Did fixing the Ranger kill the Ranger?

[Schwann145]

I don't think anyone would disagree that, mechanically speaking, Tasha's basically fixed what was still disappointing about the Ranger to a very large degree.
But it seems like the woodsman who is good with the environment is dead, replaced by a Druid-by-another-name.

Mundane features have been replaced by magical ones, or even more egregiously by spells.
For example consider the Beastmaster: You no longer bond in any way with animals via training or class abilities, you instead gain spells that do that for you. Or you summon a "primal beast" spirit... thing...? that you magically summon into existence and is a "beast" in name only.

Aragorn, son of Arathorn
Drizzt Do'Urden
Dove Falconhand
Minsc
etc

Basically none of these look anything like the Ranger class of today. Maybe Hunters, all of them?

Or am I crazy?

[Amnestic]

Rangers were spell users from day 1 in 5e, so I'm not sure I really agree with you here, they were always magical. There was a spell-less ranger UA at one point I believe but it never got off the ground so far as I know - and if you want that, the scout rogue fulfills the fantasy pretty decently.

With regards to features they replaced, Favored Foe is 'mystical', as is 'Nature's Veil', while their original counterparts were not, but Deft Explorer and Primal Awareness seem just as magical as their older versions were.

[Leon]

Core ranger has a couple of naff features that the Tash's optional make a heck of a lot better but by and large its still a good class without that. Beastmaster is another kettle of fish that at its most simple needed a "direct to attack with a bonus action" to fix

[Rynjin]

Ranger has been "Nature Paladin" (in terms of mechanics) since 3.0. All of those characters you mention are a helluva lot older than that lol. If you wanna go back in time and complain about it, be my guest, but expecting 5e to backpedal on the natural progression of the class is...odd, to say the least.

[Kane0]

Mundane features have been replaced by magical ones, or even more egregiously by spells.


That is not unique to the Ranger by any stretch.

[Gurgeh]

Aragorn, son of Arathorn
No incarnation of the Ranger in any edition of D&D has ever been a good fit for Aragorn; being able to track stuff is about as close as it has ever gotten.

[Mastikator]

Not sure I agree

Favored foe vs favored enemy. One is mundane the other is mystical (it doesn't say magical though, it could easily have said magical but it didn't).

Natural explorer vs deft explorer. Neither are magical.

Primeval awareness vs primal awareness. One is a pseudo-spell, the other is a bunch of spells.

Hide in plain sight vs Nature's veil. One is mundane and the other is explicitly magical. You got a point here, but it's not until level 10 that you do IMO.

[J-H]

Aragorn, son of Arathorn Paladin/Fighter with bonus skills
Drizzt Do'Urden Dex fighter with some skill feats?
Minsc He's totally a barbarian. The Tasha's bonus Nature-related skills complete this.

[Unoriginal]

Drizzt Do'Urden Dex fighter with some skill feats?
Minsc He's totally a barbarian. The Tasha's bonus Nature-related skills complete this.

Both are Rangers, although it's true Minsc is also a Barbarian.

Notably, Minsc's statblock has this gem:


Favored Enemy:
Minsc's favored enemy is evil.

[RSP]

Notably, Minsc's statblock has this gem:

Favored Enemy:
Minsc's favored enemy is evil.


I guess that’s now the go-to option?

[strangebloke]

Ranger does probably need better thematics. See my sig. But honestly after Tasha's they're not that bad? They're magical warriors of the forest, scouts who have learned druid magic on their long travels through a connection with the land.

And mechanically they're very strong.

[Aalbatr0ss]

Maybe I need to reread LOTR. It’s been a while. Aragorn is a strong versatile fighter and tracker with magic and strong leadership skills. He very occasionally uses some magic. What is mechanical in 5e that steps on trying to play this kind of character?

[KorvinStarmast]

Maybe I need to reread LOTR. It’s been a while. Aragorn is a strong versatile fighter and tracker with magic and strong leadership skills. He very occasionally uses some magic. What is mechanical in 5e that steps on trying to play this kind of character?
Rogue Scout + Paladin (Ancients) would probably work.
Hunter Ranger would work.

[Catullus64]

Note that Drizzt's classic animal companion was actually a magical creature summoned from another plane by means of an enchanted figurine. Aragorn's more magical abilities don't really have much to do with his Ranger training, so much as they come from growing up in the house of Elrond and carrying the royal blood of Numenor in his veins.

The functionality of the new features, even the magical ones, is such that it's not hard to describe and play them as though they were nonmagical, especially if you have a cooperative DM. Most DMs will actually admire it if you subsequently impose restrictions on yourself based on the assumption that your features are non-magical; "My Alarm spell involves detecting movements in the underbrush and natural soil, so I guess I can't use it in this stone chamber."

Heck, my default playstyle with Rangers involves picking spells that can easily be re-described as ambiguous "woods-lore" for a seemingly non-magical character; spells like Alarm, Animal Friendship, Cure Wounds, Detect Poison & Disease, Hunter's Mark, Snare, et al.

No, if it's worth complaining about any martial class being overly suffused with magic, it's the Barbarian.

[Gurgeh]

Maybe I need to reread LOTR. It’s been a while. Aragorn is a strong versatile fighter and tracker with magic and strong leadership skills. He very occasionally uses some magic. What is mechanical in 5e that steps on trying to play this kind of character?
Aragorn does not at any point use anything that would be considered magic in D&D. His herblore (and the rest of him being Better Than You) is because he's the rightful king and that's just how kings work in Arda.

You could crowbar him into a 5e build with a Ranger or Paladin or Fighter - just give him Survival and Medicine proficiency and a disgustingly overtuned statline at first level, pick up Inspiring Leader early and focus the rest of his character progression on mundane combat abilities.

[Unoriginal]

Aragorn does not at any point use anything that would be considered magic in D&D. His herblore (and the rest of him being Better Than You) is because he's the rightful king and that's just how kings work in Arda.

Aragorn does use magic as it is in Arda, aka authority = power = authority.


Aragorn threw back his cloak. The elven-sheath glittered as he grasped it, and the bright blade of Andúril shone like a sudden flame as he swept it out. 'Elendil!' he cried. 'I am Aragorn son of Arathorn and am called Elessar, the Elfstone, Dúnadan, the heir of Isildur Elendil's son of Gondor. Here is the Sword that was Broken and is forged again! Will you aid me or thwart me? Choose swiftly!'

Gimli and Legolas looked at their companion in amazement, for they had not seen him in this mood before. He seemed to have grown in stature while Éomer had shrunk; and in his living face they caught a brief vision of the power and majesty of the kings of stone. For a moment it seemed to the eyes of Legolas that a white flame flickered on the brows of Aragorn like a shining crown.

Éomer stepped back and a look of awe was in his face. He cast down his proud eyes. 'These are indeed strange days,' he muttered. 'Dreams and legends spring to life out of the grass.

LotR the Two Towers, Book III, chapter 2.

[Rukelnikov]

Both are Rangers, although it's true Minsc is also a Barbarian.

Notably, Minsc's statblock has this gem:

I didn't know 5e released their version of Minsc. Checking it I got the sad feeling that he's completed the full flanderization process :(

Here's the original Minsc for anyone interested:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Minsc_Character_Sheet_from_Cameron_Tofer_pen%26pap er_game.jpg

[Spiritchaser]

If you want a more mundane Ranger, try the scout fighter UA.

It’s a great option that deserved to be formalized. Sure it tromped on the rangers conceptual space, but as a non caster it is mechanically so different that we should excuse it.

For a more skilled versatile build a few levels of rogue of your choice plus that UA scout fighter is excellent as well (maybe better)

Edit: I think this is the one
https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/04_UA_Classics_Revisited.pdf

No it’s not echo knight or rune knight level power, but in a skill critical campaign it can be excellent in its own way.

[Aalbatr0ss]

Aragorn does not at any point use anything that would be considered magic in D&D. His herblore (and the rest of him being Better Than You) is because he's the rightful king and that's just how kings work in Arda.

.

Very true. I was standing in some of his wondrous feats for “magic” because magic isn’t defined in those stories the way it is in D&D. I was thinking of calling on the army of the dead to fulfill their whatever as “magic-like”.

[Unoriginal]

I didn't know 5e released their version of Minsc. Checking it I got the sad feeling that he's completed the full flanderization process :(

I don't see how his statblock shows he got flanderized or not.

Notably his statblock comes from a book Minsc wrote in-universe, which I'm pretty sure isn't something Flanderized!Minsc would be characterized as doing.

[Aalbatr0ss]

Aragorn, son of Arathorn Paladin/Fighter with bonus skills
Drizzt Do'Urden Dex fighter with some skill feats?
Minsc He's totally a barbarian. The Tasha's bonus Nature-related skills complete this.

For Drizzt they just need a new feat called “feint within a feint within a feint within a feint within a feint”. He solved every problem with recursive feinting.

[Rukelnikov]

I don't see how his statblock shows he got flanderized or not.

Notably his statblock comes from a book Minsc wrote in-universe, which I'm pretty sure isn't something Flanderized!Minsc would be characterized as doing.

Well, in the original game he was a bit weird, like he hit his head hard as a kid or something, but he was still someone who could be taken seriously more often than not, ditto in the second game where he had his arc of having failed as a bodyguard to his witch and had pause to ask Aerie to let him be her bodyguard because he felt insecure of himself having failed Dynaheir.

That charsheet gives the impresion of a comedic relief character.

[Pooky the Imp]

I suppose it depends what you think a Ranger is or should be.

After all, spells (i.e. actual magic) have been a part of their design since at least AD&D.

What's more, especially with the removal of 'Ex', 'Su' and 'Sp' tags, the lines between what is strictly magical and what isn't have blurred quite a bit.

As for Beast Master, it's perhaps a shame that the beast is summoned, rather than a 'real' beast that's been empowered by your bond with it or something like that. However, it's not as if you couldn't just refluff that part if you wanted to.

There's also the persistent issue of overlap. You could scale back the magical aspects of the ranger but the more you do that the closer you'd likely get to a fighter or barbarian, and the question of whether ranger should just be a fighter subclass.



I didn't know 5e released their version of Minsc. Checking it I got the sad feeling that he's completed the full flanderization process :(

Here's the original Minsc for anyone interested:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Minsc_Character_Sheet_from_Cameron_Tofer_pen%26pap er_game.jpg

It's weird seeing Minsc with Int10. :smalltongue:


Also, not related to the point you were making, but it's interesting seeing the extra details the older character sheets used to have (family, race/clan, religion, status, siblings etc.). Seems a shame so much of that is missing now.

[Unoriginal]

That charsheet gives the impresion of a comedic relief character.

This is what I don't get.

He's a mighty melee combatant with skills, an animal companion, and rage. Sure his animal companion is a miniature giant space hamster and his favored foe is evil, but I don't see how that inherently makes him more of a flanderized comic relief than his video game appearances.

[Sigreid]

Just a note, as long as there has been a ranger in D&D, the ranger has been a magical woodsman.

[Rukelnikov]

This is what I don't get.

He's a mighty melee combatant with skills, an animal companion, and rage. Sure his animal companion is a miniature giant space hamster and his favored foe is evil, but I don't see how that inherently makes him more of a flanderized comic relief than his video game appearances.

Hmm, maybe the one I found is not the one you are talking about, since it doesn't mention rage.

This is the one I'm talking about:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DIXO_8GUwAEvfUx.jpg

The way his features are written... are jolly to a fault, like his jollyness is the only thing remaining, but maybe its just me.

EDIT: Also, rereading the sheet, I just realized those stats can't be right, he attacks at +6 when he should be attacking at +7, and his fighting style doesn't seem to be factored in "he does +2 with his sword" but its still listed as +6 att/+4 dam (the mistakes have nothing to do with my perceived flanderization, just found it weird they would make such mistakes)


It's weird seeing Minsc with Int10. :smalltongue:

I had a similar reaction the first time I saw that sheet coming from Baldur's Gate, all his mental stats were way higher than expected!


Also, not related to the point you were making, but it's interesting seeing the extra details the older character sheets used to have (family, race/clan, religion, status, siblings etc.). Seems a shame so much of that is missing now.

I did like having those, even when they were left unfilled half the time or more, of course one can just add those details in the back of the sheet, but having them written there made you think about those things more.

[Sigreid]

This is what I don't get.

He's a mighty melee combatant with skills, an animal companion, and rage. Sure his animal companion is a miniature giant space hamster and his favored foe is evil, but I don't see how that inherently makes him more of a flanderized comic relief than his video game appearances.

When I played Baulder's Gate back in the day, he was clearly meant to be both a useful fighting character and comic relief. I mean, described as having taken too many hits to the head and believing he has the only miniature giant galactic space hamster?

[RogueJK]

Hmm, maybe the one I found is not the one you are talking about, since it doesn't mention rage.

This is the one I'm talking about:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DIXO_8GUwAEvfUx.jpg


There was a NPC statblock version released in "Misnc and Boo's Journal of Villainy", which has a Berserker Fury rage ability.

While NPCs don't necessarily follow the same rules as PCs, it seems like in this version he's a Berserker Barbarian rather than a Ranger, based on a complete lack of spells or any Ranger abilities but access to things like Reckless Attack, STR/CON saving throw proficiency, and a Berserker Fury rage effect that mimics the standard Barbarian rage while also removing the Charmed/Frightened condition like the Berserker Barbarian's Mindless Fury ability.

Minsc (and Boo!)
Medium humanoid (human), neutral good
Armor Class. 13 (studded leather)
Hit Points. 136 (16d8 + 64)
Speed. 30 ft.
STR 20 (+5)
DEX 12 (+1)
CON 18 (+4)
INT 10 (+0)
WIS 10 (+0)
CHA 10 (+0)
Saving Throws Str +9, Con +8
Skills Athletics +9, Perception +4, Survival +8
Senses passive Perception 14
Languages Common, Sylvan
Challenge 10 (5,900 XP)

Reckless.
At the start of his turn, Minsc can gain advantage on all melee weapon attack rolls during that turn, but attack rolls against him have advantage until the start of his next turn.

Favored Enemy.
Minsc’s favored enemy is evil. When he hits an evil creature with a melee attack he deals an additional 1d6 slashing damage.

Boo, The Miniature Giant Space Hamster.
Boo is Minsc’s animal companion. Boo is a miniature giant space hamster and has the statistics of a rat.

Go for the eyes Boo.
As a bonus action, Minsc can talk to Boo and gain the inspiration to go into a berserker fury. While in this berserking fury Minsc gains the following advantages:
• Minsc has advantage on Strength checks and Strength saving throws.
• Minsc gains a +4 bonus to the damage rolls when using a melee weapon.
• Minsc has resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage.
• Minsc can make a single melee weapon attack as a bonus action on each of his turns.
• Minsc can’t be charmed or frightened while raging. If Minsc is charmed or frightened when he enters his berserking fury, the effect is suspended for the duration of the rage
• If Minsc drops to 0 hit points while in a berserking fury and doesn’t die outright, he can make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw. If he succeeds, he drops to 1 hit point instead. Each time he uses this feature after the first, the DC increases by 5. After 24 hours, the DC resets to 10.

Actions
Multiattack: Minsc makes two melee attacks.
Great Sword. Melee Weapon Attack: +9 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 12 (2d6 + 5) slashing damage

Reactions
Run, Boo, run!: If Boo take damage, Minsc can choose to take the damage instead.

[LordShade]

Drizzt's original 2e stats had him as a very illegal build. Level 18 fighter dual-classed to an unknown class that got him thief skills, then dual-classed to a level 15 ranger. In 2e, nonhumans were not allowed to dual-class, and dualing between two classes within the same group (e.g. fighter to ranger) was also illegal.

I also don't recall him ever using ranger spells in the early books. Never read the later books so I don't know.

[Psyren]

But it seems like the woodsman who is good with the environment is dead, replaced by a Druid-by-another-name.

...Why? Because ranger players no longer want to take the class feature that says you can spend a full minute caking yourself in mud and **** to hide from things anymore, when they can just turn invisible as an action instead?

My response to that is: things you can feasibly accomplish just with an ability check, should be the province of ability checks - especially when those things rely on the DM to place external interactables in the world (like mud and... poop) to function. Class features meanwhile should be geared towards accomplishing things that ability checks can't, and they should be as broadly applicable/world-agnostic as possible. When class features do interact with ability checks, they should be to provide impactful bonuses - ideally via mechanics like Expertise or Reliable, or free proficiencies in skills or tools that are iconic to the class so you can branch out in other ways.

Put another way - ANYBODY should be able to rub gunk all over themselves to increase their odds of hiding, not just rangers. Just like ANYBODY should be able to strip an owlbear carcass and use its pointier bones, not just Lizardfolk. Whether you make that Nature or Survival, it should be a check, not a feature.


Mundane features have been replaced by magical ones, or even more egregiously by spells.
For example consider the Beastmaster: You no longer bond in any way with animals via training or class abilities, you instead gain spells that do that for you. Or you summon a "primal beast" spirit... thing...? that you magically summon into existence and is a "beast" in name only.

This is another example. Befriending an existing animal should be something anybody can do. How many stories are there about bards who befriend animals by singing? Only every Disney princess ever. A true Primal Companion, whose power is near that of a full party member should function differenly/be magical.



Aragorn, son of Arathorn
Drizzt Do'Urden
Dove Falconhand
Minsc
etc

Basically none of these look anything like the Ranger class of today. Maybe Hunters, all of them?

Or am I crazy?

Others have covered these in more detail than I can (I am a casual LOTR fan at best, and I have no idea who Dove Falconhand is) but I'll second the comments that Minsc would most likely have been a barbarian if he had been conceived in 3e. When they made Minsc, Barbarian either didn't exist at all or was in such an out-of-the-way source that the BG developers couldn't or didn't think to use it, but that's definitely what they were going for. But yes, you can easily build both Aragorn and Drizz't with ranger levels, though I suspect they'd both be multiclass and well above standard PC point buy.

[Sorinth]

What this highlights to me is that names are also an in world thing and basically anybody can call themselves anything. A fighter with the Outlander background can easily call themselves a ranger as can a Scout Rogue. You don't need 3 levels of Rogue and select the Thief subclass to be a thief.

Every edition I can remember had the Ranger class as much more magical then the fictional rangers like Drizzt, Aragorn, etc... So I don't think they broke or changed anything (Beyond fixing some power/balance issues).

[Willie the Duck]

No incarnation of the Ranger in any edition of D&D has ever been a good fit for Aragorn; being able to track stuff is about as close as it has ever gotten.

Just a note, as long as there has been a ranger in D&D, the ranger has been a magical woodsman.
I'm surprised that Korvin didn't bring it up. The D&D ranger started in oD&D in The Strategic Review Vol. 1, #2 (write up by Joe Fischer). They are as follows:

Prerequisites of Int&Wis 12+, Con 15+
Str as prime requisite.
Needed to stay lawful or lose all special abilities.
They started with 2 hit dice at fist level (I believe this also meant they fought as a 2nd level fighter, given the alternative combat system, but I'll have to refresh my memory when I have it nearby).
From level 1-8, got 4 xp for every 3 earned! (talk about rewarding good character-creation fortune with additional benefit)
Started gaining spells at level 8, alternating cleric and then magic user (this was before druids, btw). Exactly why they got those spells is unclear, but it likely was a combination of Aragorn's Arda, his ability to use the palantir (also got ability to use devices which deal with Clairvoyance, Clairaudience, ESP, Telepathy, Telekenesis, and Teleportation, including scrolls), and his herb lore* (also able to employ magic items which heal or cure disease, including scroll).
Have a tracking ability (complex in-dungeon rules, straight 90%-10%/day since passed by for outdoors).
They may own only that which they can carry with them, and excess treasure or goods must be donated to a worthy cause.
They may not hire any men-at-arms or other servants or aides of any kind whatsoever.
Only two of the class may operate together.

*hard to do at the time, without a skill system**.
**yes, I know, it was the TSR-era and they actually chose not to make another subsystem!
As one can see, it's... clearly modelled on Aragorn in the broadest strokes (it is emulating his exact schtick more than anyone else in particular), while at the same time not what most people would intuitively jump to if they were going to make Aragorn starting with the oD&D rules (much less modern ones). And yes, the magic was there from day one.

I don't think anyone would disagree that, mechanically speaking, Tasha's basically fixed what was still disappointing about the Ranger to a very large degree.
But it seems like the woodsman who is good with the environment is dead, replaced by a Druid-by-another-name.
For reasons mentioned above, I don't think it was there before, excepting in optional material like the various martial ranger UAs and the scout class in 3e/ the 5e rogue archetype, etc.

Mundane features have been replaced by magical ones, or even more egregiously by spells.
For example consider the Beastmaster: You no longer bond in any way with animals via training or class abilities, you instead gain spells that do that for you. Or you summon a "primal beast" spirit... thing...? that you magically summon into existence and is a "beast" in name only.
Aragorn, son of Arathorn
Drizzt Do'Urden
Dove Falconhand
Minsc
etc
Basically none of these look anything like the Ranger class of today. Maybe Hunters, all of them?
There are a lot of shortcuts that D&D/5e takes. One of the more recent is that movement away from a specific allies (animal companion, familiar) and towards a spirit which takes an animal form. My hunch is that this is so players who consider their animal companion an expendable resource and those that consider it a character's pet are on a level playing field (previously the 'it's a pet' crowd would have to be more conservative in using them in combat. I don't know if I think it is a good implementation (you could also bring back a cost for replacement with real weight, and tip the balance towards 'everyone is cautious with their creatures'), but I understand the logic.

Or am I crazy?
You're definitely not crazy. You do seem to have a very specific axe to grind with the way 5e does certain things; seem sometimes to be trying to pin things specifically to 5e which have existed in the game 1-40 years* previous to 5e coming out; and sometimes trying to shoehorn the general topic into specific situations or features like Monks or Rangers where discussing the general topics themselves would seem to me to be easier/have a better opportunity for clarity. As I said, your point doesn't seem crazy -- it's pretty much a combination of topics that keep getting brought up in 5e, D&D, and RPG discussions all the time: D&D uses spells whenever it wants to do anything (mechanically) complex; RPGs in general (and D&D specifically) tend to treat spells and mundane ways of solving things differently (often with deference to spells and magic); D&D keeps adding classes/5e keeps adding subclasses, and most of them are magical (leaving non-magical fighter, rogue, and barbarian archetypes a shrinking proportion of game options); D&D is inconsistent with non-spell applications of the concept of 'magic'; D&D in general doesn't have a firm grasp of how 'realistic'/'cinematic'/'epic' it thinks high-level characters (especially high-level non-casters or non-'magical' characters) ought to be/represent. None of these are irrational issues or things to want to discuss. It's just a little... hesitancy-inducing to have these threads where I don't necessarily think the conversation is really just about rangers. Why not make a general thread about your issues with the way 5e does magic/ represents fictional archetypes?
*43 if you include Chainmail.

[Rukelnikov]

snip


Thanks, I was unaware of that books existance, just checked it, and that rendition of minsc is awesome.

[RogueJK]

Thanks, I was unaware of that books existance, just checked it, and that rendition of minsc is awesome.

If you wanted to replicate that NPC version as a PC, it'd look something like this:

Minsc (and Boo)
Variant Human
Berserker Barbarian 12
Outlander Background
STR 15+1
DEX 12
CON 15+1
INT 9
WIS 10
CHA 10

Racial Skill: Intimidation
Barbarian Skills: Perception, Animal Handling
Outlander Background Skills: Athletics, Survival
Languages: Common, Sylvan

1st level Feat: Butt-Kicking for Goodness*
4th level ASI: +2 STR (18)
8th level ASI: +2 CON (18)
12th level ASI: +2 STR (20)

*Butt-Kicking for Goodness (Custom Feat)
-Grants a loyal animal companion, which must be a CR 0 Tiny Beast
-If your animal companion is within 5' when it takes damage, you can use your Reaction to choose to take the damage instead.
-If your animal companion is within 5' when you hit with a melee attack against a creature of Evil alignment, you deal an additional +1d6 damage of the weapon's type

[Snails]

...these threads where I don't necessarily think the conversation is really just about rangers. Why not make a general thread about your issues with the way 5e does magic/ represents fictional archetypes?

That is a very good point. These issues with Rangers are hardly just about Rangers. I could make the very same arguments about Paladins. The mechanical details of the Paladin are very wrong when compared to certain source material, but we accept the class because it has a niche with a D&D party that works well enough.

[Rukelnikov]

If you wanted to replicate that NPC version as a PC, it'd look something like this:

Minsc (and Boo)
Variant Human
Berserker Barbarian 12
STR 15+1
DEX 12
CON 15+1
INT 9
WIS 10
CHA 10

1st level Feat: Butt-Kicking for Goodness*
4th level ASI: +2 STR
8th level ASI: +2 CON
12th level ASI: +2 STR

Racial Skill: Intimidation
Barbarian Skills: Perception, Animal Handling
Outlander Background Skills: Athletics, Survival

*Butt-Kicking for Goodness (Custom Feat)
-Grants an animal companion, which must be a CR 0 Tiny Beast
-If animal companion takes damage, you can use your Reaction to choose to take the damage instead.
-If you animal companion is within 5' while Raging, your Rage damage is increased by +2
-If your animal companion is within 5' when you hit with a melee attack against a creature of Evil alignment, you deal an additional +1d6 damage

Yeah, that works, though I don't think the "-If you animal companion is within 5' while Raging, your Rage damage is increased by +2" bullet is necessary, as a lvl 12 he would have +3, which is 1 less than in those NPC stats, but w/e.

This made me realize how silly it is that there's no feat to gain an animal companion, the "run boo run" feature shows they can get ingenious enough to make it work even for noncombatant CR0 creatures.

[Dienekes]

Aragorn, son of Arathorn
Drizzt Do'Urden
Dove Falconhand
Minsc
etc

Basically none of these look anything like the Ranger class of today. Maybe Hunters, all of them?

Or am I crazy?

Honestly, if I wanted to play most of those characters, I’d multiclass Fighter/Rogue and take the Outlander background. And I would have done this at 5es release, so not much has changed with the fix.

The Ranger has lost its way, basically since it’s inception. It’s a fairly early class in 1es history. I think just after Thief. And the designers have admitted, they had difficulty adding the things Aragorn does in LotR to the system so they just decided to give the Ranger class spells instead. And since then, Rangers have just gotten more magical and away from their roots.

Like, Aragorn only ever casts one spell. And honestly, it’s ambiguous if he was even casting a spell or is just better at medicine than everyone else and the onlookers who have no idea what he’s doing just assume it’s elven magic. Tolkien does that from time to time.

So, the Ranger class has pretty much always been a poor reflection of the characters it’s trying to represent. I think 5e is just embracing it.

Remember, modern D&D in general, and 5e in particular, aren’t really about reflecting outside fiction anymore. They’re about trying to emulate itself. Create some theoretical perfect version of D&D. Rangers are magic. They have been in every edition except 4e.

[paladinn]

I maintain that Aragorn was not a spellcaster by any stretch. His abilities are much better explained by virtue of his life as a ranger, his childhood among elves and his Numenorian heritage.

As he was the inspiration for the 0e ranger class, I believe the class was given MU spells because of the ability to use a palantir (which was limited to mages back in the day). It was also given cleric (not druid) spells because there Was no druid class at the time, and because of Aragorn's healing abilities (in Return of the King) and because he was pretty good at fighting the Nazgul. By the end of Return of the King, I would say Aragorn had gone full paladin, likely when he fully accepted his kingly destiny.

My personal favorite rendition of both the paladin and the ranger now are in Castles & Crusades. Both are spell-less, both are very much their own "thing", and both are true to the fiction, such as it is.

I recently did a version of a "ranger" as a fighter subclass using the features of the hunter. Since the 5e original ranger features sucked pretty badly (including favored enemy), I didn't incorporate any. The fighter core abilities would make for a better "ranger", IMO. But tracking and animal handling are skills, and I think favored Foe might be worth grafting back in.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?643497-Ranger-Champion-Alternative

[ZRN]

When they were designing 5e, they could've made a mundane ranger (a la 4e) or a "mystical" but spell-less ranger (sort of like the monk), or even at the very least used the simplified warlock spell system where you don't have to worry about different level slots, but they decided to stick with a demi-caster, pseudo-Vancian spell slots and all. Once you've made that leap, and you're already stuck with spellcasting as a core feature, it's actually simplifying the class to make as many other features as possible into spells.

[Psyren]

I'm fine with Rangers casting spells. They should be prepared casters with access to their whole list (flexibility and utility are important for explorers) but that's the only change I'd make.



There are a lot of shortcuts that D&D/5e takes. One of the more recent is that movement away from a specific allies (animal companion, familiar) and towards a spirit which takes an animal form. My hunch is that this is so players who consider their animal companion an expendable resource and those that consider it a character's pet are on a level playing field (previously the 'it's a pet' crowd would have to be more conservative in using them in combat. I don't know if I think it is a good implementation (you could also bring back a cost for replacement with real weight, and tip the balance towards 'everyone is cautious with their creatures'), but I understand the logic.

I don't think the companion being a spirit means you automatically have to be less attached to it or less concerned for its safety/pain. Those are roleplay, possibly even alignment considerations that should be independent of class mechanics. But you're correct that for those who don't want to consider those aspects of their character as morality indicators, making the companion be a spirit does provide a plausible degree of separation/cover for tactical actions like sending it into danger to cover your escape.

For me though, the spirit provides useful answers/justifications for more fundamental questions, such as:

1) Is my companion the same creature (experiences, memories, relationships etc) when it changes forms? A familiar is, so this change for the BM Ranger would bring them more in line with that. If I'm entering an aquatic stretch of the campaign for example, I don't necessarily want a brand new creature that has none of the ties to the party or the NPCs we've encountered that mine does. If my falcon loves perching near the bard while she sings or hates the recurring evil lich that burned it, I'd want those bonds to carry over when it's a dolphin.

2) How does my beast end up scaling so much more/becoming more powerful than others of its kind? I'd have wanted its stats to improve certainly, but at the very least it's proficient with every check it's allowed to make, which means it gets better at basically everything in ways that other animals don't. Being a spirit helps to explain that in-universe.

[LibraryOgre]

I didn't know 5e released their version of Minsc. Checking it I got the sad feeling that he's completed the full flanderization process :(

Here's the original Minsc for anyone interested:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Minsc_Character_Sheet_from_Cameron_Tofer_pen%26pap er_game.jpg

A Mul and a Feralan? From Gulg? Woof. They changed him a bit to fit him in the Realms.

And if he's a Mul, he needs to stop complaining that he needs to rest after only 30 hours on the road. :smallbiggrin:

[Sigreid]

I maintain that Aragorn was not a spellcaster by any stretch. His abilities are much better explained by virtue of his life as a ranger, his childhood among elves and his Numenorian heritage.

As he was the inspiration for the 0e ranger class, I believe the class was given MU spells because of the ability to use a palantir (which was limited to mages back in the day). It was also given cleric (not druid) spells because there Was no druid class at the time, and because of Aragorn's healing abilities (in Return of the King) and because he was pretty good at fighting the Nazgul. By the end of Return of the King, I would say Aragorn had gone full paladin, likely when he fully accepted his kingly destiny.

My personal favorite rendition of both the paladin and the ranger now are in Castles & Crusades. Both are spell-less, both are very much their own "thing", and both are true to the fiction, such as it is.

I recently did a version of a "ranger" as a fighter subclass using the features of the hunter. Since the 5e original ranger features sucked pretty badly (including favored enemy), I didn't incorporate any. The fighter core abilities would make for a better "ranger", IMO. But tracking and animal handling are skills, and I think favored Foe might be worth grafting back in.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?643497-Ranger-Champion-Alternative

Even Gandalf isn't a spellcaster by D&D standards.

[Psyren]

Even Gandalf isn't a spellcaster by D&D standards.

Insofar as Tolkien doesn't really use "spells" this is correct, but a reasonable translation or approximation of Tolkien magic to D&D probably would involve making it fit into a spellcasting framework of some kind, even something esoteric like word magic or something. Especially if you're trying to translate to 5e where there aren't really any other magic subsystems besides spellcasting and just listing out preternatural abilities as class features. (Which... 5e class doesn't really fit well with LotR either, see the Ranger thread where there's still a bunch of debate around what the heck Aragorn's 5e "build" would actually be.)

[Sigreid]

Insofar as Tolkien doesn't really use "spells" this is correct, but a reasonable translation or approximation of Tolkien magic to D&D probably would involve making it fit into a spellcasting framework of some kind, even something esoteric like word magic or something. Especially if you're trying to translate to 5e where there aren't really any other magic subsystems besides spellcasting and just listing out preternatural abilities as class features. (Which... 5e class doesn't really fit well with LotR either, see the Ranger thread where there's still a bunch of debate around what the heck Aragorn's 5e "build" would actually be.)

That's kind of what I was getting at. While D&D was heavily influenced by the atmosphere of LoTR, it was also influenced by other works and gamified. Trying to fit most characters, even ones from D&D novels, into D&D is a square peg - round hole situation.

[paladinn]

Insofar as Tolkien doesn't really use "spells" this is correct, but a reasonable translation or approximation of Tolkien magic to D&D probably would involve making it fit into a spellcasting framework of some kind, even something esoteric like word magic or something. Especially if you're trying to translate to 5e where there aren't really any other magic subsystems besides spellcasting and just listing out preternatural abilities as class features. (Which... 5e class doesn't really fit well with LotR either, see the Ranger thread where there's still a bunch of debate around what the heck Aragorn's 5e "build" would actually be.)

I saw a treatment once of Gandalf as a 4e Invoker, which actually kind of fits (as much as I hate 4e). It's sort of a divine wizard.

For Aragorn, I tend to think my fighter/hunter/ranger works pretty well :)

[Sigreid]

I saw a treatment once of Gandalf as a 4e Invoker, which actually kind of fits (as much as I hate 4e). It's sort of a divine wizard.

For Aragorn, I tend to think my fighter/hunter/ranger works pretty well :)

I never hated 4e. It wasn't my game, but I wasn't offended that it existed or anything. I still had 1-3e to amuse myself with.

[GooeyChewie]

Even Gandalf isn't a spellcaster by D&D standards.

Insofar as Tolkien doesn't really use "spells" this is correct, but a reasonable translation or approximation of Tolkien magic to D&D probably would involve making it fit into a spellcasting framework of some kind, even something esoteric like word magic or something. Especially if you're trying to translate to 5e where there aren't really any other magic subsystems besides spellcasting and just listing out preternatural abilities as class features. (Which... 5e class doesn't really fit well with LotR either, see the Ranger thread where there's still a bunch of debate around what the heck Aragorn's 5e "build" would actually be.)

I think Eldritch Knight fighter suits him fairly well. It would explain why he is proficient with Glamdring, and many of his spells seem like they would be abjuration or evocation, with Shield and Shatter and a few different fire spells. It's not the only possible Gandalf build, but I think it fits him better than Wizard or Sorcerer.

[Unoriginal]

Insofar as Tolkien doesn't really use "spells" this is correct

Well, not Vancian spells, but...


'I do not know,' answered Gandalf. `But I found myself suddenly faced by something that I have not met before. I could think of nothing to do but to try and put a shutting-spell on the door. I know many; but to do things of that kind rightly requires time, and even then the door can be broken by strength.

`As I stood there I could hear orc-voices on the other side: at any moment I thought they would burst it open. I could not hear what was said; they seemed to be talking in their own hideous language. All I caught was ghâsh; that is "fire". Then something came into the chamber - I felt it through the door, and the orcs themselves were afraid and fell silent. It laid hold of the iron ring, and then it perceived me and my spell.

'What it was I cannot guess, but I have never felt such a challenge. The counter-spell was terrible. It nearly broke me. For an instant the door left my control and began to open! I had to speak a word of Command. That proved too great a strain. The door burst in pieces. Something dark as a cloud was blocking out all the light inside, and I was thrown backwards down the stairs. All the wall gave way, and the roof of the chamber as well, I think.

LotR Fellowship of the Ring, Book II, chapter 5.

[strangebloke]

Ranger is at this point a bucket of mechanics, some of which are wonky and no long make much sense in 5e, most notably the legacy of the 'favored foe' but all the rest, the nature casting, exploration boosts, and martial side function pretty well and allow for a unique playstyle. I won't say that the ranger is the best-designed class, but its mechanically pretty sound at this point. I've played one quite a bit in t2 and have had really good results overall.

The main problem is, there isn't a really strong thematic concept to tie it all together. Barbarians have rage, rogues have sneak attack, paladins have auras and smite, monks have ki, fighters have more attacks, artficers have infusions, sorcerers have metamagic... rangers don't have anything specific like that. Formerly their core feature was favored land/foe, but this is obviously no long acceptable. There are even some pretty basic thematic misses in other areas of their kit, like being known casters rather than prepared casters despite "hunting" implying a great degree more preparation than the 'spontaneous' casting they have.

Other bits, like Primeval Awareness, fit very well with their thematics since the best use case is to cast just outside of a camp/enemy area and scouting out the enemy capability... but abilities like this are far too wonky to be practical.

IMO, in a hypothetical future DND edition, this thematic lynchpin would be the main thing you would need to solve.

My version of this would be to give them "tactics" that they can prepare each morning, with the fiction being that they're retraining themselves and/or preparing their gear in a specific style of fighting for the next day. So today maybe you'll prepare "colossus slayer tactics," and the next day you'll prepare "horde breaker" tactics, etc. Allow them to be the best at whatever the party needs them to be for that day.

[Psyren]

I think Eldritch Knight fighter suits him fairly well. It would explain why he is proficient with Glamdring, and many of his spells seem like they would be abjuration or evocation, with Shield and Shatter and a few different fire spells. It's not the only possible Gandalf build, but I think it fits him better than Wizard or Sorcerer.

For a particularly low-magic setting (which arguably Middle-Earth is, even if it's high-fantasy), I could see a more limited spellcaster like an EK as representing the more powerful magic users like the wizards and elves.


Well, not Vancian spells, but...



LotR Fellowship of the Ring, Book II, chapter 5.

Thanks for the cite!

[LibraryOgre]

I think the central problem is, as some folks have pointed out, that ranger doesn't really have a strong concept beyond, well, "Racist fighter", which 3e turned into "racist half-caster fighter".

In 1e, they were fighters who got a bonus to kill most humanoids.
In 2e, they picked one particular humanoid to hate above all other things.
In 3.x, they picked a slowly growing list of things that they hated.
In 4e, they at least picked one target at a time, and it wasn't race-related.
5e? Less hate, lots of knowledge.

When you get down to it, what's the core of the ranger?

[paladinn]

I think the central problem is, as some folks have pointed out, that ranger doesn't really have a strong concept beyond, well, "Racist fighter", which 3e turned into "racist half-caster fighter".

In 1e, they were fighters who got a bonus to kill most humanoids.
In 2e, they picked one particular humanoid to hate above all other things.
In 3.x, they picked a slowly growing list of things that they hated.
In 4e, they at least picked one target at a time, and it wasn't race-related.
5e? Less hate, lots of knowledge.

When you get down to it, what's the core of the ranger?

I think the term "racist" doesn't quite apply.

I've read that rangers guard the "civilized" world against dangers from the Un-civilized wilderness, whether that involves being a guide for those venturing forth or defending against encroaching "monsters." Humanoids like goblins, orcs, giants, etc. aren't so much "other races" as they are "other species." If one was traveling through a forest and was surrounded by a pack of wolves, would it be "racist" to defend against them?

The 3 distinguishing features of rangers of any edition seem to be stealth, tracking and specialized combat. How specialized is a matter of the edition and possibly the campaign. I lean toward the "giant-class"/humanoids as the "default" favored enemy; but if in a given campaign there Are no humanoids, a ranger could pick dragons, lycanthopes, undead or whatever. Baring in mind that logic dictates that the ranger will be stuck with the choice.

The other question involves spellcasting. Should a ranger get spells? If so, to what extent and what kind? Druid spells would make the most sense, or a subset of them for the ranger class; but the 0e ranger got cleric and mage spells. In BECMI, the closest thing to an official "ranger" was the forester, which was basically the human version of the elf fighter/mage. Personally I prefer to play-up the fighter role and not give spells, but that is just me.

[Kane0]

When you get down to it, what's the core of the ranger?

Hunter.
Rangers do not hide like the rogue, they seek and stalk.
Rangers are not brutal or direct like the barbarian, they are cunning and crafty.
Rangers do not revere nature like the druid, they use it as a tool.

I think the ranger comes closest to the jack of all trades, generic adventurer class (though you could also make an argument for the bard if you ignore their music shtick). It contains close to equivalent portions of all three of the fighting/skills/spells split and I think that gives off a 'dont know what it wants to be' vibe to many people. Of course certain features over the editions haven't really done the ranger any favors, especially the 'favourite prey' concept which has been improved and expanded upon elsewhere (eg Paladin's Smite Evil and Cleric's Turn Undead) but largely missed and/or bungled with the ranger.

/2cp

[Sorinth]

I think the central problem is, as some folks have pointed out, that ranger doesn't really have a strong concept beyond, well, "Racist fighter", which 3e turned into "racist half-caster fighter".

In 1e, they were fighters who got a bonus to kill most humanoids.
In 2e, they picked one particular humanoid to hate above all other things.
In 3.x, they picked a slowly growing list of things that they hated.
In 4e, they at least picked one target at a time, and it wasn't race-related.
5e? Less hate, lots of knowledge.

When you get down to it, what's the core of the ranger?

Not quite sure I would agree with that, I feel it was more the ranger fights this type of enemies so often they have developed particular skills that aid fighting them. Similar to how Gnomes and Dwarves used to get combat bonuses against certain enemies. Sure they "hate" them but it's a hate that's born of constant conflict and not really racism (Though it know doubt can be a fine line between the two).

As for the core of what the Ranger is, frankly I'm not sure it's any more vague then other classes. If you asked what's the core of a Fighter, it would probably would seem vague/unconvincing. From the PHB the ranger's core "A warrior who uses martial prowess and nature magic to combat threats on the edges of civilization." That seems like a decent enough concept, and I would say for many D&D games the threats on the edges of civilization is tilted towards hordes of rampaging monsters, and so the Ranger is tilted towards AoE.

My hope is moving forward they drop the whole favoured foe/enemy/type stuff and come up with the Ranger version of smite. The simplest being just like smite except the damage is less but does AoE, the more complex would be converting the classic ranger spells like Ensnaring Strike, Hail of Thorns, Lightining Arrow, etc... and turning them into class features kind of like the Arcane Archer (For the ranger they should work whether they are ranged/melee attacks).

[Kane0]

Not quite sure I would agree with that, I feel it was more the ranger fights this type of enemies so often they have developed particular skills that aid fighting them. Similar to how Gnomes and Dwarves used to get combat bonuses against certain enemies. Sure they "hate" them but it's a hate that's born of constant conflict and not really racism (Though it know doubt can be a fine line between the two).

As for the core of what the Ranger is, frankly I'm not sure it's any more vague then other classes. If you asked what's the core of a Fighter, it would probably would seem vague/unconvincing. From the PHB the ranger's core "A warrior who uses martial prowess and nature magic to combat threats on the edges of civilization." That seems like a decent enough concept, and I would say for many D&D games the threats on the edges of civilization is tilted towards hordes of rampaging monsters, and so the Ranger is tilted towards AoE.

My hope is moving forward they drop the whole favoured foe/enemy/type stuff and come up with the Ranger version of smite. The simplest being just like smite except the damage is less but does AoE, the more complex would be converting the classic ranger spells like Ensnaring Strike, Hail of Thorns, Lightining Arrow, etc... and turning them into class features kind of like the Arcane Archer (For the ranger they should work whether they are ranged/melee attacks).

AoE smite sounds fun, and I've always advocated for transplanting Arcane Archer over to a Ranger subclass.

[Rynjin]

Aragorn does use magic as it is in Arda, aka authority = power = authority.

Aragorn threw back his cloak. The elven-sheath glittered as he grasped it, and the bright blade of Andúril shone like a sudden flame as he swept it out. 'Elendil!' he cried. 'I am Aragorn son of Arathorn and am called Elessar, the Elfstone, Dúnadan, the heir of Isildur Elendil's son of Gondor. Here is the Sword that was Broken and is forged again! Will you aid me or thwart me? Choose swiftly!'

Gimli and Legolas looked at their companion in amazement, for they had not seen him in this mood before. He seemed to have grown in stature while Éomer had shrunk; and in his living face they caught a brief vision of the power and majesty of the kings of stone. For a moment it seemed to the eyes of Legolas that a white flame flickered on the brows of Aragorn like a shining crown.

Éomer stepped back and a look of awe was in his face. He cast down his proud eyes. 'These are indeed strange days,' he muttered. 'Dreams and legends spring to life out of the grass.

LotR the Two Towers, Book III, chapter 2.

I'm trying to look for the supposed "magic" in this quote and can't find it. This is just flowery prose to describe that Anduril is really shiny and Aragorn's confidence and majesty makes his opponent look tawdry by comparison.

[Dienekes]

I think the central problem is, as some folks have pointed out, that ranger doesn't really have a strong concept beyond, well, "Racist fighter", which 3e turned into "racist half-caster fighter".

In 1e, they were fighters who got a bonus to kill most humanoids.
In 2e, they picked one particular humanoid to hate above all other things.
In 3.x, they picked a slowly growing list of things that they hated.
In 4e, they at least picked one target at a time, and it wasn't race-related.
5e? Less hate, lots of knowledge.

When you get down to it, what's the core of the ranger?

Personally, whenever I try to figure out a way to make a Ranger inspired class, I always come down to trying to make a play pattern around aiming or planning in some way. Something that takes the time to do things perfectly.

A Rogue has a thousand little skill tricks they can use to fly by the seat of their pants.* A Fighter has the skill at arms to carry them through every situation.* A Barbarian is just too angry to die.*

But a Ranger is a survivalist. They take the time to lay their traps, observe the terrain, make certain they have their perfect shot lined up with wind currents and their targets movements.

Unfortunately, as far as I've been able to make. That kind of gameplay doesn't really work well with D&D, 5e in some cases more than some other editions. Having a class based around set up, or taking whole turns in the beginning of combat to be stronger later that don't directly affect the battlefield has proven difficult for me to balance.

Which often makes me go back to Ranger is a Fighter subclass with a wildlife/survivalist flourish. And replace the Ranger with a Beastmaster class or something.

*I should note this is how I see every class behaving in my mind's eye. It is not a particularly accurate representation of the classes as they currently exist.

[Sorinth]

Personally, whenever I try to figure out a way to make a Ranger inspired class, I always come down to trying to make a play pattern around aiming or planning in some way. Something that takes the time to do things perfectly.

A Rogue has a thousand little skill tricks they can use to fly by the seat of their pants.* A Fighter has the skill at arms to carry them through every situation.* A Barbarian is just too angry to die.*

But a Ranger is a survivalist. They take the time to lay their traps, observe the terrain, make certain they have their perfect shot lined up with wind currents and their targets movements.

Unfortunately, as far as I've been able to make. That kind of gameplay doesn't really work well with D&D, 5e in some cases more than some other editions. Having a class based around set up, or taking whole turns in the beginning of combat to be stronger later that don't directly affect the battlefield has proven difficult for me to balance.

Which often makes me go back to Ranger is a Fighter subclass with a wildlife/survivalist flourish. And replace the Ranger with a Beastmaster class or something.

*I should note this is how I see every class behaving in my mind's eye. It is not a particularly accurate representation of the classes as they currently exist.

Ignoring the jankiness of ranger spell casting, but doesn't Ensnaring Strike, Entangle, Fog Cloud, Pass Without Trace, Spike Growth, Plant Growth all fit that survivalist using terrain (Or in many cases manipulating) as part of an ambush style?

And both Snare and Cordon of Arrows are pretty decent spells for traps. I think the bigger problem there is that being a spells known instead of prepared means they don't get picked because most of the time they aren't that useful, but there are certainly times they can be really strong in the right situation. I know Cordon of Arrows doesn't get a lot of love, but the key is multiple casting so that you get multiple shots a round. Which is why it would really benefit from being a level 1 spell with only 2 arrows and then increase normally with spell level, that way the half caster can really setup a deadly ambush site since they have so many more spell slots to play with.

[Kane0]

Ignoring the jankiness of ranger spell casting, but doesn't Ensnaring Strike, Entangle, Fog Cloud, Pass Without Trace, Spike Growth, Plant Growth all fit that survivalist using terrain (Or in many cases manipulating) as part of an ambush style?

And both Snare and Cordon of Arrows are pretty decent spells for traps. I think the bigger problem there is that being a spells known instead of prepared means they don't get picked because most of the time they aren't that useful, but there are certainly times they can be really strong in the right situation. I know Cordon of Arrows doesn't get a lot of love, but the key is multiple casting so that you get multiple shots a round. Which is why it would really benefit from being a level 1 spell with only 2 arrows and then increase normally with spell level, that way the half caster can really setup a deadly ambush site since they have so many more spell slots to play with.

Sounds like a good fit for a variant of Primal Awareness that grant those instead of animal/tracking related spells.

[Sorinth]

Sounds like a good fit for a variant of Primal Awareness that grant those instead of animal/tracking related spells.

That would be one option for sure, though I'm not really sure why Rangers are spell known casters to begin with. Paladins are prepared so it's not a half-caster thing, the Ranger list is modeled after a prepared caster and has a fairly narrow theme to begin with. It's surely not a balance issue, so it's one of those things that seems like they maybe just wanted to differentiate Paladin's and Ranger's but then gave the stronger class the better spellcasting option.

[Psyren]

Guys, I'm pretty sure calling rangers "racist" was a meme/joke.


I'm trying to look for the supposed "magic" in this quote and can't find it. This is just flowery prose to describe that Anduril is really shiny and Aragorn's confidence and majesty makes his opponent look tawdry by comparison.

Flowery prose IS magic! Or so I'm told :smallbiggrin:

I agree though, as magic goes something you could accomplish with some fresh polish and an Intimidation check isn't all that impressive.


Hunter.
Rangers do not hide like the rogue, they seek and stalk.
Rangers are not brutal or direct like the barbarian, they are cunning and crafty.
Rangers do not revere nature like the druid, they use it as a tool.

I think the ranger comes closest to the jack of all trades, generic adventurer class (though you could also make an argument for the bard if you ignore their music shtick). It contains close to equivalent portions of all three of the fighting/skills/spells split and I think that gives off a 'dont know what it wants to be' vibe to many people. Of course certain features over the editions haven't really done the ranger any favors, especially the 'favourite prey' concept which has been improved and expanded upon elsewhere (eg Paladin's Smite Evil and Cleric's Turn Undead) but largely missed and/or bungled with the ranger.

/2cp

Almost. They're (conceptually) great at Combat and Exploration, but Social Interaction has nearly always been their achilles heel because their big theme has always been around being loners. Even an Urban Ranger has tended to be the gruff thief-taker or private investigator sort. Fey Wanderer is the exception of course.

[Kane0]

That would be one option for sure, though I'm not really sure why Rangers are spell known casters to begin with. Paladins are prepared so it's not a half-caster thing, the Ranger list is modeled after a prepared caster and has a fairly narrow theme to begin with. It's surely not a balance issue, so it's one of those things that seems like they maybe just wanted to differentiate Paladin's and Ranger's but then gave the stronger class the better spellcasting option.

Agreed all around.


Almost. They're (conceptually) great at Combat and Exploration, but Social Interaction has nearly always been their achilles heel because their big theme has always been around being loners. Even an Urban Ranger has tended to be the gruff thief-taker or private investigator sort. Fey Wanderer is the exception of course.

Yes Rangers don't get anything special for operating as a face, which come into why they're only part skillmonkey.

[Luccan]

That would be one option for sure, though I'm not really sure why Rangers are spell known casters to begin with. Paladins are prepared so it's not a half-caster thing, the Ranger list is modeled after a prepared caster and has a fairly narrow theme to begin with. It's surely not a balance issue, so it's one of those things that seems like they maybe just wanted to differentiate Paladin's and Ranger's but then gave the stronger class the better spellcasting option.

I can kind of get it, because if Rangers aren't the Druid version of a Paladin they don't have an inherent spiritual focus granting them their spells and they obviously don't have spell books. It makes it more like the Ranger has picked up some spell casting tricks relevant to their job, without receiving a spellcasting education or training in a mystical, spiritual practice.

I still hate it though. Imo, they should be prepared casters and the Natural Explorer Terrains should have granted bonus spells like on a Land Druid (probably fewer spells from each individually)

[Sorinth]

I can kind of get it, because if Rangers aren't the Druid version of a Paladin they don't have an inherent spiritual focus granting them their spells and they obviously don't have spell books. It makes it more like the Ranger has picked up some spell casting tricks relevant to their job, without receiving a spellcasting education or training in a mystical, spiritual practice.

I still hate it though. Imo, they should be prepared casters and the Natural Explorer Terrains should have granted bonus spells like on a Land Druid (probably fewer spells from each individually)

You can pretty much argue anything thought, it makes just as much sense that learning some spell casting tricks fits a prepared caster (With a curated spell list) quite well and that the Paladin who is just as likely to not have received any spellcasting education/training as the Ranger and is casting magic through some sort of force of personality linked to their oath fits the more limiting spells known type casting. When you think about it, all the Charisma casters are all spells known except the Paladin.

[LibraryOgre]

I think the term "racist" doesn't quite apply.


A 2e ranger had such a severe negative reaction to their "species enemy" that it was similar to going from an average charisma to a 4. A -4 to reaction rolls, because they held such great enmity towards them... the words "hated" and "enmity" are used in the description of the ability.

How do you drop 6 Charisma points just on MEETING someone?

3e rangers could only choose their own species if they were evil of alignment.

[Dienekes]

Ignoring the jankiness of ranger spell casting, but doesn't Ensnaring Strike, Entangle, Fog Cloud, Pass Without Trace, Spike Growth, Plant Growth all fit that survivalist using terrain (Or in many cases manipulating) as part of an ambush style?

If I wanted to use spells. Yes. I really don't though. When I cast Pass Without Trace, I don't feel like a talented survivalist scout leader. I feel like a guy who cast a spell to do all the work for me. Part of why I listed the martials when I made my comment.

But ignoring that personal bias, it honestly isn't the point I'm trying to get across. Can you play a control centered spell casting Ranger? Yeah. I guess, for bit. I don't think it scales up well, especially as Rangers then have to divide their ASIs between their physical and magical stats. But it's not really what I'd say the class is designed around. It's just something that it has some spells that can work for that desired play.

What I'm trying to get across is, I think good class design takes a roleplaying and a mechanical idea and fuses them together in a way that makes narrative sense. Ranger has a decent enough roleplay concept behind it. It doesn't really have a good mechanical focus. It just has some spells that you can kinda squint to get it to do a few different things, honestly, none of which I think they do particularly great compared to specialists who focus on it.

[tenshiakodo]

A Mul and a Feralan? From Gulg? Woof. They changed him a bit to fit him in the Realms.

And if he's a Mul, he needs to stop complaining that he needs to rest after only 30 hours on the road. :smallbiggrin:

Half-Dwarves do exist in the Realms, I've seen NPC stat blocks for them, but I don't think anything was definitively stated about them. I had a friend who wanted to play a Mul Paladin in our 4e Living Forgotten Realms campaign, and one of the DM's griped about it, so I pulled out my copy of Forgotten Realms adventures and showed him a "1/2 D" NPC stat block, and he relented.

[Sorinth]

If I wanted to use spells. Yes. I really don't though. When I cast Pass Without Trace, I don't feel like a talented survivalist scout leader. I feel like a guy who cast a spell to do all the work for me. Part of why I listed the martials when I made my comment.

But ignoring that personal bias, it honestly isn't the point I'm trying to get across. Can you play a control centered spell casting Ranger? Yeah. I guess, for bit. I don't think it scales up well, especially as Rangers then have to divide their ASIs between their physical and magical stats. But it's not really what I'd say the class is designed around. It's just something that it has some spells that can work for that desired play.

What I'm trying to get across is, I think good class design takes a roleplaying and a mechanical idea and fuses them together in a way that makes narrative sense. Ranger has a decent enough roleplay concept behind it. It doesn't really have a good mechanical focus. It just has some spells that you can kinda squint to get it to do a few different things, honestly, none of which I think they do particularly great compared to specialists who focus on it.

It's kind of funny, you don't want spells but also say the Ranger has a decent roleplay concept, when the PHB describes the Ranger as "A warrior who uses martial prowess and nature magic to combat threats on the edges of civilization." So I get everyone has a different opinion of what a class represents but using magic is very much a core concept of a Ranger.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying a control based spell casting Ranger is something that works well mechanically, but you had mentioned planning, and the ranger has a number of spells that you can use as part of implementing a plan. PWT is the perfect examples of something that allows/integral to having a plan work which is seems like it would fit your idea of the survivalist who likes to have and execute a plan, if you want to be a "talented survivalist scout leader" that doesn't use magic then maybe your idea of Ranger is actually Rogue-Scout and not what the PHB concept of a warrior who uses martial prowess and nature magic.

EDIT: And just to be clear I think there's very much still work to be done to in the fusing of RP and mechanics because yeah it's janky (Even if it's improved with Tasha's).

[Dienekes]

It's kind of funny, you don't want spells but also say the Ranger has a decent roleplay concept, when the PHB describes the Ranger as "A warrior who uses martial prowess and nature magic to combat threats on the edges of civilization." So I get everyone has a different opinion of what a class represents but using magic is very much a core concept of a Ranger.

A ranger, not the D&D Ranger class. The characters from the OPs list. Aragorn, Perrin, the Rangers of the Wall, Will Treaty, arguably Robin Hood.

I think there is enough there to make a class out of. It just isn’t anything like the 5e Ranger class.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying a control based spell casting Ranger is something that works well mechanically, but you had mentioned planning, and the ranger has a number of spells that you can use as part of implementing a plan. PWT is the perfect examples of something that allows/integral to having a plan work which is seems like it would fit your idea of the survivalist who likes to have and execute a plan, if you want to be a "talented survivalist scout leader" that doesn't use magic then maybe your idea of Ranger is actually Rogue-Scout and not what the PHB concept of a warrior who uses martial prowess and nature magic.

EDIT: And just to be clear I think there's very much still work to be done to in the fusing of RP and mechanics because yeah it's janky (Even if it's improved with Tasha's).

I think there is a difference between “you can play a class like that, sort of” and “this is the class’ mechanical identity.”

Barbarian, for whatever flaws the class has, actually has a pretty strong mechanical identity. You get angry, and then you hit things. You don’t use fancy techniques. You aren’t well trained as a warrior. Hell you don’t even get a Fighting Style. You get angry. And you hit things. You even hit them pretty hard. And because you’re an angry rage monster you are in everyone’s face getting hits and tanking hits.

Rangers, even accepting their spells, don’t really have that well defined playstyle. That thing that makes them stand out as unique and engaging on a mechanical level. They just have some spells that just do a smattering of weird things all not particularly well. Even their most obvious comparison, the Paladin, they have a very clear mechanical identity for what they’re trying to accomplish. I don’t think that’s there for a Ranger.

[strangebloke]

What would everyone think of think of something the like the following?

1st level: Foe Slaying Technique
You can spend an hour practicing special techniques to counter whatever challenges you expect to face. You pick one of the options below and gain the benefits described until your next long rest. Once you complete a long rest, you can prepare a different technique.

Horde-Breaker
Once on each of your turns when you make a weapon attack, you can make another attack with the same weapon against a different creature that is within 5 feet of the original target and within range of your weapon.

Colossus Slayer
Your tenacity can wear down the most potent foes. When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, the creature takes an extra 1d8 damage if it’s below its hit point maximum. You can deal this extra damage only once per turn.

Swift Tracker
Your walking speed increases by 5 feet. You and up to ten creatures accompanying you can move stealthily overland at full speed. You have advantage on wisdom(perception) and intellgence(investigation) checks made to track creatures or determine their type.

[more options]

Then at level 6 you could get a second set of disciplines to choose from, defensive ones like Steel Will or Multiattack Defense or Escape the Horde. Ideally it would really feel like you're this disciplined hunter who gains an advantage from having good information about what kind of enemy is over the next hill. "There's a dragon so I'll take steel will" kind of hours.

Loosely inspired by Monster Hunter which sort of has this "prepare for hunt" -> "hunt" flow that's really fun. And yes I know I'm just using the hunter features but it feels appropriate here.

[Kane0]

So, moving the Hunter subclass into the main class?

Edit: Sorry, with the option to change them around. Makes sense, but you would have to adjust the power of the class/subclasses around that change.

[strangebloke]

So, moving the Hunter subclass into the main class?

Edit: Sorry, with the option to change them around. Makes sense, but you would have to adjust the power of the class/subclasses around that change.

My feeling is that the hunter itself is like the battlemaster for fighter. A whole lot of customizability and power that is stuck behind a completely vanilla and flavorless subclass. IMO at least, every class should have a means of customizing themselves beyond generic system (fighting styles and skills) and subclass, and I'd further argue this is what makes warlock so appealing relative to most other 5e classes.

Personally I would replace the favored foe/terrain abilities from the base class with this, and then perhaps nerf some of the subclasses slightly. But not too much. Perhaps some of the subclass bonuses are reframed as unique disciplines only a horizon walker or monster slayer can get access to, and the subclasses give other benefits.

Rangers are imo one of the best 'martials' but they're also one of the worst casters. I think its pretty hard to argue that just giving rangers volley or whirlwind attack straight up without removing any other features would actually make rangers 'overpowered' in anyone's eyes. The above scheme needs a lot of work, but I really like the idea of preparing for the hunt.

[Witty Username]

In what world is Robing hood not a rogue?
Robin hood is a rogue, his name is the class.

[Sigreid]

In what world is Robing hood not a rogue?
Robin hood is a rogue, his name is the class.

Robinhood starts as a fighter and learns to be a rogue.

[Sorinth]

A ranger, not the D&D Ranger class. The characters from the OPs list. Aragorn, Perrin, the Rangers of the Wall, Will Treaty, arguably Robin Hood.

I think there is enough there to make a class out of. It just isn’t anything like the 5e Ranger class.

Anybody can call themselves anything. D&D's Ranger has never really been about modelling a non-magical fictional character that called themselves a ranger, even if some elements of those characters were used as inspiration.

And honestly I don't see enough to make a full fledged class out of non-magic ranger, especially when there's an expected overlap and so other classes can also have survival elements. Of the PHB classes, the smallest number of subclasses is 7. Can you really come up with 7 non-magical subclasses that aren't Fighter with Outlander Background or Scout-Rogue rip offs, because I don't see how Robin Hood is a "ranger" and not a fighter who just lives in the woods (With maybe a multiclass in Rogue).



I think there is a difference between “you can play a class like that, sort of” and “this is the class’ mechanical identity.”

Barbarian, for whatever flaws the class has, actually has a pretty strong mechanical identity. You get angry, and then you hit things. You don’t use fancy techniques. You aren’t well trained as a warrior. Hell you don’t even get a Fighting Style. You get angry. And you hit things. You even hit them pretty hard. And because you’re an angry rage monster you are in everyone’s face getting hits and tanking hits.

Rangers, even accepting their spells, don’t really have that well defined playstyle. That thing that makes them stand out as unique and engaging on a mechanical level. They just have some spells that just do a smattering of weird things all not particularly well. Even their most obvious comparison, the Paladin, they have a very clear mechanical identity for what they’re trying to accomplish. I don’t think that’s there for a Ranger.

Thanks to Tasha's Ranger is at a decent balance level, but your right that there's no signature mechanical feature in the vein of Smite or Sneak Attack. I think a similar argument can be made for fighters but's that's a bit OT. So yeah if you want to give the Ranger some sort of alternate smite-like feature go for it (I like less damage but an AoE effect to differentiate it from Paladin). But at the same time I feel like the root issue is the concentration issues involved with the ranger spells, so fixing the spells like Ensnaring Strike, Hail of Thorns, Zephyr Strike, etc... would fix that lack of identify through spellcasting but I can also see the value in turning those spells into class features to really reinforce that identity.

[Dienekes]

In what world is Robing hood not a rogue?
Robin hood is a rogue, his name is the class.

Really depends on the story. The Robbing Hoodlum who just steals things? Definitely a rogue. Sir Robin of Loxley, the Crusading knight returned to England and fights an armored duel for the law of King Richard? At least part Fighter. Robin of the Forest, head of the a band of wild men living out in the woods creating a society away from medieval laws? A Ranger.

There's a lot of fun contradictory stories about Robin Hood. He is a tall tale hero after all.

[Witty Username]

There's a lot of fun contradictory stories about Robin Hood. He is a tall tale hero after all.
Ah, so the Ranger is working as intended when it's mechanical identity is unclear. ;)

[strangebloke]

I mean pretty much any character can be slotted into three different classes or more, especially when you consider that a lot of characters come from lower-magic settings. Sure someone like Barristan Selmy is a fighter in ASOIAF, everyone is, but he deliberately plays into tropes that are associated with paladins. Or maybe he's a swashbuckler because you want to lean into him being a dashing hero known for daring rescues. Same for Jon, who's literally a ranger with a magic sword and an animal companion, but would in 5e be statted as a fighter... or maybe a rogue, again, most of his adventures are him lying and scheming.

[Dienekes]

Anybody can call themselves anything. D&D's Ranger has never really been about modelling a non-magical fictional character that called themselves a ranger, even if some elements of those characters were used as inspiration.

And honestly I don't see enough to make a full fledged class out of non-magic ranger, especially when there's an expected overlap and so other classes can also have survival elements. Of the PHB classes, the smallest number of subclasses is 7. Can you really come up with 7 non-magical subclasses that aren't Fighter with Outlander Background or Scout-Rogue rip offs, because I don't see how Robin Hood is a "ranger" and not a fighter who just lives in the woods (With maybe a multiclass in Rogue).

Hmm, 7 subclasses?

Honestly, that doesn't seem all that hard.

You got your generic "base class but better" subclass. Your Champion Fighter, Berserk Barbarian, Thief Rogue, etc.

Your 1/3 caster subclass, because Fighters and Rogues get one. Maybe make it Druid instead of Wizard like the other two. You know, for those who do want the magic Ranger.

Beastmaster, seems self explanatory.

Trapper, which focuses on creating and dropping traps and battlefield control.

Bounty Hunter, focusing on single target lockdown and urban survival.

Survivalist, could have various mundane healing and support abilities. A focus on giving allies boosts based on the environment you're in.

Monster Hunter, a Witcher kinda character with abilities to counter various monstrous special abilities and determine weak points.

And if you don't want to count 1/3 caster subclass. You could even do something fun like a Privateer sort of class shifting the focus to mechanics for living out on the waters and mechanics that enhance the ship rules. And Hell, I could probably riff on cavalry scouts or steppe cultures for another subclass or two.

Mind you, this is a really easy challenge in part because I don't actually have a class to work off of, so all I have to do is rattle off some concepts I think fit into the Ranger archetype and give a general idea of what makes them mechanically interesting without having to do all the work involved of getting it to work. But the only solution to fix the ease of this challenge would be to challenge me to actually design the class and subclasses. And well, that's quite a lot of work for a minor internet discussion.

[Witty Username]

What's wrong with having those things and being a magic Ranger?
Witcher is a good example as they have some spells they can use. Monster hunter is covered by monster slayer, not a great subclass but it has got the theme.

If you want a non-magic Ranger, just take a PHB subclass and use your slots for goodberries and utility spells (or flavor your spells as Hunter's tools).

[Dienekes]

What's wrong with having those things and being a magic Ranger?
Witcher is a good example as they have some spells they can use. Monster hunter is covered by monster slayer, not a great subclass but it has got the theme.

If you want a non-magic Ranger, just take a PHB subclass and use your slots for goodberries and utility spells (or flavor your spells as Hunter's tools).

I have a personal aversion when things are completely and totally possible in real life and in the fiction the class is (supposedly) trying to represent, and yet the only way to do them is through magic.

I then said that I think you could create a completely non-magical Ranger to better fit the original Ranger fictions, to which Sorinth challenged me to the 7 subclasses. And here we are.

[Witty Username]

I have a personal aversion when things are completely and totally possible in real life and in the fiction the class is (supposedly) trying to represent, and yet the only way to do them is through magic.

I then said that I think you could create a completely non-magical Ranger to better fit the original Ranger fictions, to which Sorinth challenged me to the 7 subclasses. And here we are.

So, your asking for a fighter?

[Dienekes]

So, your asking for a fighter?

In the same way a Barbarian and a Rogue are also a Fighter. Yes.

[Sorinth]

Hmm, 7 subclasses?

Honestly, that doesn't seem all that hard.

You got your generic "base class but better" subclass. Your Champion Fighter, Berserk Barbarian, Thief Rogue, etc.

Your 1/3 caster subclass, because Fighters and Rogues get one. Maybe make it Druid instead of Wizard like the other two. You know, for those who do want the magic Ranger.

Beastmaster, seems self explanatory.

Trapper, which focuses on creating and dropping traps and battlefield control.

Bounty Hunter, focusing on single target lockdown and urban survival.

Survivalist, could have various mundane healing and support abilities. A focus on giving allies boosts based on the environment you're in.

Monster Hunter, a Witcher kinda character with abilities to counter various monstrous special abilities and determine weak points.

And if you don't want to count 1/3 caster subclass. You could even do something fun like a Privateer sort of class shifting the focus to mechanics for living out on the waters and mechanics that enhance the ship rules. And Hell, I could probably riff on cavalry scouts or steppe cultures for another subclass or two.

Mind you, this is a really easy challenge in part because I don't actually have a class to work off of, so all I have to do is rattle off some concepts I think fit into the Ranger archetype and give a general idea of what makes them mechanically interesting without having to do all the work involved of getting it to work. But the only solution to fix the ease of this challenge would be to challenge me to actually design the class and subclasses. And well, that's quite a lot of work for a minor internet discussion.

Frankly a lot of these seem magical, or not something that is really class based. Using traps doesn't sound like something that needs to be class locked, shouldn't anyone be able to setup/drop a trap, so the only way it works is if the traps themselves are magical or not steampunk-like contraptions, which leaves action economy to make it work but we already have Fast Hands for Thief which would cover this so I'm not seeing how you would actually build something. Same with bounty hunter, how are they locking down a single target in a mundane way that a Fighter couldn't also do? A survivalist kind of sounds like fighter/rogue with proficiency in the herbalism kit and then a bunch of things they can create from those herbs. Which again why wouldn't anyone with proficiency or even expertise in herbalism kit not be able to make similar mundane healing/support stuff?

Witcher uses magic, 1/3 caster uses magic, Beast Master/Survivalist are magical but fluff the magic as not you, it's like a swarmkeeper with a swarm of pixies who fluffs the pixies as the ones who cast all their spells and so the Ranger is technically mundane and doesn't have magic, I mean sure, but it's not exactly a non-magic using class.

And what I find really ironic is none of these subclasses sound like better fits for Aragorn, Robin Hood, Jon Snow, or any of the others examples then Fighter with the right skill proficiencies.

[Kane0]

Thanks to Tasha's Ranger is at a decent balance level, but your right that there's no signature mechanical feature in the vein of Smite or Sneak Attack. I think a similar argument can be made for fighters but's that's a bit OT. So yeah if you want to give the Ranger some sort of alternate smite-like feature go for it (I like less damage but an AoE effect to differentiate it from Paladin).

My current trick is to allow Favored Foe to also apply to allies within a small distance from you to also get the once per turn damage boost against the same target. Makes for a fun focus-fire teamwork ability instead of just a poor man's Hunter's Mark.

And yeah I adjust some of the more lacklustre spells too, so they're more likely to be used.

Edit:

I have a personal aversion when things are completely and totally possible in real life and in the fiction the class is (supposedly) trying to represent, and yet the only way to do them is through magic.

I then said that I think you could create a completely non-magical Ranger to better fit the original Ranger fictions, to which Sorinth challenged me to the 7 subclasses. And here we are.

I suspect you an Paladinn would get along well, he's usually on the lookout for nonmagical ranger ideas.

[Sorinth]

I have a personal aversion when things are completely and totally possible in real life and in the fiction the class is (supposedly) trying to represent, and yet the only way to do them is through magic.

I then said that I think you could create a completely non-magical Ranger to better fit the original Ranger fictions, to which Sorinth challenged me to the 7 subclasses. And here we are.

Hmm, what mundane thing is unique to Rangers? Because if it's "loves the outdoors" that isn't really enough, that's just a Fighter with the right background/skill proficiencies.

[strangebloke]

Hmm, what mundane thing is unique to Rangers? Because if it's "loves the outdoors" that isn't really enough, that's just a Fighter with the right background/skill proficiencies.

This "everything not magic is fighter" attitude needs to die in a fire.

Martials can have cool mechanics too. I outlined one above, where a ranger could be a "prepared martial" with the idea that they're great scouts and hunters who can drill themselves in specialized techniques to help them prepare against whatever enemy they're likely to face. One of them could be a feature like steel will, for example, that makes them resilient to fear.

On top of all this, I think maneuvers should be more accessible and should also be expanded upon.

[Schwann145]

This "everything not magic is fighter" attitude needs to die in a fire.
It's the age-old problem where D&D insists on both having it's cake and eating it too.
"Fighter" is not an identity. It's a blank slate chassis that many ideas can be built from.
"Barbarian" is not a blank slate. It's an identity of a specific theme of Fighter.

As long as both the "empty canvas" and "finished picture" classes exist side-by-side, this will always be an issue. :(

[strangebloke]

It's the age-old problem where D&D insists on both having it's cake and eating it too.
"Fighter" is not an identity. It's a blank slate chassis that many ideas can be built from.
"Barbarian" is not a blank slate. It's an identity of a specific theme of Fighter.

As long as both the "empty canvas" and "finished picture" classes exist side-by-side, this will always be an issue. :(

Eh I'd be less favorable.

People are dumb about this. Nobody says bards are just wizards, but the same argument applies

[tenshiakodo]

I do find this sort of strict adherence to "class identity" to be odd.

Way back in the 2e era, TSR realized that Character Class =/= Character Identity. Some Kits pointed this out- anyone can be a Barbarian. Or an Amazon. Being a Pirate or a Swashbuckler didn't require a separate class, but the mechanics had to reflect individual classes (so a Swashbuckler Fighter was mechanically distinct from a Swashbuckler Thief).

Olive Ruskettle could be a Bard without having the Bard class.
Arilyn Moonblade could be an Assassin as a Fighter.
Pikel Bouldershoulder can call himself a Druid, despite probably being a Nature Cleric.
Gandalf can call himself a Wizard, despite being a Demigod/Angel (Angel Summoner?)

[tokek]

Agreed all around.



Yes Rangers don't get anything special for operating as a face, which come into why they're only part skillmonkey.

Fey Wanderer Rangers do though.

Which I think is part of the issue some people have with the ranger class, a lot of their identity is in the very distinct sub-classes. Probably more so than any other class in the game.

[paladinn]

Fey Wanderer Rangers do though.

Which I think is part of the issue some people have with the ranger class, a lot of their identity is in the very distinct sub-classes. Probably more so than any other class in the game.

This. More than any other class, ranger subclasses are detached from the "main" class; and rangers get their power and utility from their subclass. Which is one thing that led me to port the hunter subclass to the fighter class. The fighter class features, IMO, along with the hunter subclass features, make for a better ranger than a hunter/ranger. And it also makes for a better "generic" fighter than a champion/fighter.

The ranger's combat "thing" has always been the favored enemy/foe/prey concept. When they made that a non-combat feature in "original" 5e, they really shot down the core ranger class. Favored Foe, from Tasha's, is somewhat better; but compared to the original 0e/1e ranger, it still lags far behind.

Fans of the original 5e ranger will say, "Well we need a class that can shore-up the exploration leg of the tripod." That's all well and good; but rangers have always been fighters first and foremost. In 0e and 1e, they were an actual fighter subclass. I just want to see that element of the core class restored. Otherwise you're only a ranger for the subclasses. IMO of course.

[Psyren]

This "everything not magic is fighter" attitude needs to die in a fire.

Martials can have cool mechanics too. I outlined one above, where a ranger could be a "prepared martial" with the idea that they're great scouts and hunters who can drill themselves in specialized techniques to help them prepare against whatever enemy they're likely to face. One of them could be a feature like steel will, for example, that makes them resilient to fear.

On top of all this, I think maneuvers should be more accessible and should also be expanded upon.

I'm all for an expanded maneuver system but I would make it separate from class / accessible to all martials, much like Fighting Styles are. (And incidentally, *all* martials should get at least one fighting style for free imo.)


I do find this sort of strict adherence to "class identity" to be odd.

Way back in the 2e era, TSR realized that Character Class =/= Character Identity. Some Kits pointed this out- anyone can be a Barbarian. Or an Amazon. Being a Pirate or a Swashbuckler didn't require a separate class, but the mechanics had to reflect individual classes (so a Swashbuckler Fighter was mechanically distinct from a Swashbuckler Thief).

Olive Ruskettle could be a Bard without having the Bard class.
Arilyn Moonblade could be an Assassin as a Fighter.
Pikel Bouldershoulder can call himself a Druid, despite probably being a Nature Cleric.
Gandalf can call himself a Wizard, despite being a Demigod/Angel (Angel Summoner?)

I don't see a need to reject class as class identity either. Someone making Pikel as a Nature Cleric would be a valid interpretation, but so would someone making Pikel as a Land or Dreams Druid.


Fey Wanderer Rangers do though.

Which I think is part of the issue some people have with the ranger class, a lot of their identity is in the very distinct sub-classes. Probably more so than any other class in the game.


This. More than any other class, ranger subclasses are detached from the "main" class; and rangers get their power and utility from their subclass. Which is one thing that led me to port the hunter subclass to the fighter class. The fighter class features, IMO, along with the hunter subclass features, make for a better ranger than a hunter/ranger. And it also makes for a better "generic" fighter than a champion/fighter.

The ranger's combat "thing" has always been the favored enemy/foe/prey concept. When they made that a non-combat feature in "original" 5e, they really shot down the core ranger class. Favored Foe, from Tasha's, is somewhat better; but compared to the original 0e/1e ranger, it still lags far behind.

Fans of the original 5e ranger will say, "Well we need a class that can shore-up the exploration leg of the tripod." That's all well and good; but rangers have always been fighters first and foremost. In 0e and 1e, they were an actual fighter subclass. I just want to see that element of the core class restored. Otherwise you're only a ranger for the subclasses. IMO of course.

As an aside - I really like the idea of mix-and-matching Martial Class A with Martial Subclass B as an alternate method of "multiclassing."

[Amnestic]

As an aside - I really like the idea of mix-and-matching Martial Class A with Martial Subclass B as an alternate method of "multiclassing."

Some sort of cross-class subclasses you say? Surely not. Why, we'd never even think to see a UA with such a concept! It's far too outlandish to even be suggested!

[Psyren]

Some sort of cross-class subclasses you say? Surely not. Why, we'd never even think to see a UA with such a concept! It's far too outlandish to even be suggested!

Can you link to this nonexistent UA? :smallsmile:

[Amechra]

People are dumb about this. Nobody says bards are just wizards, but the same argument applies

That's because Bards are a Rogue subclass.

In all seriousness, one of the odd things about the Bard is how each edition puts more and more emphasis on the fact that they can cast spells. Putting aside the weirdness of 1e Bards (which were a specific type of Fighter/Thief/Druid multiclass), they went from "I am a social rogue who dabbles in magic and fighting" (2e) to "I am a skillful singer who also does magic" (3e) to "I am a skillful mage who also sings" (5e). And when I say "dabbles" for the 2e one, I'm not kidding — their spells were based on Int, they started with a random assortment of them, and they didn't learn new spells when leveling up. They had to find spells while out adventuring.

...

Honestly, the Ranger is one of those classes that suffered the most from WotC's decision to make normal animals irrelevant. Like, take the humble brown bear — in 2e, it was a 5+5HD badass with skin like scale mail, three attacks, and the ability to keep fighting while dying. In 5e... look, I'm pretty sure your average 2nd level martial character could solo a brown bear in melee.

What does that have to do with Rangers? Well, in 2e they were basically just a Fighter with nature skills, a knack for dealing with animals, and a bone-deep hatred of some favored enemy. Oh, sure, they picked up some Priest spells later on, but that came in at 8th level and it was only minor access to two spheres, so meh. Then 3e came along, and suddenly nature skills were something that everyone could do, and animals sucked. And 5e has pushed that even further by taking the one kinda-cool thing that 3e and 4e Rangers got (a free animal buddy!), shoving it into a pretty awful subclass, and then handing the actually-useful combat-and-scouting buddy to the Wizard of all classes.

Honestly, I feel like the 5e Ranger would've felt a lot better if they had made it a non-caster with a third-caster subclass (pulling from Druid spells, of course). 5e doesn't really have a martial+skills class (in the sense that the Bard is spells+skills and the Paladin is martial+spells), and I feel like the Ranger would've fit nicely in that niche. Especially if, you know, we gave them back their combat-and-scouting buddy.

[Amnestic]

Can you link to this nonexistent UA? :smallsmile:

Oh if only.

Whoops, look at this link I dropped, probably nothing. https://media.wizards.com/2021/dnd/downloads/UA2021_06_08_MagesStrixhaven.pdf

Sarcasm aside, cross-class subclasses I think can work, but we'll never see the concept iterated on due to backlash over the Strixhaven attempts. As a DM I'm certainly open to players who say "can I take 'x' subclass on 'y' class", within reason (hexblade go home).

Touching on a ranger subclass for instance: beastmaster works just fine on a druid. Almost too well in fact. Fighter+Rogue subclasses will generally marry up quite well too. There is an issue when it comes to class specific resources (eg. rage, ki) though.

[CMCC]

No incarnation of the Ranger in any edition of D&D has ever been a good fit for Aragorn; being able to track stuff is about as close as it has ever gotten.

This exactly. He's certainly primarily a fighter. Maybe I'll build him one day. I'm hesitant to do the LoTR characters for some reason.

[Psyren]

Oh if only.

Whoops, look at this link I dropped, probably nothing. https://media.wizards.com/2021/dnd/downloads/UA2021_06_08_MagesStrixhaven.pdf

Sarcasm aside, cross-class subclasses I think can work, but we'll never see the concept iterated on due to backlash over the Strixhaven attempts. As a DM I'm certainly open to players who say "can I take 'x' subclass on 'y' class", within reason (hexblade go home).

Touching on a ranger subclass for instance: beastmaster works just fine on a druid. Almost too well in fact. Fighter+Rogue subclasses will generally marry up quite well too. There is an issue when it comes to class specific resources (eg. rage, ki) though.

Awesome, I'd missed this, thanks!

And now I'm wondering - why didn't these make it to the final book? It's a cool idea and deserves a martial variation.

[MoiMagnus]

Honestly, I feel like the 5e Ranger would've felt a lot better if they had made it a non-caster with a third-caster subclass (pulling from Druid spells, of course). 5e doesn't really have a martial+skills class (in the sense that the Bard is spells+skills and the Paladin is martial+spells), and I feel like the Ranger would've fit nicely in that niche. Especially if, you know, we gave them back their combat-and-scouting buddy.

You don't consider Rogues as being "martial+skills"?

That's not a reason for Ranger not to be in that category, obviously, there is enough room for more than than 1 class there.

[Amnestic]

And now I'm wondering - why didn't these make it to the final book? It's a cool idea and deserves a martial variation.

I don't think they ever said exactly why they changed from subclasses to backgrounds/feats but if I had to guess:-

Some of the subclasses didn't hit the right classes for the themes (Bards couldn't be Prismari)
Visually clunky in its presentation
Some classes have more/fewer subclass features than others, so in some cases they simply didn't get all the features of the 'shared' subclass.
General backlash against the concept in general.


I think it's a shame personally. Part of it is due to the fact that there's no unified design for when classes get subclass features (clerics get them at 1, wizards at 2, bards at 3, etc.) but 5.5e might be made with that in mind.

[Psyren]

I don't think they ever said exactly why they changed from subclasses to backgrounds/feats but if I had to guess:-

Some of the subclasses didn't hit the right classes for the themes (Bards couldn't be Prismari)
Visually clunky in its presentation
Some classes have more/fewer subclass features than others, so in some cases they simply didn't get all the features of the 'shared' subclass.
General backlash against the concept in general.


I think it's a shame personally. Part of it is due to the fact that there's no unified design for when classes get subclass features (clerics get them at 1, wizards at 2, bards at 3, etc.) but 5.5e might be made with that in mind.

I'm okay with classes having different rungs when they get subclass features. It makes sense to me that a sorcerer's origin comes online at 1 while you have to spend a little time being a wizard before settling on your tradition, for example.

I definitely think however that two classes need to get the same total number of features 1-20 in order to share a subclass. And if they don't, either those two are incompatible for sharing a subclass, or the one with more should get ribbons with the extra so they're not coming out so far ahead.

[Dienekes]

Frankly a lot of these seem magical, or not something that is really class based. Using traps doesn't sound like something that needs to be class locked, shouldn't anyone be able to setup/drop a trap, so the only way it works is if the traps themselves are magical or not steampunk-like contraptions, which leaves action economy to make it work but we already have Fast Hands for Thief which would cover this so I'm not seeing how you would actually build something. Same with bounty hunter, how are they locking down a single target in a mundane way that a Fighter couldn't also do? A survivalist kind of sounds like fighter/rogue with proficiency in the herbalism kit and then a bunch of things they can create from those herbs. Which again why wouldn't anyone with proficiency or even expertise in herbalism kit not be able to make similar mundane healing/support stuff?

In theory, you could. It would just mean a lot more rules to go through for every class. In much the same way, in theory, everyone should be able to hit a distracted opponents weak spot, anyone should be able to get angry, having the sleight of hand and stealth proficiency is all it takes to be a thief, anyone who picks up a weapon for a month should learn the fundamentals of parrying, ripostes, and lunging. Making a convincing feint shouldn't be far behind. Climbing walls quickly really should be something covered in athletics. And all a swashbuckler is, is someone who can use a buckler and a sidesword, don't know what makes them particularly special with taunting.

But the whole benefit of a class system is to cordon off various abilities from the rest to create a mechanical identity and feel for everything. And to keep things from getting muddled up. Especially in more complex systems. When the optimal way to play your supposedly Honorable Knight is to fly into a wild rage, poison your weapons, and eat a hallucinogenic mushroom you're running up against the point where the systems created go at odds with the fantasy the system says it allows. So things get blocked away. Sure anyone can set a trap, but the Trap Expert might have various benefits to do it better and more effectively, with maybe whole subsystems to work with. Anyone can use herbalism. But Herbalism doesn't actually have a lot of mechanics to it to flesh it out alone, because WotC has an aversion to making complex skills and tools in this system. Which putting it into a subclass could work with.

And hell this line of argument could fit right in to magic as well. What is an artificer if not just a wizard that makes their own stuff? But, WotC decided there was mechanics and a playstyle to work with there, so they made it. Is there a reason why Wizards can't make their own stuff too? No. But it wasn't the playstyle and identity they wanted for that class and they thought there was enough to work with to create a class/subclass of its own. So they did, to allow better reflection of what they wanted out of it.



Witcher uses magic, 1/3 caster uses magic, Beast Master/Survivalist are magical but fluff the magic as not you, it's like a swarmkeeper with a swarm of pixies who fluffs the pixies as the ones who cast all their spells and so the Ranger is technically mundane and doesn't have magic, I mean sure, but it's not exactly a non-magic using class.

And what I find really ironic is none of these subclasses sound like better fits for Aragorn, Robin Hood, Jon Snow, or any of the others examples then Fighter with the right skill proficiencies.

Really, you don't think the herbalism focused survivalist fits Aragorn? That's exactly how he's introduced. Jon Snow as a guy with an Animal Companion who can't cast spells is pretty much the character. Will Treaty and Hood both just fit the advanced standard version really.

[ZRN]

Which I think is part of the issue some people have with the ranger class, a lot of their identity is in the very distinct sub-classes. Probably more so than any other class in the game.

Is this true? I don't feel like this is true. Fighters, sorcerers, clerics, and paladins all definitely seem more defined by their subclasses than rangers do.

[Draz74]

It always makes me sad in these threads that Prince Gwydion of Don (from The Chronicles of Prydain) is never mentioned as an archetypical literary character on whom the Ranger class is based. Because he fits the mold much better than Aragorn or Drizzt.


Aragorn only ever casts one spell. And honestly, it’s ambiguous if he was even casting a spell or is just better at medicine than everyone else and the onlookers who have no idea what he’s doing just assume it’s elven magic. Tolkien does that from time to time.

This is the description of Aragorn's magic that I agree with most in this thread.

[Sorinth]

This "everything not magic is fighter" attitude needs to die in a fire.

Martials can have cool mechanics too. I outlined one above, where a ranger could be a "prepared martial" with the idea that they're great scouts and hunters who can drill themselves in specialized techniques to help them prepare against whatever enemy they're likely to face. One of them could be a feature like steel will, for example, that makes them resilient to fear.

On top of all this, I think maneuvers should be more accessible and should also be expanded upon.

There's no doubt you can create cool mechanics, but if the initial argument is that Rangers shouldn't have magic because Aragorn, Robin Hood, and Jon Snow didn't use magic then your unique Ranger mechanic needs to capture the Rangery-ness of those characters and I'm not sure there is such a common mechanic that they all share because in the end they are just outdoorsy fighters.

[Snails]

In terms of overt magic demonstrated in the LotR, Aragorn's ability is not much different from Frodo's. Middle Earth is a magical world. You do not need to be a dedicated student of arcane arts to apply herbalism, a few elven prayers, intimidate/persuade with an oath, or make use of a magical item.

In terms of the core idea of Ranger, I would make it the Hunter.

I would make Hunter's Mark not a spell but a non-magical act of mental focus that is a bonus action and requires Concentration. Yes, you can use it an unlimited number of times per day. I would start it at 2nd level (to avoid super easy dipping) and make the bonus damage a Ranger Die a d4, to be increased in die size at higher levels.

I would re-cast Favored Enemy as Ranger Knowledge. It does not give any bonus damage, just a Ranger Die boost to relevant skills checks similar to how Favored Enemy does.

I would give the core class a lot of other boosts to tough-guy/outdoorsy skills and maybe even throw in a small menu of half-feats to choose from.

This would be the chassis, and the sub-classes could go in other directions. While I do not think it is an important goal, this approach so happens to be close enough to Aragorn.

[paladinn]

Just ruminating.. Pathfinder's ranger has the traditional-type favored enemy ability With damage bonus. They also have a spell called "instant enemy" that lets a ranger apply the favored enemy effects to one specific foe for a limited time. That almost seems like hunter's mark in 5e. I would suggest that hunter's mark/instant enemy be a class ability, usable a number of times/day equal to proficiency bonus(?).

Another thought.. the favored enemy effects are the result of a career of fighting one "type" of enemy, and seems more a matter of knowing one's enemy. Maybe a ranger needs to fight one different enemy for a certain amount of time before being able to apply any of that bonus to the new "instant enemy." The point is to make the ability less situational and less "spellish."

[Chaos Jackal]

I would suggest that hunter's mark/instant enemy be a class ability, usable a number of times/day equal to proficiency bonus(?).

You mean like TCE's Favored Foe?

[paladinn]

You mean like TCE's Favored Foe?

Aren't there issues with Favored Foe and concentration?

[Chaos Jackal]

Aren't there issues with Favored Foe and concentration?

Sure, but those issues exist with hunter's mark too.

Now, I'm not gonna say Favored Foe is perfect. It could've done without the concentration. Only applying to one attack isn't amazing either, though activating it at no action cost is a definite boost.

But a reasonable hypothesis, and I'd say the most likely case, is that the cause behind it is precisely because they didn't want it stacking with hunter's mark. And since the default Favored Enemy in 5e doesn't even add damage anyway, it's not as if you're losing the "usual" combat boost by taking Favored Foe instead. It's just an implementation of "make hunter's mark a baseline feature", which is more or less what you said.

Could it have been better? Sure. Is it a clear step in that direction? I'd say so.

[paladinn]

This is kind of a side note.. Bruce Heard, the author of a lot of BECMI-related stuff, recently published some revisions to some of the classic D&D classes, races, etc. Here is his take on a revised Ranger class:

https://bruce-heard.blogspot.com/search?q=ranger

It's particularly interesting because the choices available really focus one's ranger career, since a ranger class can obviously do so many things.

It's not 5e, but well worth a look!

[strangebloke]

There's no doubt you can create cool mechanics, but if the initial argument is that Rangers shouldn't have magic because Aragorn, Robin Hood, and Jon Snow didn't use magic then your unique Ranger mechanic needs to capture the Rangery-ness of those characters and I'm not sure there is such a common mechanic that they all share because in the end they are just outdoorsy fighters.

Oh I mean, the idea that rangers shouldn't have magic is dumb. Jon Snow is a powerful skinchanger who walks around as a wolf and a man at the same time. Aragorn is skilled with (explicitly magic) herbal healing, and at several points is able to drive entire formations of men away from him just by glaring.

As for Robin Hood, if magic that let you hide better existed in Sherwood forest, I dare say he'd have learned it.

[ZRN]

This "everything not magic is fighter" attitude needs to die in a fire.

Martials can have cool mechanics too. I outlined one above, where a ranger could be a "prepared martial" with the idea that they're great scouts and hunters who can drill themselves in specialized techniques to help them prepare against whatever enemy they're likely to face. One of them could be a feature like steel will, for example, that makes them resilient to fear.

Interestingly (at least to me), back in... 2014? when they were doing the initial playtests for 5e, I was hopeful for a while that maybe every class would end up having its own unique core mechanics (like the very cool initial playtest versions of the warlock and sorcerer), and trying to figure out what was "core" to the ranger I came up with the same thing: the ranger, like Batman, is the martial guy who is really good with prep time, setting traps and preparing specific defenses and countermeasures. (Contrastingly, the rogue is the expert improviser.) I was pretty disappointed to see the final version was just a revamped 3e-style "archer with some druid spells."

[Slipjig]

Both are Rangers, although it's true Minsc is also a Barbarian.

The only reason Minsc is a Ranger is because he dates back to 2e, when Barbarian wasn't a standard class.

[strangebloke]

Interestingly (at least to me), back in... 2014? when they were doing the initial playtests for 5e, I was hopeful for a while that maybe every class would end up having its own unique core mechanics (like the very cool initial playtest versions of the warlock and sorcerer), and trying to figure out what was "core" to the ranger I came up with the same thing: the ranger, like Batman, is the martial guy who is really good with prep time, setting traps and preparing specific defenses and countermeasures. (Contrastingly, the rogue is the expert improviser.) I was pretty disappointed to see the final version was just a revamped 3e-style "archer with some druid spells."

The funny thing is, a lot of their spells basically are the kinds of things you'd expect on a martial ranger. Is there any reason the -strike spells like ensnaring strike need to be spells? What about Cordon of Arrows? Hunter's Mark?

The druid spells mostly feel as though they're filling a gap in the class left by unfinished design. I still think its fine to have rangers be half-casters, but I really wish the martial side was more developed. To look at the paladin, their non-caster side is a lot more unique feeling because of the smites and the auras and LoH.

[Amechra]

You don't consider Rogues as being "martial+skills"?

That's not a reason for Ranger not to be in that category, obviously, there is enough room for more than than 1 class there.

Oops, sorry, my brain has been using "martial" to primarily refer to classes that get Extra Attack. Plus, I feel like Sneak Attack doesn't count as a "dedicated fighter" thing — the fact that a Rogue's offensive capabilities collapse if you give their attacks disadvantage disqualifies them in my eyes.

[LibraryOgre]

Half-Dwarves do exist in the Realms, I've seen NPC stat blocks for them, but I don't think anything was definitively stated about them. I had a friend who wanted to play a Mul Paladin in our 4e Living Forgotten Realms campaign, and one of the DM's griped about it, so I pulled out my copy of Forgotten Realms adventures and showed him a "1/2 D" NPC stat block, and he relented.

Half-dwarves in the Realms are not Muls, though, and they're not from Gulg, a city on Athas.

Half-dwarves in the Realms (circa Dwarves Deep; 1e/2e era) are essentially "Slightly taller than normal dwarves", as the dwarves breed with human women to increase their birthrate.

[tenshiakodo]

Well no, not exactly Muls. And yes, I agree about Gulg (although it's not impossible for someone from Athas to find their way to the Realms, it's just hard).

But using a reskinned Mul for a Half-Dwarf didn't seem unreasonable to me.

[MoiMagnus]

Oops, sorry, my brain has been using "martial" to primarily refer to classes that get Extra Attack. Plus, I feel like Sneak Attack doesn't count as a "dedicated fighter" thing — the fact that a Rogue's offensive capabilities collapse if you give their attacks disadvantage disqualifies them in my eyes.

Do they? You can reliably have an advantage to cancel out any number of disadvantages (either by hiding, or by using Tasha's aiming rogue feature), and then you just need to have an ally adjacent to your target to get the sneak attack (even the wizard's familiar is enough, but they tend to not last long enough in battle).

I'll concede that Rogue is pretty bad if they're the only character on the frontline. They absolutely need a few other martial/invocations/pets/whatever to take the damage and help at getting the sneak attacks. And in a lot of situations, they're better off being an archer than going in melee (though they would need the feat that ignore the disadvantage for whatever obstacle is in their line of sight).

I'll also concede that I never had a GM using the low light / darkness rules in combat, which might have some influence on the effectiveness of the Rogue.

Their lower amount of attacks mean they don't get as much benefits from the -5/+10 feats, which indeed make them far less potent in high optimisation games.

[greenstone]

…I was hopeful for a while that maybe every class would end up having its own unique core mechanics…

That's a cool idea. I wish the authors had gone with it.

I think classes should be distinct in their mechanics. I look at fighter and ranger and (to some extent) barbarian and rogue, and wonder "so why are these all different classes?"

I would have gone with a much smaller list (perhaps not as small as Dragon Age's fighter, rogue and mage).

[Luccan]

That's a cool idea. I wish the authors had gone with it.

I think classes should be distinct in their mechanics. I look at fighter and ranger and (to some extent) barbarian and rogue, and wonder "so why are these all different classes?"

I would have gone with a much smaller list (perhaps not as small as Dragon Age's fighter, rogue and mage).

While there's definitely legacy in the reason each class is in the game, I also think reducing four separate classes down to 1 is generally going to cause issues. Like, I can see collapsing some of those classes together, but all of them? What's the connective tissue between the rogue subclass and the barbarian subclass?

[Schwann145]

What's the connective tissue between the rogue subclass and the barbarian subclass?
Barbarian as an ambush-fighter. Lightly armored, stealthy, but full-on assault once the "trap" is sprung. Conan-esque. (Age of Conan the game even includes Barbarian as one of it's "Rogue" classes, alongside Ranger and Assassin, so it's on-theme.)

[Kane0]

Barbarian as an ambush-fighter. Lightly armored, stealthy, but full-on assault once the "trap" is sprung. Conan-esque. (Age of Conan the game even includes Barbarian as one of it's "Rogue" classes, alongside Ranger and Assassin, so it's on-theme.)

Que? I always figured Barbarians like vanguard, taking all the attention and corresponding damage in order to crash into the enemy and either disorient or heavily damage them.

[tenshiakodo]

The Barbarian has evolved a lot over the years. In the original Unearthed Arcana, it was able to go lightly armored (thanks to an increased Dexterity adjustment to AC), and it had several "rogue-like" abilities, like being able to detect ambushes or climb rocks and trees.

Technically it didn't even have a rage power for a long time, in 2e, that was a power granted to Berserkers and Battleragers, not Barbarians (though the Complete Barbarian's Handbook may have changed this, it's been awhile since I looked at it).

The idea of Barbarians who became damage powerhouses in short bursts as part of their identity only goes back to August of 2000 (roughly). Even then, they remained faster moving and lighter armored characters.

They also had more skills than the Fighter, putting them vaguely closer to the Ranger than the Fighter.

Sure, they always had d12 Hit Die, and could earn a ton of hit points, but since OG Barbarians would give even Clerics the stink eye until...level 5? I think? That was just to keep them alive in a world where Cure Light Wounds was VILE NECROMANCY BY CROM!

[paladinn]

Barbarian as an ambush-fighter. Lightly armored, stealthy, but full-on assault once the "trap" is sprung. Conan-esque. (Age of Conan the game even includes Barbarian as one of it's "Rogue" classes, alongside Ranger and Assassin, so it's on-theme.)

In 4e (ewww) barbarian was a "striker" class. So was the rogue.

Both, as mentioned, are considered lightly armored and very fast.

I'm not a barbarian class fan either. "Barbarian" is a background, not a class, IMO. There should be a berserker fighter subclass tho

[tenshiakodo]

Yeah! Wearing Bear Shirts and gnawing on their shields!

[Leon]

I'm not a barbarian class fan either. "Barbarian" is a background, not a class, IMO. There should be a berserker fighter subclass tho

Then we get to the point where there one (or Three going by the old Generic classes of warrior, Caster, Expert) base class and everything is a subclass off it

[Schwann145]

Then we get to the point where there one (or Three going by the old Generic classes of warrior, Caster, Expert) base class and everything is a subclass off it
A formula that worked then, and works now in other games. Sounds good to me. :thumbs_up:

[animorte]

Then we get to the point where there one (or Three going by the old Generic classes of warrior, Caster, Expert) base class and everything is a subclass off it

I would have gone with a much smaller list (perhaps not as small as Dragon Age's fighter, rogue and mage).


Fighter/Warrior (2 subclasses) both masters of melee combat, both durable
- Full force, in your face, no-holds-barred, throw down, bring it on. I'm the tank, front-liner, harder to kill. Zones, pulls aggro, and hits hard. Kind of Barbarian/Paladin.
- All about tactics, dodging, and redirecting as opposed to taking the hits directly. Difficult to escape from. Think Battlemaster meets Monk with CC and mobility.
Caster/Mage (2 subclasses) both able to provide some utility and damage on or off the battlefield
- Will kite enemies and blast all things into oblivion with AoE or single target. Damage focused Sorcerer/Warlock.
- Supports the entire party by any means necessary. Buffs, heals, debuffs, battlefield control. Obviously thinking Cleric/Bard.
Expert/Rogue (2 subclasses) both proficient in many skills, particularly getting places
- Specializes in infiltration, typical thief, legitimate assassin, confusion at its finest. Imagine our basic Rogue with some Bardic charisma.
- Easily befriends beasts, the best tracker, prefers ranged combat, minor supportive options. Can't see anything but Ranger/Druid+Rogue

Each base class we all know and love(?), but separated by subclasses enough that nobody really outshines anybody else and everyone is very good at what they do best.


What this highlights to me is that names are also an in world thing and basically anybody can call themselves anything. A fighter with the Outlander background can easily call themselves a ranger as can a Scout Rogue. You don't need 3 levels of Rogue and select the Thief subclass to be a thief.

Every edition I can remember had the Ranger class as much more magical then the fictional rangers like Drizzt, Aragorn, etc... So I don't think they broke or changed anything (Beyond fixing some power/balance issues).

I maintain that Aragorn was not a spellcaster by any stretch. His abilities are much better explained by virtue of his life as a ranger, his childhood among elves and his Numenorian heritage.
Essentially, pick a good race and background. Then your fighter/ranger/what-have-you is exactly what you want it to be. That's what they're there for.

[animorte]

A formula that worked then, and works now in other games. Sounds good to me. :thumbs_up:
I think the only problem we keep running into is that each one branched off in perhaps too many ways, often overlapping too much or not enough depending on where you look.

This is a hot take that I didn't put much time into, so obviously it could use more refinement.
Warrior: Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin/Monk/Ranger/Cleric/Druid/Caster-Subclasses
Caster: Sorcerer/Wizard/Druid/Warlock/Bard/Cleric/Ranger/Paladin
Expert: Rogue/Bard/Ranger/Almost-Every-Caster after tier 1

Our typical martials don't really cross over much, but their area is riddled with everyone else.

That's the beauty of seven-hundred-sixty-three-umpteenth-kajillion subclasses.

[clash]

Then we get to the point where there one (or Three going by the old Generic classes of warrior, Caster, Expert) base class and everything is a subclass off it

I've said it before, but I think the problem class here is fighter. It's too generic when the games have specific classes and archetypes.

[Psyren]

...Am I the only one who wants even more subclasses in 5e? There's so much thematic space we haven't even covered yet, and so many existing subclasses that need revisions (such as nearly every sorcerer and monk.) We don't have a pet druid yet, or summoner cleric, or ranged barbarian/paladin, or force mage, or trapper ranger, or elemental cleric, or healer bard, or a shadow rogue etc. And some of the ones we did get, like magic monk/barbarian, assassin rogue, healer artificer, weather sorcerer, or a guardian fighter, are severely lacking. Still others have great/iconic concepts but poor execution, like wild magic sorcerer, moon druid, berserker barbarian and chrono wizard. For me, 5e doesn't have nearly as many subclasses as it should, and many that could use additional work.

[Willie the Duck]

In what world is Robing hood not a rogue?
Robin hood is a rogue, his name is the class.
I would guess the dominant reason would be that when this association was made, RoguesThieves were not the go-to image of 'guy who is good with bows.'


Then we get to the point where there one (or Three going by the old Generic classes of warrior, Caster, Expert) base class and everything is a subclass off it

A formula that worked then, and works now in other games. Sounds good to me. :thumbs_up:

Both Beyond the Wall and Other Stories and Worlds Without Number makes great use of this concept, along with pretty solid multi-classing models (you get some benefits of each class). Both are a little too old school (particularly just in numeric scale - 10th level fighter with 50-60 hp is normal) to be that comparable to 5e, but I can imagine a version of 5e that used the same framework.


I've said it before, but I think the problem class here is fighter. It's too generic when the games have specific classes and archetypes.
Going this other way would also work. I'd also include wizard as too generic for the other, more specialized, castes. A game with just conceptually specialized classes would also work.

[clash]

Going this other way would also work. I'd also include wizard as too generic for the other, more specialized, castes. A game with just conceptually specialized classes would also work.

Completely agree on that one. Bards fill the enchanter illusionist niche. I would make sorcerers proper blasters in the evocation/conjuration area. Maybe add a sage focused on divination/transmutation and lean the warlocks more into the darker necromancy and summoning aspects.

[paladinn]

I've said it before, but I think the problem class here is fighter. It's too generic when the games have specific classes and archetypes.

Whatever spellcasting or psionic or tactical archetypes there are, some people, especially beginners, are going to just want to fight. There needs to be accommodation for that. Granted, the champion subclass is pretty lame, which is one reason I came up with my fighter/hunter concept. It has lots of combat utility without getting too tactical/battlemaster.

If looking at everything as a subclass of one of the 3 generic classes, it's not a horrible idea. It ensures that all sub/classes fit a specific basic role before piling on specializations. I would suggest that the "sidekick" classes are a good place to start for that, especially if a player Wants a very basic experience. The "sidekick"/generic warrior is, IMO, better than the champion because it brings in a few features that would have looked good on the champion, especially the original UA warrior. It was sort of a warrior with a few barbarian features; and I've often seen it posted here that the core barbarian would make a better fighter than the fighter!

I have played around with adapting generic classes. It's definitely doable; but the rogue/expert is where things get convoluted.

[Aalbatr0ss]

...Am I the only one who wants even more subclasses in 5e? There's so much thematic space we haven't even covered yet, and so many existing subclasses that need revisions (such as nearly every sorcerer and monk.) We don't have a pet druid yet, or summoner cleric, or ranged barbarian/paladin, or force mage, or trapper ranger, or elemental cleric, or healer bard, or a shadow rogue etc. And some of the ones we did get, like magic monk/barbarian, assassin rogue, healer artificer, weather sorcerer, or a guardian fighter, are severely lacking. Still others have great/iconic concepts but poor execution, like wild magic sorcerer, moon druid, berserker barbarian and chrono wizard. For me, 5e doesn't have nearly as many subclasses as it should, and many that could use additional work.

Completely agree. I'm seeing subclasses as the #1 area where experienced players are turning to 3rd party content. Let's have as many subclasses for every class as we have for cleric.

[GooeyChewie]

Whatever spellcasting or psionic or tactical archetypes there are, some people, especially beginners, are going to just want to fight. There needs to be accommodation for that. Granted, the champion subclass is pretty lame, which is one reason I came up with my fighter/hunter concept. It has lots of combat utility without getting too tactical/battlemaster.

I don't think it's a problem to have classes which just want to fight. I think the problem is that Fighter can replicate the archetypes covered by other martial-focused classes. That's why you see so many claims of "Rogue/Ranger/Barbarian/Monk/Paladin could have been a Fighter subclass." If Fighter were more focused, it would indirectly help the other martial-focused classes be more distinct as well.

[Willie the Duck]

Completely agree on that one. Bards fill the enchanter illusionist niche. I would make sorcerers proper blasters in the evocation/conjuration area. Maybe add a sage focused on divination/transmutation and lean the warlocks more into the darker necromancy and summoning aspects.
If we're going to (theoretically) rebuild the caster classes to each fill an iconic niche and not have a generic 'mage,' I'd reexamine if the existing school system is the best model as well. It's a perfectly fine way to cut magic up, but the assumption that we should use it seems to be a big one of the 'it's always been that way' kind of inertias, and various iconic magic concepts don't fit the mold.


Whatever spellcasting or psionic or tactical archetypes there are, some people, especially beginners, are going to just want to fight. There needs to be accommodation for that. Granted, the champion subclass is pretty lame, which is one reason I came up with my fighter/hunter concept. It has lots of combat utility without getting too tactical/battlemaster.

I've wondered if the Champion (or the style of play it tries to capture) shouldn't have been divorced from the class-archetype architecture altogether. Make a 'Champion,' label is cleanly as 'take this if you don't want to minimize the amount of mechanics you have to deal with' (perhaps also some protections against single-level dips and the like) and just make it big-numbers -- No action surge, no second wind, fighting styles, etc. Just big hit points, good saves, maybe some sweeping pluses to to-hits/damage/AC, perhaps plenty of skills if the goal is 'simple' and not 'nothing but combat.' Marrying simple combatant to fighter made people who wanted either one unhappy (and the people who wanted both together were unhappy with the version they got).


I have played around with adapting generic classes. It's definitely doable; but the rogue/expert is where things get convoluted.
I think they were an interesting idea, but if one were to try to make a game from the ground up with 3 general classes, I don't think you would start with these.

[Sorinth]

In theory, you could. It would just mean a lot more rules to go through for every class. In much the same way, in theory, everyone should be able to hit a distracted opponents weak spot, anyone should be able to get angry, having the sleight of hand and stealth proficiency is all it takes to be a thief, anyone who picks up a weapon for a month should learn the fundamentals of parrying, ripostes, and lunging. Making a convincing feint shouldn't be far behind. Climbing walls quickly really should be something covered in athletics. And all a swashbuckler is, is someone who can use a buckler and a sidesword, don't know what makes them particularly special with taunting.

But the whole benefit of a class system is to cordon off various abilities from the rest to create a mechanical identity and feel for everything. And to keep things from getting muddled up. Especially in more complex systems. When the optimal way to play your supposedly Honorable Knight is to fly into a wild rage, poison your weapons, and eat a hallucinogenic mushroom you're running up against the point where the systems created go at odds with the fantasy the system says it allows. So things get blocked away. Sure anyone can set a trap, but the Trap Expert might have various benefits to do it better and more effectively, with maybe whole subsystems to work with. Anyone can use herbalism. But Herbalism doesn't actually have a lot of mechanics to it to flesh it out alone, because WotC has an aversion to making complex skills and tools in this system. Which putting it into a subclass could work with.

And hell this line of argument could fit right in to magic as well. What is an artificer if not just a wizard that makes their own stuff? But, WotC decided there was mechanics and a playstyle to work with there, so they made it. Is there a reason why Wizards can't make their own stuff too? No. But it wasn't the playstyle and identity they wanted for that class and they thought there was enough to work with to create a class/subclass of its own. So they did, to allow better reflection of what they wanted out of it.



Really, you don't think the herbalism focused survivalist fits Aragorn? That's exactly how he's introduced. Jon Snow as a guy with an Animal Companion who can't cast spells is pretty much the character. Will Treaty and Hood both just fit the advanced standard version really.

It's obviously hard to discuss without actual features so I'll probably drop this line of discussion. But as an example when you say a Ranger-Survivalist who supports allies, I kind of picture an Alchemist type whose features are about making "mundane" potions through herbalism that he hands out to allies and they consume for special powers. And so yeah that's not Aragorn, you probably have something very different in mind though.

As for locking features behind classes, I understand your point but don't fully agree with it. Like I understand why Jon Snow = Beastmaster Ranger, but at the same time Arya, Sansa, Rob also had an equivalent Animal Companions but I don't see them as having multiclassed 3+ levels into Ranger. So it's not the Dire Wolf companion that makes Jon Snow a Ranger, to me it's all stuff he learnt as part of the training to become a member of the Night's Watch. So yeah he's a Ranger without magic but that's because he's a fighter with a specific set of skill proficiencies. Whether 5e should create all sorts of subsystems for people to interact with the various skills or keep it simple with proficiencies and a d20 is a whole other topic (I like 5e's KISS principle). And that's where I feel the disconnect is, I don't think fighter with an outdoorsy skill selection is a good basis for a class because 5e is very much anyone can have any skillset. That's a big reason those fictional Rangers aren't D&D rangers, when anyone with the right skill selection can be good at living off the land, tracking, using healing herbs then there's nothing that unites those fictional characters so it won't be a good basis for a class. Now 5e could have gone non-magical and used something other then spellcasting as the feature that unites D&D Rangers (Say 3e Skirmish feature from Scout as an example) but it's no better or worse then magic at modelling those fictional rangers.

[paladinn]

I can't believe it never occurred to me that Jon Snow was a Beastmaster. Honestly I've not read the Song of Ice and Fire books, and the TV shows didn't play up Jon's connection with Ghost that much. Bran was obviously the Warg-in-chief.

I'm now wondering if one did an actual warg sub/class, would it be a ranger or a druid? It obviously works as a ranger for Jon. But for Bran?

If the Beastmaster were repackaged as more of a Warg, even I might be interested :)

Sorry, a bit of a segue..lol

[Schwann145]

Jon's kinda sorta a skinwalker, in that he's warged into Ghost before. But he's not particularly good at it and most of what he does is pretty traditional "boy plus wolf companion" stuff.
Bran is the "real" skinwalker in the family. I'd say that's much more Druid than Ranger, IMO.

[Amnestic]

We don't have a pet druid yet, or summoner cleric, or ranged barbarian/paladin, or force mage, or trapper ranger, or elemental cleric, or healer bard, or a shadow rogue etc.

Wildfire druid is kind of a pet druid but with its distinct theming about fire, I can see how it's not quite there in people's eyes. It's also not quite permanent.

My main problem with pet druid is how to make it not just "beastmaster, but on druid". Might have to pick a specific animal theming (wolf or lion, perhaps). That way your pet's advancement, and your other subclass features, can be more tailored to its type rather than the more generic 'pet spirit' or non-progression that BM Ranger sees.

[GooeyChewie]

Wildfire druid is kind of a pet druid but with its distinct theming about fire, I can see how it's not quite there in people's eyes. It's also not quite permanent.

My main problem with pet druid is how to make it not just "beastmaster, but on druid". Might have to pick a specific animal theming (wolf or lion, perhaps). That way your pet's advancement, and your other subclass features, can be more tailored to its type rather than the more generic 'pet spirit' or non-progression that BM Ranger sees.

If 5e classes got their subclass features at the same levels, I think you'd have a good argument for a single Beastmaster multi-class subclass.

[Amnestic]

If 5e classes got their subclass features at the same levels, I think you'd have a good argument for a single Beastmaster multi-class subclass.

Certainly would. I do let druids pick up BM as a subclass if they want it, currently at "druid" levels (2/6/10/14) but I could also vibe with giving it to a druid at 3/7/11/15 which are the ranger levels instead. Unless you have both in the same party it probably doesn't matter all that much though.

[paladinn]

If 5e classes got their subclass features at the same levels, I think you'd have a good argument for a single Beastmaster multi-class subclass.

"Multi-class subclass".. So a prestige class?

[GooeyChewie]

"Multi-class subclass".. So a prestige class?

I should have been clearer. I mean a subclass which could be taken by either Ranger or Druid, not a subclass which requires both.

[animorte]

"Multi-class subclass".. So a prestige class?

That or gestalt?

Everybody, I'm working on a spreadsheet for this concept! (or something like it)

[Gurgeh]

Certainly would. I do let druids pick up BM as a subclass if they want it, currently at "druid" levels (2/6/10/14) but I could also vibe with giving it to a druid at 3/7/11/15 which are the ranger levels instead. Unless you have both in the same party it probably doesn't matter all that much though.
Yeah, you could probably index it to the original progression without it being too much of an issue; Druids are an odd duck class in that they get a main class feature (wild shape) that turns up at the same level they get a subclass, and gets its big improvements at ASI levels - plus they're a full-caster, so they always get something beyond hit dice when they level.

[animorte]

Yeah, you could probably index it to the original progression without it being too much of an issue; Druids are an odd duck class in that they get a main class feature (wild shape) that turns up at the same level they get a subclass, and gets its big improvements at ASI levels - plus they're a full-caster, so they always get something beyond hit dice when they level.
Some subclasses expend the use of Wild Shape (without accounting for the improvements). My first thought is Stars Druid.

[Segev]

...Am I the only one who wants even more subclasses in 5e? There's so much thematic space we haven't even covered yet, and so many existing subclasses that need revisions (such as nearly every sorcerer and monk.) We don't have a pet druid yet, or summoner cleric, or ranged barbarian/paladin, or force mage, or trapper ranger, or elemental cleric, or healer bard, or a shadow rogue etc. And some of the ones we did get, like magic monk/barbarian, assassin rogue, healer artificer, weather sorcerer, or a guardian fighter, are severely lacking. Still others have great/iconic concepts but poor execution, like wild magic sorcerer, moon druid, berserker barbarian and chrono wizard. For me, 5e doesn't have nearly as many subclasses as it should, and many that could use additional work.

You may find the third party book Valda's Spire of Secrets interesting; it has a lot of new subclasses. They're a bit of a mixed bag in terms of being just about right and underpowered, as it seems the designers wanted to err on the side of their stuff being too weak rather than too strong, but there are still some fascinating things in it. A Magic Missile wizard, a rogue with a living shadow that can make ability checks for it, and I think a trapper ranger is present (though that might be a subclass of their new base Craftsman class) are all present. Not going to try to sell you on it beyond this; just wanted to point out the existence in case it was of interest to you, given your longing expressed here.


I don't think WotC is done coming out with subclasses; that seems to be the thing they're expanding most. I wish, personally, they'd write new battle master maneuvers into more books the way they write new spells into almost every book. Also, more elemental techniques for the 4E monk; I stand by my assertion that the 4E monk is only weak because it has such lame options, and could be saved by simply releasing new options.

[Psyren]

Wildfire druid is kind of a pet druid but with its distinct theming about fire, I can see how it's not quite there in people's eyes. It's also not quite permanent.

My main problem with pet druid is how to make it not just "beastmaster, but on druid". Might have to pick a specific animal theming (wolf or lion, perhaps). That way your pet's advancement, and your other subclass features, can be more tailored to its type rather than the more generic 'pet spirit' or non-progression that BM Ranger sees.


If 5e classes got their subclass features at the same levels, I think you'd have a good argument for a single Beastmaster multi-class subclass.


Certainly would. I do let druids pick up BM as a subclass if they want it, currently at "druid" levels (2/6/10/14) but I could also vibe with giving it to a druid at 3/7/11/15 which are the ranger levels instead. Unless you have both in the same party it probably doesn't matter all that much though.

Point on Wildfire but yeah, I meant more of a permanent pet (and a more thematic or universal one.) But agreed, I don't see a problem with simply bolting Tasha BM ranger's pet onto the druid.


You may find the third party book Valda's Spire of Secrets interesting; it has a lot of new subclasses. They're a bit of a mixed bag in terms of being just about right and underpowered, as it seems the designers wanted to err on the side of their stuff being too weak rather than too strong, but there are still some fascinating things in it. A Magic Missile wizard, a rogue with a living shadow that can make ability checks for it, and I think a trapper ranger is present (though that might be a subclass of their new base Craftsman class) are all present. Not going to try to sell you on it beyond this; just wanted to point out the existence in case it was of interest to you, given your longing expressed here.

Well, two things. First, my post was less about dissatisfaction with the quantity we have now, and more railing against the sentiment I was seeing pop up from others in the thread of paring down the 5e classes even further to Fighter/Mage/Thief, or the idea of sticking Barbarian and Ranger underneath Fighter. I don't think either approach would be good for the game - Barbarians, Rangers, Rogues, Fighters and Paladins all have more than enough design space within their archetypes to be full classes.

And second:


third party book

mixed bag

The tongue-in-cheek excerpts above not only sum up my own view of third party, my chances of getting any of them accepted by my DM are low enough that none are worth the expense currently :smalltongue: Which is fine, there are plenty of builds just within first-party that I haven't gotten to try yet, but I'm always on the lookout/support for WotC to make more (even through UA.)


I don't think WotC is done coming out with subclasses; that seems to be the thing they're expanding most. I wish, personally, they'd write new battle master maneuvers into more books the way they write new spells into almost every book. Also, more elemental techniques for the 4E monk; I stand by my assertion that the 4E monk is only weak because it has such lame options, and could be saved by simply releasing new options.

It probably could but I'd still like to see a buff to the entire monk chassis myself.

[Dork_Forge]

...Am I the only one who wants even more subclasses in 5e? There's so much thematic space we haven't even covered yet, and so many existing subclasses that need revisions (such as nearly every sorcerer and monk.) We don't have a pet druid yet, or summoner cleric, or ranged barbarian/paladin, or force mage, or trapper ranger, or elemental cleric, or healer bard, or a shadow rogue etc. And some of the ones we did get, like magic monk/barbarian, assassin rogue, healer artificer, weather sorcerer, or a guardian fighter, are severely lacking. Still others have great/iconic concepts but poor execution, like wild magic sorcerer, moon druid, berserker barbarian and chrono wizard. For me, 5e doesn't have nearly as many subclasses as it should, and many that could use additional work.

I'd argue that a lot of what you're mentioning is already covered to some degree:

-Pet Druid, Wildfire gets a companion basically and the optional rule for Find Familiar with Wildshapes also crosses into this territory

-Elemental Cleric, Tempest Cleric, I don't think we'd get one that chooses an element (or one per element) unless it comes in something like a Dark Sun setting, overall it doesn't really seem necessary in the core game.

-Spirit Bards get a healing buff, the feature is flawed as written, but it exists. An argument can also be made for Lore Bards stealing healing spells

Some of these I just don't understand, like the ranged Paladin/Barbarian, which doesn't just fulfill a niche, it completely goes against the core principles of those classes, the Force Wizard, which just sounds like a certain spell selection more than anything (and could arguably be fulfilled by the Graviturgist). A trapper Ranger is a bit too niche to build an entire subclass around, especially when all Rangers get spells like Alarm, Snare, and Cordon of Arrows.

I am curious though why do you feel that the healer Artificer and weather-based Sorc are lacking?

Overall I do agree more subclasses are needed/wanted, I just don't particularly agree with the specific suggestions.

[Psyren]

Overall I do agree more subclasses are needed/wanted, I just don't particularly agree with the specific suggestions.

I'd rather not derail with a lengthy discussion on the subclasses that is unlikely to end with us agreeing, so I'm happy with the first part of this sentence.

[Amnestic]

A trapper Ranger is a bit too niche to build an entire subclass around, especially when all Rangers get spells like Alarm, Snare, and Cordon of Arrows.


Personal disagreement here, if only because I already made one (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/cyiECcqnIxrF).

Whether people think it's a good execution is another matter, but the concept of a ranger who's focused on traps seems totally fine to me.

Dunno how Wizards would do it though. If they wanna pay for me for subclass ideas though I'll take their money.

[animorte]

If they wanna pay for me for subclass ideas though I'll take their money.

+1
This is why we need a like button.

[Unoriginal]

...Am I the only one who wants even more subclasses in 5e?

Well-designed subclasses would be welcomed, but I prefer no new subclass to new bad subclasses, and if there is one thing WotC has shown consistently is that when they try to rush content it's not good content even if they start with a good concept.

[animorte]

Well-designed subclasses would be welcomed, but I prefer no new subclass to new bad subclasses
Here, have this:

+1
This is why we need a like button.

[Kane0]

Seconded
10char

[Psyren]

Well-designed subclasses would be welcomed, but I prefer no new subclass to new bad subclasses, and if there is one thing WotC has shown consistently is that when they try to rush content it's not good content even if they start with a good concept.

Other than the Dragon Monk I thought the recent subclasses have been fine, so I'll stand by my statement.

[Nidgit]

While Tasha's Ranger is a necessary power bump for the class, it does bum me out that it removes some of the uniqueness between characters by cutting Favored Terrains and Enemies.

My ideal Ranger would be one that's more customized, like with a Warlock's Invocations. I'd like to see abilities tied specifically to your choices. Terrains could give you things like a thematically appropriate cantrip or resistance, or an ability that helps you deal with common terrains or conditions like a boosted climbing speed or advantage of saving throws to avoid being proned. Enemy groups could give you spells in those creatures' strengths, or abilities to help counter common strategies. My particular favorite would be additional ways to trigger reactions, such as the ability to make an OA when an enemy uses a bonus action.

Basically, Rangers should be one of the most learning-focused classes as they learn from their foe's and the land around them. Picking up broadly applicable abilities from their specific masteries is a great way to express that.

[DEMON]

The main issue with Ranger's Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy features is that they are super specific and completely turned off in any other environment/encounter. The other issue is that they're not too hot to begin with.

The Deft Explorer fixes this by giving them nice always on abilities not tied to a specific environment, but does away with any choice and customization for the player.

I would have preferred something along the lines of BG3, where those features got completely reworked and offer a bunch of very different options for great customization (https://baldursgate3.wiki.fextralife.com/Ranger).

Something like (for Natural Explorer rework) would have been my preference to Tasha's "static" fix:

Urban Ranger - At first level, you gain a proficiency in Insight or Investigation (your choice). You also learn a new language; At 6th level, you gain proficiency in the other skill, or expertise in a skill you're already proficient in; At 10th level you can cast Sending once per long rest without expending a spell slot and you add Sending to your known spells.

Planar Ranger - Same but Arcana and Medicine and Misty Step once per Short Rest.

Nature Ranger - Same but Nature and Survival and the Tireless feature from Deft Explorer.

Different choices provide different abilities, but you won't lose any of them depending on your environment.

The Favored enemy should:

1) provide something more meaningful in terms of bonuses, like advantage on Stealth and Intimidation and tracking checks and +Proficiency bonus to damage against them

and

2) offer a "Generalist" choice that would provide more minor bonuses, applicable to anyone (e.g. always on advantage on tracking only; only +Proficiency bonus to damage once per round).

That way you could choose (a) specific type(s) of enemies for a more thematic campaign (such as a War against Orcs, or Undead/Dragon hunting campaign etc.) or go Generalist and not be boned the whole time when your choice of enemy doesn't show up during the entirety of the story.

[Witty Username]

I feel like canny from Tasha's still provides alot of choice for Ranger concept. Expertise in one skill is pretty impactful.

[Willie the Duck]

I feel like canny from Tasha's still provides alot of choice for Ranger concept. Expertise in one skill is pretty impactful.

What it does for me is make me feel better about a dump stat for a character that seems to me like a polymath. Low Strength but expertise in Athletics, low Int but decent nature or investigation skill. Low Cha but can negotiate a good salary for their rangering services, etc.

[Dork_Forge]

What it does for me is make me feel better about a dump stat for a character that seems to me like a polymath. Low Strength but expertise in Athletics, low Int but decent nature or investigation skill. Low Cha but can negotiate a good salary for their rangering services, etc.

This is exactly why I like proficiencies and Expertise on a lot of characters, they don't have to make you the best at something, but they can make you still good at things you couldn't afford to invest points into.

I really enjoy the Deft Explorer optional feature, it feels like it rounds out the Ranger really well in a more practical, and generally applicable, way.