure of the 4e Avenger class, and am very sad to see that it basically doesn't exist in 5e. However, unlike some other things, I really could see it working as a divine-flavored Rogue, since there really was a significant overlap between them. (Though if I were to design an "Avenger Rogue" I would have to think long and hard about how I'd rework Sneak Attack: it is, perhaps ironically, not crazy far off from the original Avenger's design, since they used big honkin' 2-handers and thus benefited from single attacks that hit really really hard.)

I wish more pro-reductionism players kept in mind ideas like what you've brought up with the Warlock and what you expect of it based off its flavor. That is, "big-tent" classes (which is the usual defense for highly-reductionist proposals) must by their nature reduce the level of "detail" in whatever subclasses they have. This "lossy compression" (if I may appropriate the phrase) is not always a bad thing: Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters make sense as subclasses, as they have preserved most of the salient details of things that were always "add-on" elements to begin with (being PrCs in the version most people are familiar with). That they can't stand on their own isn't meaningfully different from what they were before, while simultaneously replacing a kludgy method with a rather more elegant one (enabling the "class fantasy" at level 3, rather than at much higher levels). Similarly, despite my love of the 4e Avenger, I'm not sure "cloth-wearing, greatsword-toting, divine assassin" really is enough all on its own in any given other system, when it seems that most of its kit dovetails with the Rogue kit in many games. More importantly, the structures within it (like the Oath of Enmity, or the armor/weapon choices) seem to survive the "lossy compression" pretty well, so we have neither issues with rules-structures nor with thematics; thus, in a game like 5e that has a subclass structure, Avenger probably does make sense to demote to a subclass, even though it was standalone before.

But for classes that have long-standing history (like Paladin, Druid, or Ranger), such "lossy compression" has a very steep cost, especially when there are key structures (like Lay on Hands and Wild Shape) linked to these classes that respond poorly to such treatment. This seems to pose two equally-undesirable paths. On the one hand, we could make the over-arching class very thin, to accommodate as much depth and detail as possible, essentially reducing how "lossy" the "compression" is...but in so doing, we give up the fundamental benefit of being a class-and-subclass system. On the other hand, we accept that the subclass is too thin to truly house the absorbed class, and thus force all character concepts of that type to accept a stripped-down version. E.g. if Ranger became a Fighter or Barbarian subclass, what would become of the animal companion? That's a deeply iconic element of the D&D Ranger, but it would seem to be impossible to fit woodland skills, spells, "hunting" focus (stuff like favored enemies), and an animal companion all into a single subclass. There is, I suppose, a third path that seems no more desirable than the previous two, namely to make several subclasses that each capture some portion of the original class, e.g. a Fighter with an animal companion, a Nature-Style EK, and a "hunter" Fighter, but that seems to do the same thing as the first path, giving up a key benefit of the class-and-subclass structure (sacrificing the brevity of subclasses by making oodles of them to cover all the bits and pieces).

[djreynolds]

I proposed along time ago the ranger class could be a title any class could obtain.

How can you have a favored enemy at 1st level? You've never seen anything... you're 1st level?

How can you have a favored terrain at 1st level? Same as above.

Now at 10th level any class could select the Ranger title if they want. And with it comes a small package of abilities based on your accomplishments.

Survive the underdark… you can claim it as a favored terrain

Finish Storm Kings Thunder... favored enemy giants

But if you go down the road... the same thing can be said for the paladin. A wizard can take an oath just as surely as a fighter or cleric could.

The great thing and the worst thing of 5E is the blurring of past classes and archetypes. Unfortunately the ranger did not receive enough to really define the class. It might have been easier to allow them to just simply "smite" or "sneak attack" their favored enemies, but this would take from the other classes.

I mean look at the spell-less ranger... they just took a battlemaster and ranger and smooshed them together.

Its tough to make the ranger unique without poaching, making the class a title instead opens up some cool possibilities.

[opaopajr]

Yes, I am fine with that. :smallsmile: And similarly doing the same with reducing down to core four, next swap out/in a few features, and then subclass the rest underneath. Finally pare down features onto the archetype chassis and call it a day.

Cleric: Druid, Monk
Fighter: Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian
Rogue: Bard, (Alchemist? Psionicist? dunno, don't care)
Wizard: Sorceror, Warlock

Will something be lost in translation? Yes. Will I care that much? Nah, not that much.

I am more GM than competitive player, and the lack of overhead would be a nice variation for Basic DnD 5e. As a player, eh, more into the act of roleplaying and getting into the setting than the game mechanics. Heck, I am OK with 0-lvl PCs doing a PC funnel with just Backgrounds, so most of the later features (especially tier 3 &4) are cruft to me. :smallcool:

[Amnestic]

I proposed along time ago the ranger class could be a title any class could obtain.

How can you have a favored enemy at 1st level? You've never seen anything... you're 1st level?

How can you have a favored terrain at 1st level? Same as above.

This is bizarre to me - characters at 1st level still have backstories. They still came from somewhere. The classic trope village orphan who lost his rural home to a dragon might be level 1, but they're still going to have Favoured Terrain: Plains and Favoured Enemy: Dragons.

1st level characters aren't blank slates who sprung fully formed from their character sheets at adult age ready to go on an adventure without any sort of history.

[Morty]

The great thing and the worst thing of 5E is the blurring of past classes and archetypes. Unfortunately the ranger did not receive enough to really define the class. It might have been easier to allow them to just simply "smite" or "sneak attack" their favored enemies, but this would take from the other classes.


5E doesn't do anything D&D hasn't always done. There has never been a clear idea of what merits a class and what is a subclass, PrC, multiclass or what have you. Not even 4E, with the source/role setup, avoided this trap.

[GentlemanVoodoo]

A reduction of classes such as the ranger can be made for all the classes. As many have pointed out it would boil down to just 2-3 groupings of martial, magical, and skill aka miscellanious.

For instance a similar argument can be made with classess like the druid, warlock, and sorcerer. Druids are just clerics that worship nature forces but are still clerics. Do we need a seperate class for this? Warlocks are just wizards that made deals instead of going to magic school for their powers. Sorcerers are just wizards that have more of a natural appituted for magic based on genetics. Do we need seperate classes for them?

While though these classes are iconic for D&D there is argument to be made for the repetativeness of them. Personally it would be interesting to go to a classless system where you could have a "themed" branch to learn specific skills mimicing the classes in terms of flavor. But I think also you would take away some of the main staples that do make D&D what it is.

[djreynolds]

This is bizarre to me - characters at 1st level still have backstories. They still came from somewhere. The classic trope village orphan who lost his rural home to a dragon might be level 1, but they're still going to have Favoured Terrain: Plains and Favoured Enemy: Dragons.

1st level characters aren't blank slates who sprung fully formed from their character sheets at adult age ready to go on an adventure without any sort of history.

I hear what you're saying.

But just because the dragon killed your family and your village, you may hate the dragon... doesn't mean you're any good at killing it.

That's why I'm saying, at 10th level... heck you do know the forest and mountains and now I will give you a bonus

Now at 10th level you may have battled a variety of undead... here's your bonus.

What I'm saying instead of gutting the ranger, make it a title that players can take upon certain accomplishments.

If you have defeated by 10th level numerous goblinoids... well here is your favored enemy bonus... regardless of class

If you have survived Out of the Abyss here is favored terrain.

I did like what they revised ranger did, where it gave you favored enemy and greater favored enemy.

I'm just spit balling here because I see all of the class, not just fighter, who could be that ranger as well. .

I could see a wizard taking of the horizon walker mantle... seems fitting

Or a cleric or paladin taking up an undead hunter

Any class with a familiar could line up real well with the beastmaster

But a barbarian could be a hunter archetype as well, very fitting for a wolf totem

I'm just saying the ranger could be a title or a feat package that any character could take at "this level"

Bards might what the title for a character who has traveled to all the exotic places and survived

[Amnestic]

I hear what you're saying.

But just because the dragon killed your family and your village, you may hate the dragon... doesn't mean you're any good at killing it.



Right, but all 1st level characters are still able to perform things.

Like, lets take it another way - how do wizards cast spells? They're 1st level, they haven't learned anything yet. How are fighters proficient in so many weapons? They haven't learned anything yet. How do rogues have thieves tool proficiencies? They're 1st level! Part of having class levels is baking in the backstory of knowing these things. Wizards learned how to cast spells. Rangers learned how to favoured enemy and favoured terrain

If you wanted to homebrew a sort of Feat-like reward system which give persistent buffs vs. certain enemy types or certain terrains* after they experienced them then honestly I think that's pretty cool and is that sorta thing I've done in the past, I just don't agree with the argument that Rangers shouldn't have favoured enemies or the like at 1st level because they're 1st level. That seems to be missing a major conceit of the DnD system.

*or extra bonuses for using a certain weapon type X times, or casting a spell Y times, or making a certain save Z times.

[Spacehamster]

Nope it’s an iconic class and should not be relegated to just a subclass. :)
Wish they did a reprint of it with the revised version tho.

[djreynolds]

Right, but all 1st level characters are still able to perform things.

Like, lets take it another way - how do wizards cast spells? They're 1st level, they haven't learned anything yet. How are fighters proficient in so many weapons? They haven't learned anything yet. How do rogues have thieves tool proficiencies? They're 1st level! Part of having class levels is baking in the backstory of knowing these things. Wizards learned how to cast spells. Rangers learned how to favoured enemy and favoured terrain

If you wanted to homebrew a sort of Feat-like reward system which give persistent buffs vs. certain enemy types or certain terrains* after they experienced them then honestly I think that's pretty cool and is that sorta thing I've done in the past, I just don't agree with the argument that Rangers shouldn't have favoured enemies or the like at 1st level because they're 1st level. That seems to be missing a major conceit of the DnD system.

*or extra bonuses for using a certain weapon type X times, or casting a spell Y times, or making a certain save Z times.

Its a tough a call isn't it.

I mean I'm sure there are plenty 18 year old men and women around that can hunt and fish, and some do it for survival and not recreation.

I'm just trying to say, I feel the ranger encompasses many abilities and instead of the OPs idea that it becomes a fighter archetype, perhaps the ranger could become title.

Because I could see a barbarian who gets an increased rage bonus vs certain foes, or paladin who smites dragons harder,
or a battlemaster who gets an extra sup dice or crit range for certain foes, etc...

It could be cool

[Nifft]

This discussion started with the statement that there are only 3 classes you NEED. But obviously people WANT more.

Really there only need to be 2 classes:

- Skilled
- Magical

Fighting is just a type of skill.

(Bards can be a PrC, just as Gygax intended.)

[Man_Over_Game]

Yes, when people act like any position other than their own is irrational. Which, y'know, has happened several times in this thread already.

Yes, it can. I was challenging bias by making openly biased questions to, implicitly, call out the bias I was seeing.

You can see what I said as an attack if you like, though that wasn't the intent. People talking about what you "need" in a fiction-driven, opt-in, leisure-time activity should consider that "needs" maybe don't apply to such a thing, and maybe shouldn't act like their position is the only objective stance to take, since they're starting from a false premise. (That is, that "needs" of the discussed kind even apply to a leisure-time activity in the first place.)

I can understand that.

Alright, objective questions, then.

What would be lost by converting the Ranger into a subclass option?

We've seen through the Scout and the Arcane Archer that multiple of the core mechanics of the Ranger can be easily duplicated through other classes by adding more features, so what is an exception?

Personally, I feel most of the Ranger's benefits are fairly generic and easy to apply/use by anyone with a weapon and skills, so what makes the Ranger deserving to have its own mechanics or class?

I can understand the concern over specific Ranger subclass themes, like the Gloomstalker or Horizon Walker, but I also feel that those follow a similar trend to the Ranger class itself (being universally usable on pretty much anyone) without actually using or modifying Ranger-specific mechanics. Or, put simply, the Ranger subclasses seem about as generic with their mechanics as the Ranger itself, despite being very colorful.

Like the difference between the Drunken Master and the Battlemaster. The Drunken Master only works by leveraging Monk-specific mechanics, which justifies the Monk having its own class and subclasses, while the Battlemaster could be thrown on pretty much anyone without any issues.

For me, this provides concrete proof of the necessity between one class vs. another, without being watered down by opinions or bias.

What's your take on it?

[Morty]

I've said it before, but the ranger's main claim to fame is a scaled-up skill proficiency or two. That's the basic problem. It's Survival and Nature, only better. It takes the already conflicted and inconsistent relationship of skill proficiencies with the rest of the system and makes it worse. Attempts to make rangers better tend to make them hyper-competent in this rather niche area and/or pile up features that feel related to outdoor activities and survival.

[GreyBlack]

So I was talking with my group. I said the ranger class should be split up and made into subclasses for other classes. I broke it down like this.

Fighter
1. Horizon Walker
2. Hunter
3. A Ranger sudclass with favorite enemy & terrain and ect

Rogue
1.Gloom stalker

Barbarian
1 Monster Hunter.

Druid
1. Beast Master


So what are yall options? Should the ranger class be split up.

Only if you would also merge the Paladin into the Cleric and Fighter classes, the Bard into the Rogue, the Druid into the Cleric, the Warlock into either the wizard or the Cleric, and the Sorcerer into the Wizard.

In D&D, you can boil everything down into a Warrior, Priest, Rogue, or Magic User if you try hard enough. That's how it's been since the beginning; the Paladin was originally a subclass of the Fighter that was limited to only Fighters that were Lawful and met certain stat requirements. In 2e, all classes were baseline one of those 4, and then were eligible to move into one of the subclasses based on stat requirements. It was only in 3e that these classes were really separated, and even then still had the separation of "Full BAB, 2/3 BAB, and 1/2 BAB."

The ranger is fine as is. Its abilities aren't as flashy as other classes but still can be useful. There's no reason to do this.

[Kane0]

What would be lost by converting the Ranger into a subclass option?

So what makes the Ranger deserving to have its own mechanics or class?


I dont see any other class being able to balance having three skills, extra attack + fighting style, half casting plus an animal companion in the one package, as lacklustre as each of those aspects can be on their own.

[Garfunion]

I dont see any other class being able to balance having three skills, extra attack + fighting style, half casting plus an animal companion in the one package, as lacklustre as each of those aspects can be on their own.
The paladin does a good job at it, minus one skill. And can do it without an archetype.

[Kane0]

The paladin does a good job at it, minus one skill. And can do it without an archetype.

Aye, and is its own class. If you were to try the same by squishing it into fighter and/or cleric you would have to make sacrifices.

Unless we could convert the pally chassis to also work for the ranger? Hmm, food for thought.

[Morty]

The two ways for the ranger class to stand on its own two feet, to me, are beast-mastery and monster-slaying. The first one is a feature that really does merit a whole class. It's difficult to balance bringing along a whole new character and set of actions with other options. Such a beast-ranger could be merged with druids, so they either turn into animals or command them. Though it's difficult to do in 5E's subclass format - they'd need some baseline that applies regardless of subclass.

Monster-slaying I'm sceptical about, because every weapon-using D&D character is a monster-slayer sort of by default. PCs are going to meet monsters and slay them, unless the GM runs a campaign where they only ever fight humanoids. But I'm open to the possibility of a class that focuses on being a hunter using techniques suited to bringing down different kinds of monster.

Either way, if someone wanted to simply play an outdoors expert, they can do it with a scout rogue. Which... granted, isn't something I can recommend to anyone in good conscience. But one thing at a time, I suppose.

[intregus]

I think the ranger is fine. It just wasn't implemented well in 5E. Here is my take on how the ranger should work in 5e.

Its based off the Warlock chassis.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mlXa9GSqcdsG__eihM4KcGtEgzRSoKIuUQbj482KFsM/edit?usp=drivesdk

[djreynolds]

I think the ranger is fine. It just wasn't implemented well in 5E. Here is my take on how the ranger should work in 5e.

Its based off the Warlock chassis.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mlXa9GSqcdsG__eihM4KcGtEgzRSoKIuUQbj482KFsM/edit?usp=drivesdk

This very good. Now you can make the ranger as you see it. It's very flexible.

Excellent

[intregus]

This very good. Now you can make the ranger as you see it. It's very flexible.

Excellent

That was my goal.

The ranger is good I, the wilderness, but can also have a companion but can also cast spells but is also good with weapons.

I prefer spelless rangers well if two people play a ranger with this hombres they can play to very very different types of rangers.

Its also not finished. Life got in the way so I haven't had time to finish creating the different conclave spells one could get. But you get the idea.

[ezekielraiden]

What would be lost by converting the Ranger into a subclass option?
Well, for one thing, an iconic element of D&D-specific fiction. Yes, "Ranger" comes from the title given to Aragorn and his fellow "wandering heirs of the northern kingdom" group, but the class has become something specially D&D. Further, prominent fiction (primarily, though not exclusively, everyone's [un-]favorite Drow) features Rangers, and losing their iconic elements would probably cause a significant negative fan reaction. Likely worse than the gnome thing, since Rangers are significantly more popular than gnomes.


We've seen through the Scout and the Arcane Archer that multiple of the core mechanics of the Ranger can be easily duplicated through other classes by adding more features, so what is an exception?
Spellcasting--which is especially important in 5e, because a ton of Ranger class features have been hidden away as so-called "optional" spell picks. Ranger-level spellcasting would, as a Fighter or Rogue subclass, completely consume (and possibly exceed) the remaining budget for subclass features, since while you end up with fewer spells known, the Ranger gets 5th level spells and the EK/AT do not.


Personally, I feel most of the Ranger's benefits are fairly generic and easy to apply/use by anyone with a weapon and skills, so what makes the Ranger deserving to have its own mechanics or class?
I would argue that the problem is, you're cutting up each individual piece and examining it in isolation, saying (perhaps validly!) that that individual piece by itself doesn't justify a class, and then asserting that therefore the whole collection isn't justified as none of its components are. There are two things this (dare I say "white room"?) analysis can't account for though: bundle effects (as noted earlier in the thread) and the cultural/fanbase-appeal value. However, even before I get into those, there's a more important one.

Beastmaster.

Yes, it's poorly-done (though perhaps not as poorly as some detractors claim). Yes, such things are often really difficult to balance because, surprise surprise, giving the player a free extra unit is really easy to make too powerful, but if it isn't too powerful, it's really easy to accidentally make pointless or deeply frustrating. Yet people have continually called for it to be fixed throughout 5e's existence. You don't hear that sort of thing from something unpopular or generally worthless in principle: people agitate for improvement because they want to like something, but find it fails to measure up.


I can understand the concern over specific Ranger subclass themes, like the Gloomstalker or Horizon Walker, but I also feel that those follow a similar trend to the Ranger class itself (being universally usable on pretty much anyone) without actually using or modifying Ranger-specific mechanics. Or, put simply, the Ranger subclasses seem about as generic with their mechanics as the Ranger itself, despite being very colorful.
Doesn't this same charge work against the Fighter, but worse? The Fighter has no flavor whatsoever, and its mechanics actively avoid such things. Since the Fighter is such a huge sticking point for many conversations, why don't we just eliminate it and spread it out into other classes, mm?

Returning to the bundle and culture arguments: the Ranger is in part defined by certain synergies between its component parts. I already covered spellcasting, and how that alone would crowd out any other elements, but it's also important as the Druid equivalent of an Eldritch Knight or Paladin, someone who channels (as 4e would put it) Primal power as opposed to Arcane or Divine. (Plus, if it's fine to have a Paladin, which is essentially a Divine EK with some extra features, it seems odd that a Primal EK with extra features isn't okay.) Moving on, a pet worth having won't work as anything better than a pure subclass focus by itself either--after all, that's literally the Pact of the Chain, isn't it? The pet can't be reduced to the level of a single feat, as that would either be mostly-worthless or incredibly overpowered, and 5e opposes the use of feat chains and the like. (Sadly, we don't even have 4e's Theme structure to fall back on--if we could still have stuff like Fey Beast Tamer, then "get a cool, useful pet" would not be a problem.)

In isolation, sure, many of these things could individually make sense as the core of a subclass. But the Ranger, in ways similar to the Paladin, is built out of a bundle of such things. In order to subsume Ranger into Fighter or Rogue, you'd have to cut the bundle apart. It would be like arguing, "A cog by itself isn't a vehicle, nor is a sparkplug, nor a crankshaft, nor a wheel. Let's just split these pieces up and put them in other machines, so we don't have to bother with this 'vehicle' nonsense." Vehicles only work, only make sense, holistically--and I argue that the Ranger is the same way. What you lose is the ability to have a nature-warrior in tune with her surroundings and her trusty companion. Yes, that's literally saying, "What you lose is the Ranger," but that doesn't mean the answer is circular. It's openly stating that the Ranger is simply important by itself, for itself, not because its component pieces are individually important to begin with.

And then as noted, culturally, the Ranger is pretty important. Reducing it to a Fighter or Rogue subclass is certainly something you could do, if you really wanted, but for any game marketing itself as "D&D," I don't think that would be wise. Certainly it would tick off any fans of Salvatore's writing, and he's apparently important enough to make the friggin' Forgotten Realms the core setting. (Yes, I'm salty about this.) Given we have already seen the outcry that results from this sort of thing, not once but twice (4e not having the Gnome playable in PHB1, 5e not having a Warlord at all), this would seem an entirely valid, practical argument for not doing this thing unless a REALLY strong reason appears.


Like the difference between the Drunken Master and the Battlemaster. The Drunken Master only works by leveraging Monk-specific mechanics, which justifies the Monk having its own class and subclasses, while the Battlemaster could be thrown on pretty much anyone without any issues.

For me, this provides concrete proof of the necessity between one class vs. another, without being watered down by opinions or bias.

What's your take on it?
See, I'm of exactly the reverse opinion on the Battlemaster. To my eyes, the Battlemaster looks like an Eldritch Knight for maneuvers: a Fighter dabbling in another class that, very sadly, doesn't actually exist. I would love for there to be a highly technical martial-technique master! (My own proposal for introducing a Warlord to 5e is to use the Warlock as a loose starting framework, but replacing its spellcasting with a Gambit+Maneuver+Riposte type structure and an emphasis on powerful but specialized actions used during others' turns.)

To me, the Battlemaster exists specifically because Fighter's whole shtick is being As Bland As Unflavored Oatmeal (the devs even admitted that they regretted not putting enough flavor into the Fighter--or at least Mearls does). Because Fighters have a short list of REALLY simple features: more attacks and actions, extra saving throws, minor fighting style boost, self heal, two stat boosts. Those things don't really scream "flavor," intentionally--and they VERY easily could've been split up amongst other classes (probably Barb getting 4x EA and self-heal, Rogue getting Action Surge and Indomitable by another name). Yet being Unflavored Oatmeal, the Fighter demonstrates its value by nicking some subset of a more fully-flavored class, like Wizard (EK), Ranger sort of (Cavalier), Barbarian (Champion), or <non-existent maneuver class> (Battle Master). Of course, I think you could still have a more flavorful foundation anyway while still being able to act as a canvas for these extra elements, but that's a separate issue.

And, if I may? Avoiding "watered down by opinions or bias" is impossible here. You are arguing about your subjective evaluation of whether a thing is "worth it." You have decided that you like the standard "depends on mechanics found in the baseline class." But there are classes which fail that standard (as noted, Fighter or Paladin) that you aren't calling for the elimination of, and potentially classes that pass it but which have a bigger claim to being eliminated (Sorcerers and Wizards are now really really similar, even more than they were in 3rd edition as far as I'm concerned...but then again, I wanted them to keep the CRAZY flavorful Sorcerer from the Next playtest, so.) Hell, in the Paladin's case, it literally has the exact same mechanic as Cleric--Channel Divinity. Why focus on the Ranger, which at least does have unique (subclass) mechanics, when the Paladin is so much more a juicy target? (Note that I am not ACTUALLY advocating this, I love the Paladin as a concept and you can pry that concept from my cold, dead hands; I'm just saying that Ranger doesn't even seem to be first on the docket by the allegedly "objective" standard you're using.)

[Kane0]

-Snip-

Well said,

You dont mind if i make a copy of this for the next time this topic comes around?

[Man_Over_Game]

That was my goal.

The ranger is good I, the wilderness, but can also have a companion but can also cast spells but is also good with weapons.

I prefer spelless rangers well if two people play a ranger with this hombres they can play to very very different types of rangers.

Its also not finished. Life got in the way so I haven't had time to finish creating the different conclave spells one could get. But you get the idea.

It is, by far, the best example I've ever seen of a Ranger remake.

The only complaint that I have is that it's not finished.

...and Herbalist is kinda bad. 1 hour to basically get Hit Dice to heal allies with doesn't quite compete with *the entire Battlemaster subclass* and *the entire beastmaster subclass*. It seems on par with the dedications/invocations, not a bond/patron/subclass choice. It also lacks the scaling the other options have.

But, really, it's a damn good remake

[ezekielraiden]

Well said,

You dont mind if i make a copy of this for the next time this topic comes around?

Not at all. Please feel free to edit for brevity if needed, as well.

[Morty]

Doesn't this same charge work against the Fighter, but worse? The Fighter has no flavor whatsoever, and its mechanics actively avoid such things. Since the Fighter is such a huge sticking point for many conversations, why don't we just eliminate it and spread it out into other classes, mm?

I know this is supposed to be a rhetorical question, but yes, we should do just that. Neither Fighter nor Ranger are very good class ideas and they certainly have no place being on the same class list and being treated on an equal basis.

[Kane0]

I’ve always considered changing ‘fighter’ to ‘knight’. Give it a sticky defender leaning and compliment with barbarians leaning more into brute offense, warlords on teamwork and paladins a blend of the three. Rangers and rogues branch off in a more mobility direction and focus a little more on skills.

[ezekielraiden]

I know this is supposed to be a rhetorical question, but yes, we should do just that. Neither Fighter nor Ranger are very good class ideas and they certainly have no place being on the same class list and being treated on an equal basis.
Good luck selling such a game--even if it doesn't have the D&D label. Not having a character-option that captures something like Cúchulainn, Liu Bu, Arjuna, Thorin Oakenshield, and a fair number of other mythic, historic, and/or modern-fiction characters is going to put you in a tight spot even when you don't consider the practical concerns of pleasing the D&D-specific audience.


I’ve always considered changing ‘fighter’ to ‘knight’. Give it a sticky defender leaning and compliment with barbarians leaning more into brute offense, warlords on teamwork and paladins a blend of the three. Rangers and rogues branch off in a more mobility direction and focus a little more on skills.
Gotta be careful with that one. It's exactly what 4e did and everyone hated 4e, right?

[Morty]

I’ve always considered changing ‘fighter’ to ‘knight’. Give it a sticky defender leaning and compliment with barbarians leaning more into brute offense, warlords on teamwork and paladins a blend of the three. Rangers and rogues branch off in a more mobility direction and focus a little more on skills.

Of course, at that point you don't have a way to play a skirmishing/mobile character without the ranger and rogue's baggage and no way to play an outdoors specialist without also assuming this combat style.


Good luck selling such a game--even if it doesn't have the D&D label. Not having a character-option that captures something like Cúchulainn, Liu Bu, Arjuna, Thorin Oakenshield, and a fair number of other mythic, historic, and/or modern-fiction characters is going to put you in a tight spot even when you don't consider the practical concerns of pleasing the D&D-specific audience.

There's really no reason to assume that I want to remove fighters, not replace them with anything and leave all the character concepts the class covers hanging out to dry. So why did you?

[ezekielraiden]

Of course, at that point you don't have a way to play a skirmishing/mobile character without the ranger and rogue's baggage and no way to play an outdoors specialist without also assuming this combat style.
There will always be gaps in a class-based system. You must, at some point, decide that you have covered enough of the gaps. That will always mean an "arbitrary" (meaning chosen) line after which you stop actively trying to cover the gaps. "Skirmishing/mobile character" by itself is pretty thin, and I'd argue that the addition of a Warlord could cover a lot of that anyway. (note that, while it was often discussed, "Lazy" Warlords were by far the minority--most of them did plenty of mixing it up, and literally did "skirmish" by having an ally help them smack a particular enemy).

And, I'll note, the whole idea of making Beastmaster etc. subclasses is so that you can have a Ranger that has relatively minimal baggage. Just about the only part baked-in is spells, and I've already mentioned I would have preferred spell-less Rangers be the baseline anyway.


There's really no reason to assume that I want to remove fighters, not replace them with anything and leave all the character concepts the class covers hanging out to dry. So why did you?
So...you aren't going to "just eliminate" (my words you quoted) the Fighter, the non-magic-using warrior? Because when you quote me saying "just eliminate" something, and then you personally say, "yes we should do just that," I'm inclined to think you actually do mean just eliminate and not "replace and maybe rename."

[Dienekes]

I’ve always considered changing ‘fighter’ to ‘knight’. Give it a sticky defender leaning and compliment with barbarians leaning more into brute offense, warlords on teamwork and paladins a blend of the three. Rangers and rogues branch off in a more mobility direction and focus a little more on skills.

The issue here, is that there are a fair few character ideas that are enveloped in the Fighter that are definitely not knights.

I kinda think the class on whole would have been improved if it had been made a “choose your subclass at level 1” class and have the fluff and character of the class come from there.

Knight, Gladiator, Samurai, Veteran Soldier, Brawler, Fencer, Guard, Gunslinger, Legendary Hero, etc. Each of them have a lot of fluff baggage that could make interesting mechanical differences. If they weren’t mostly all tossed into the blender of Champion or Battlemaster (I know WotC have started moving away from this but it’s been a slow process).

[Morty]

So...you aren't going to "just eliminate" (my words you quoted) the Fighter, the non-magic-using warrior? Because when you quote me saying "just eliminate" something, and then you personally say, "yes we should do just that," I'm inclined to think you actually do mean just eliminate and not "replace and maybe rename."

Let's see if I can make it as clear as possible so you can stop trying to nitpick my response to your choice of words. Removing the Fighter class as D&D has used it for years doesn't mean removing all non-magic-using warriors. Likewise, removing the Ranger class doesn't mean removing all scouts, hunters and trackers. All those concepts can be done in a number of ways. I have, in fact, played a scout rogue in 5E that did most of the things a ranger does. She scouted, she tracked, she noticed things and she shot things.

One or both of those classes need to go - if one class means "every warrior who doesn't use too much magic or non-combat skills" and another means "a spellcasting wilderness explorer/tracker who specializes in fighting particular enemies", then the entire concept of classes is too vague to be useful.

[ezekielraiden]

Let's see if I can make it as clear as possible so you can stop trying to nitpick my response to your choice of words. Removing the Fighter class as D&D has used it for years doesn't mean removing all non-magic-using warriors. Likewise, removing the Ranger class doesn't mean removing all scouts, hunters and trackers. All those concepts can be done in a number of ways. I have, in fact, played a scout rogue in 5E that did most of the things a ranger does. She scouted, she tracked, she noticed things and she shot things.

One or both of those classes need to go - if one class means "every warrior who doesn't use too much magic or non-combat skills" and another means "a spellcasting wilderness explorer/tracker who specializes in fighting particular enemies", then the entire concept of classes is too vague to be useful.

I honestly wasn't trying to be nitpicky, so I apologize, since my misunderstanding has clearly upset you. I still generally disagree with your position, but I'm not sure there's much to say. I think it's entirely possible to design an entertaining Fighter *and* Ranger. (Of course, I'm of the opinion 4e *did* do that, so...)

[Hytheter]

I kinda think the class on whole would have been improved if it had been made a “choose your subclass at level 1” class and have the fluff and character of the class come from there.

Level 3 subclasses is a colossal failure of the game IMO. These are character defining abilities that seriously impact character feel and often playstyle as well. I have some other issues with subclasses (I think there could've been some parity and modularity between them) but at least I can respect the choices they made. Not being able to play the character archetype you actually wanted from day 1 though just seems a blunder to me.

Better subclass implementation could make even the most reductionist class lists more viable too, I think. I could picture a system that uses the class as the core or skeleton of the build with subclasses being the real meat, for example. Probably not the approach I'd take myself though, and I don't think D&D can really afford to without losing some of its identity.


Do you guys know of the Hume the philosopher dude? Guy was the one who brought up the bundle theory for objects and stuff... so an object is not really an inherent thing, it's just a collection of properties and relationships.

Funnily enough I was recently thinking about this concept in a (different) D&D context. Good to know that there's name for it. It will make it way easier explain why I don't like the Knock spell.

[Man_Over_Game]

SNIP

I'm not disagreeing that those classes also need consideration.

But this thread happens to be about rangers, so the problem was targeted specifically towards rangers. I wouldn't have mentioned Battlemaster as being representative of the poor identity of the Fighter if I didn't think the Fighter had problems with identity.

I did so earlier in the thread, with the belief that it was intentional:


It also impacts the Fighter, too. Having the same design goals for two classes makes them both feel generic. The difference is, being an "Everyman's Warrior" is part of the Fighter's core identity, while being mysterious and talented is part of the Ranger's. As a result, the Fighter simply stays true to the "fiction" by being more generic, while the Ranger just feels washed out.



I used the example of building off of prior mechanics as a means of showing necessity for a class, because otherwise we're just kinda resorting to pointing fingers at one another, saying "no, your idea's dumb!"

I *would* like to see Ranger-specific mechanics, ones that would realistically only be usable on a Ranger chassis. Maybe that's Beastmastery and with enhanced uses of Animal Handling. Or maybe it's with using martial-esc spells that recharge while exploring. Or having specialized stealth/trap rules that rely on certain aspects of the environment.

But...we don't have that. What we do have isn't much more than an Eldritch Knight that learns Druid Spells, and an entire class's identity shouldn't be summarized by a 5 minute homebrew.

Get rid of the Ranger, make it unique; one of the two has to happen.

And, unlike the Barbarian or Paladin, there's already a lot of means of replicating the core mechanics without leveling into it, with the "Rogue that plays like a Ranger", the "Fighter that plays like a Ranger", and the "Warlock that talks to animals and deals extra attack damage per hit from magic" and the "Cleric that hits things with weapons and talks to animals".

To me, it comes off that WotC either is trying to make Ranger features as accessible as possible, or they can't add to another class without making the Ranger more redundant. So is the Ranger generic, or is WotC making it that way?

[intregus]

It is, by far, the best example I've ever seen of a Ranger remake.

The only complaint that I have is that it's not finished.

...and Herbalist is kinda bad. 1 hour to basically get Hit Dice to heal allies with doesn't quite compete with *the entire Battlemaster subclass* and *the entire beastmaster subclass*. It seems on par with the dedications/invocations, not a bond/patron/subclass choice. It also lacks the scaling the other options have.

But, really, it's a damn good remake

Thanks!

I'll probably just turn the herbalist stuff into dedications then...if I ever get around to polishing it off!

Thanks for the feedback!

[Man_Over_Game]

Thanks!

I'll probably just turn the herbalist stuff into dedications then...if I ever get around to polishing it off!

Thanks for the feedback!

I think you have something there, it just needs an active combat component, scaling, and something that makes it universally effective. Healing is universally effective, but 1 minute to heal 1d6 is not.

My suggestion is to tie it into some kind of preparation-style Ranger. One that deals with oils, flasks, potions, to prepare the team and solve problems that the Ranger is expecting.

You could make it so that you "prepare" a certain batch of herbs and toxins that each have a unique effect whether they're imbibed, thrown, or used on a weapon.

For example, a sap that:
When worn, makes you feel slow but numb to pain. Gain THP equal to 1d10 +Ranger Level, +2 AC up to 15 while you have THP, but lose as much speed as you gain in THP.
When applied to a weapon, deals extra damage to the undead and can be set on fire.
When thrown, creates a 5 ft. area of Difficult Terrain that reduces a creature's movement by half if they started their turn their, and it's flammable.

Then make an oil and a powder. You can create a batch of one type in an hour, but they expire after an hour. They each have a specialty (wear the sap, prepare weapons in oil, throw the powder) but they have uses regardless of your method.

Could use one universal quantity for all scaling to keep things simple, so fire damage, THP, life gain, damage, etc is all the same value.

Having someone that prepares temporary items ahead of time is something that 5e is sorely missing.

[djreynolds]

That was my goal.

The ranger is good I, the wilderness, but can also have a companion but can also cast spells but is also good with weapons.

I prefer spelless rangers well if two people play a ranger with this hombres they can play to very very different types of rangers.

Its also not finished. Life got in the way so I haven't had time to finish creating the different conclave spells one could get. But you get the idea.

Maybe even different armor proficiencies later. Some warlocks can grab medium armor later. So maybe a ranger could get heavy armor at the sacrifice of something else.

I know you could select heavily armored as a feat... but not all campaigns have feats or multiclassing.

This would give players at least a heavy armor option. Not a typical ranger.

I think the warlock chassis could work.

[intregus]

I think you have something there, it just needs an active combat component, scaling, and something that makes it universally effective. Healing is universally effective, but 1 minute to heal 1d6 is not.

My suggestion is to tie it into some kind of preparation-style Ranger. One that deals with oils, flasks, potions, to prepare the team and solve problems that the Ranger is expecting.

You could make it so that you "prepare" a certain batch of herbs and toxins that each have a unique effect whether they're imbibed, thrown, or used on a weapon.

For example, a sap that:
When worn, makes you feel slow but numb to pain. Gain THP equal to 1d10 +Ranger Level, +2 AC up to 15 while you have THP, but lose as much speed as you gain in THP.
When applied to a weapon, deals extra damage to the undead and can be set on fire.
When thrown, creates a 5 ft. area of Difficult Terrain that reduces a creature's movement by half if they started their turn their, and it's flammable.

Then make an oil and a powder. You can create a batch of one type in an hour, but they expire after an hour. They each have a specialty (wear the sap, prepare weapons in oil, throw the powder) but they have uses regardless of your method.

Could use one universal quantity for all scaling to keep things simple, so fire damage, THP, life gain, damage, etc is all the same value.

Having someone that prepares temporary items ahead of time is something that 5e is sorely missing.




Maybe even different armor proficiencies later. Some warlocks can grab medium armor later. So maybe a ranger could get heavy armor at the sacrifice of something else.

I know you could select heavily armored as a feat... but not all campaigns have feats or multiclassing.

This would give players at least a heavy armor option. Not a typical ranger.

I think the warlock chassis could work.

I love all these ideas!