Remove Ranger add Commander

[Bigmouth]

I had to name the theoretical class. Pet Master was the first thought, but Commander sounds better?

Anyhow. So always lots of talk about the Ranger not having a clear class identity. How it is just a fighter or rogue with some fluff. I don't necessarily agree, but was contemplating classes the other day and I came up with removing all non-pet rangers from the class. They probably could be well balanced as subclasses to fighter or rogue. Bring a few spells with them and they are probably golden. Might be better, might be worse. Net gain of zero most likely. But we aren't just removing ranger, we are creating a new class to replace it. The Pet Master (Commander?). The focus is clearly, Pets! Pets for everybody! Fighter with a pet. Rogue with a pet. Wizard with a pet. Cleric with a pet. So the base class would bring the pet mechanics ala the new improved BM or the Artificier. The subclass would bring another class in basically, but restricted for balance. (Based on the assumption that, giving any base class other than the ranger (or artificier) a full time combat ally would be too powerful. Otherwise, let's see a BM subclass for the other classes please).

Obviously, I love pet based rangers. But I also love pretty much any class based around pets/allies. Seems like there is room for this type of character in the game. Enchanters from DAoC. Abomination Coven from Owl House. Magical bodyguards. Mystic mounts. Heck, could probably have Robin to your Batman as a subclass. I feel there are a ton of concepts that could work with the idea.

Random thought

[Sparky McDibben]

Or just make exploration a meaningful pillar of the game, tied into a thematic set of abilities that makes the ranger more than a combat specialist.

[kazaryu]

I had to name the theoretical class. Pet Master was the first thought, but Commander sounds better?

Anyhow. So always lots of talk about the Ranger not having a clear class identity. How it is just a fighter or rogue with some fluff. I don't necessarily agree, but was contemplating classes the other day and I came up with removing all non-pet rangers from the class. They probably could be well balanced as subclasses to fighter or rogue. Bring a few spells with them and they are probably golden. Might be better, might be worse. Net gain of zero most likely. But we aren't just removing ranger, we are creating a new class to replace it. The Pet Master (Commander?). The focus is clearly, Pets! Pets for everybody! Fighter with a pet. Rogue with a pet. Wizard with a pet. Cleric with a pet. So the base class would bring the pet mechanics ala the new improved BM or the Artificier. The subclass would bring another class in basically, but restricted for balance. (Based on the assumption that, giving any base class other than the ranger (or artificier) a full time combat ally would be too powerful. Otherwise, let's see a BM subclass for the other classes please).

Obviously, I love pet based rangers. But I also love pretty much any class based around pets/allies. Seems like there is room for this type of character in the game. Enchanters from DAoC. Abomination Coven from Owl House. Magical bodyguards. Mystic mounts. Heck, could probably have Robin to your Batman as a subclass. I feel there are a ton of concepts that could work with the idea.

Random thought

seems iike it could be neat. I don't generally have a problem with people having a pet in game. even one that fights alongside them. But i'd be wary of adding too many more than there are currently options for. clogs up the initiative order.

[Talamare]

Remove Commander, add Warlord

[Damon_Tor]

I can't imagine WotC adding a dedicated pet class into the game. D&D has never handled summons well, and 5e does it worse than most other editions, which says something. Is it possible some genius innovation awaits us in D&Done? Maybe, but I doubt it.

I expect that, instead, D&Done will nerf or simply eliminate any and all pet-centric spells such as Animate Dead, Conjure Animals, and Animate Objects.

[Mastikator]

Don't remove anything. Just add.

[Witty Username]

Put a Commander class in the homebrew stuff and will talk.

I don't like the idea of removing things even when I dislike them. And lacking a clear class identity is sometimes an advantage If their are themes your trying to avoid.

[Naanomi]

If I were looking for a class to cut, ranger would probably be it... Challenging to implement identity, wonky historical features to try and emulate, conceptually implementable as a fighter, rogue, or druid subclass... But I'm not, and at this point the 12 classes are pretty baked in to the brand identity: arguably Ranger more than Barbarian, Sorcerer, or Warlock even

[Talamare]

If I were looking for a class to cut, ranger would probably be it... Challenging to implement identity, wonky historical features to try and emulate, conceptually implementable as a fighter, rogue, or druid subclass... But I'm not, and at this point the 12 classes are pretty baked in to the brand identity: arguably Ranger more than Barbarian, Sorcerer, or Warlock even

Barbarian is completely core in the mentality of DnD. The zeitgeist around DnD has solidified the existence of the Barbarian and Bard.

Ranger is arguably more recognizable than Druid and Warlock, sure.
Warlock is new, Druid has never really been especially popular.

Probably even Fighter, since that's always been a bag of bland.

[Naanomi]

Barbarian is completely core in the mentality of DnD.
They didn't appear meaningfully until a late 2E book, and not as a core feature (or in any form we'd recognize them in) until 3E. They have as much OG credibility as... (quickly checks what other classes got added in mainline 2E Supplementals)... Ninja and Necromancer (as a separate class from specialist Wizard)

Fighters (well... fighting men) have been around since Chainmail? Can't get much more central to the larger brand than that

If you go past the 'Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Wizard' paradigm, Ranger starts being part of the feel of DnD along with Paladin, Druid, and Bard (sort of)

[Notafish]

I wouldn't mind at all if the class features of the Ranger turned into background, feats, or maneuvers available to a broader range of classes.

But if the class stuck around, I could see it turning into something closer to the Paladin template, with modifications made to accommodate Wisdom-based casting and ranged fighting - a half-caster with prepared spells, consistent, rather than burst damage (Hunter's Mark in place of Smite?), and perhaps an animal companion modeled as an aura, rather than a separate entity.

While I sympathize with OP's desire for more character pets, I agree with the replies that they are hard to fit into the system as separate entities without disrupting encounter planning and turn time.

[Kane0]

Leave Ranger alone, add Warlord with its own pet sublass(es).

[Person_Man]

Drizzt Do'Urden and Aragorn are popular archetypical Rangers, to the point of being clichés, and way too popular to remove from the game. I think there's a million homebrew Ranger fixes, with the easiest being to just your Companion act on its own during your turn without needing to be ordered. (Or just use the more recently written subclasses and Ranger spells).

Also, if you want a Commander class, I would suggest one of the various Marshal (port from 3.5) homebrews, which focuses on auras and giving order (buffs/actions) to allies.

[Talamare]

They didn't appear meaningfully until a late 2E book, and not as a core feature (or in any form we'd recognize them in) until 3E. They have as much OG credibility as... (quickly checks what other classes got added in mainline 2E Supplementals)... Ninja and Necromancer (as a separate class from specialist Wizard)

Fighters (well... fighting men) have been around since Chainmail? Can't get much more central to the larger brand than that

If you go past the 'Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Wizard' paradigm, Ranger starts being part of the feel of DnD along with Paladin, Druid, and Bard (sort of)

"They have been around since the beginning" or not

Is irrelevant.


What matters is what do people today think when they think DnD.

Guess what? It's not 'Fighting Man', it's Barbarian RAGING.

[Naanomi]

What matters is what do people today think when they think DnD.

Guess what? It's not 'Fighting Man', it's Barbarian RAGING.
I'd have to see some data indicating that, it doesn't fit my experience (including what classes appear in other media; video games and the like as windows into the larger brand)

[Bigmouth]

Put a Commander class in the homebrew stuff and will talk.

I don't like the idea of removing things even when I dislike them. And lacking a clear class identity is sometimes an advantage If their are themes your trying to avoid.

I actually like the Ranger. For me it is all about the bow and pet though. So the pet master/commander/warlord idea isn’t really about disliking the ranger. It is more about wanting more pet classes. Real pet classes though, not classes where it was a possible build.

[Rilmani]

Don't you dare get rid of ranger while the Arcane Archer is still a disappointment. I admit that I think that, mechanically and thematically, Ranger and Barbarian should be one class which has a number of meaningful choices to make to determine their core features. Like Warlock and Artificer. Some would dive into all-melee-all-the-time features like Rage, some would build toward ranged attacker with a bag of tricks.


For now though, look at the Ranger spell list. WotC has not pushed "martial druids" (who'd get access to Ranger-exclusive spells), Bards rarely dip into Ranger via Magical Secrets, the Feats that grant spells basically can't include offensive Ranger spells due to their spell school restrictions, and none of the other martials can access Ranger spells through their subclasses (with exception to Ancients Paladin). As it stands I think the best way to pull off a pet class is not to make them a martial character. Look at the Spirit Master (https://old.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/weer5y/the_spirit_master_less_talk_more_action_30_final/). Google doc link (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1KL1LXVISXdSTIZ0dTGYofrDe0DDcbSey). The pet and master have shared hit points, it has multiattack, it can be customized with Perks in addition to the spirit type, and it makes sense for these entities to harm and survive encounters with high-CR threats. Alternatively look at Pathfinder 1.0's Summoner and their Eidolon pet. The core of whatever Commander, Spirit Master or Summoner one's table allows will revolve around two questions. How does the pet's death work and can the pet operate while the PC is dead, unconscious, or otherwise away from the pet.

The Spirit Master says "the spirit can't die" and "the pet cannot operate while the character is unconscious, but it can operate from a medium distance. Longer with certain perks." In addition to the "shared hit points" situation, the pet is not tireless.

As a bonus action, you can create a manifestation of one of your spirits in an unoccupied space you can see within 5 feet of you. It lasts for 1 minute or until dismissed. You can do so a number of times equal to your Wisdom modifier plus your proficiency bonus and regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest. When you roll for initiative and have no uses remaining, you also regain one use.
So much easier than figuring out "will my pet follow fatal orders?" "Do I need to feed it?" And so-on. A pet class needs to be inherently magical for a game like dnd 5e, which is designed to be streamlined compared to Pathfinder 1e. Tacking on spells makes sense at that point. The Spirit Weaver does not have cantrips though. So again, its attacks and the pet's attacks are one, even if split into multiple turns by having multiple spirits out.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As much as I like the concept of a pet class (and have written several of them, one of which is being playtested now), I think they're mechanically incompatible with the rest of the system. It would be better, in fact, if no ability to create extra combatants under your control (whether summoning, pets, necromancy, domination that doesn't use your action every turn) existed within the game.

So no. Furthermore, rangers are (mostly) ok. Do they have an identity crisis? Sure. But so do fighters and wizards (worse for wizards, even, who don't have an identity other than being OP). Are they weak? Meh, within normal bounds for all but the more heavily-optimized campaigns.

[Kane0]

Don't you dare get rid of ranger while the Arcane Archer is still a disappointment.

Convert AA to a Ranger subclass. Its thematically appropriate and gives you independent short rest resources that compliment your long rest spell slots. It also removes the direct comparison/competition with Battlemaster maneuvers.

[Psyren]

It would be better, in fact, if no ability to create extra combatants under your control (whether summoning, pets, necromancy, domination that doesn't use your action every turn) existed within the game.

Sounds boring as all get-out.


Don't you dare get rid of ranger while the Arcane Archer is still a disappointment.
``
AA is an easy fix, they just need their shots to scale. Either PB shots/SR, or 3x PB shots/LR (+ recover 1 on a SR) should do the trick. This gives them roughly the same output at low levels but much improved output later on.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sounds boring as all get-out.


Clogging up the battlefield is powerful, but it's anything but fun for everyone else. I know some people can't tell the difference.

[KorvinStarmast]

Clogging up the battlefield is powerful, but it's anything but fun for everyone else. I know some people can't tell the difference. I am not going to apologize for my bard's two dire wolves. I am not sorry. And two of us had fun: me and the halfling! :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

Clogging up the battlefield is powerful, but it's anything but fun for everyone else. I know some people can't tell the difference.

1-2 minions for a character is hardly "clogging." The Conjure X line can go, I agree.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I am not going to apologize for my bard's two dire wolves. I am not sorry. And two of us had fun: me and the halfling! :smallbiggrin:


1-2 minions for a character is hardly "clogging." The Conjure X line can go, I agree.

Being a bit less of an absolutist than my previous posts, I agree that if one character has one or at most two simple minions, it's not so bad. So the Summon line is...mostly ok. At least within my "meh, I can tolerate it" level. What I dislike is the idea of


Ok guys, we're going to go raid the BBEG's lair. I'll take scouting and ranged duty.
You have my axe and shield.
You have my holy magic to heal and protect.
You have me with my magic, my 5 undead, my summoned critters, my simulacrum, his batch of summoned critters, and my familiar. We'll just move like a mobile wave and drown everything, you guys just stand back and watch. Oh, and my turns will take 2 hours, so go get pizza while you wait

Full-time pet classes are super hard to get right. And I've tried. Korvin can attest that we've got one on the field who is...so so. When we're somewhere his pet (a dragon-relative) can't meaningfully come (which has gotten worse now that it's Large), he's kinda in a sad place. And the pet either is super strong or doesn't really contribute much (damage wise, it has some decent defensive abilities due to his subclass). I've done others where most of the power is in the pet, leaving the primary a bit sad. And that's not even getting into what happens when the pet dies. Or scaling issues--having another body on the field at low levels is very different than at higher levels; if the pet doesn't scale just right, it can leave the whole class gimped. Or if the primary is strong enough, the pet feels like a mobile DoT spell (hello all the pet classes in various MMOs!). Can it be done? Maybe. I have yet to see one in any RPG (computer or not) that wasn't a total kludge with lots of rough edges.

[Damon_Tor]

I sometimes run a houserule where masses of identical creatures can attack as a "unit". So if you summon 32 velociraptors with Conjure Animals and they all mob one large target with an AC of 14 and make their bite attack. Instead of each unit rolling to see if they hit, instead they attack as a unit to see HOW MANY hit.

So the unit rolls 1d20+4 (with advantage, because pack tactics) and the result is a 16.
Meeting the AC exactly means 50% of the unit hits, with every +1 over the AC adding another 10%, rounded up. So they beat the AC by 2, that's 70% of the unit that hits. 32*.7=22.4, rounded up is 23 hits.
Always use the averaged damage given in the stat block when attacking as a unit, so 23*5= 115 damage.


The velociraptor pack attacks again because of their multiattack, this time with their Claws. The same process occurs again:

The unit rolls 1d20+4 with advantage and this time the result is a 22.
They've beat the AC by 8 points, which means 130% of the unit hits? Yes, in lieu of crits a unit can have more than 100% of it's units "hit" if they roll high enough over the target's AC. (a natural 20 has no additional benefit) So 32*1.3=41.6, rounded up is 42 hits.
42*4=168 damage.


There, we've handled in two rolls and some easy calculator math what might have taken 64 rolls otherwise.

Also, I've made a few homebrew subclasses which use a "swarm" mechanic to simplify mass summons. The first is a follower-oriented bard (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24313970&postcount=6) who attracts a throng of commoners. In combat these commoners coalesce into an angry mob, a "humanoid swarm". Similarly, a "deathtouched" sorcerer subclass (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24988931&postcount=4) designed around necromancy spells which has the ability to cause its summoned skeletons or zombies to congeal into a Shambling Horde, an "undead swarm". In both cases these swarms move around the battlefield dealing damage to enemy creatures in or adjacent to their spaces automatically, without the need for an attack roll, with the size of the swarm and the damage dealt increasing with the number of creatures contained within said swarm.

Either system works well as a way to play a summoning-oriented character.

[paladinn]

I haven't been a big Ranger fan for a long time. In early D&D, people were trying to model Aragorn. By 2e it was more Robin Hood. The class suffers from a huge identity crisis. Is a ranger a fighter, a rogue or a junior druid? I did a ranger as a fighter subclass that really gets back to the roots.

The name "Commander" definitely speaks more to a Warlord/Marshal type character, not to a "pet-oriented" class. I would have suggested making a fighter subclass for Beastmaster, rather than using the pretty-anemic ranger core class. Outside of any animal control abilities, the core fighter abilities would be pretty helpful, I would think. One more reason to make ranger a fighter sub.

But the OP wants to make "pets" available for all classes, so the best way to do that is likely with feats. It wouldn't be anything to build a sub/class around, but it would make a decent bolt-on.

[Damon_Tor]

But the OP wants to make "pets" available for all classes, so the best way to do that is likely with feats. It wouldn't be anything to build a sub/class around, but it would make a decent bolt-on.

3e's follower system comes to mind. You wander around and accumulate NPCs who do your bidding until they die, in which case you have to return to civilization to replenish your forces. For that reason it would mean you would begin an adventure ahead of the power curve as your "mob" is fresh, but by the time you reach the BBEG your collection of followers would have likely dwindled. However, it seems like a hard system to balance and a hard system to keep from disrupting the table.

[PhoenixPhyre]

3e's follower system comes to mind. You wander around and accumulate NPCs who do your bidding until they die, in which case you have to return to civilization to replenish your forces. For that reason it would mean you would begin an adventure ahead of the power curve as your "mob" is fresh, but by the time you reach the BBEG your collection of followers would have likely dwindled. However, it seems like a hard system to balance and a hard system to keep from disrupting the table.

Hard? There's a reason that the Leadership feat ranks well up there on the "banned at most tables, restricted at most of the rest" list. It's obnoxious to deal with even if it's not broken. At least as long as it's an active "on camera" benefit rather than just something that happens behind the scenes/during downtime. And 5e's compressed curve (where that group of low-level followers is viable and useful for a whole lot longer) makes this even worse.

[Amechra]

Honestly, they just need to merge the Ranger and Rogue into a single class, or keep them as two similar classes built off of similar principles (like spellcasters are).

Both of them are about environmental mastery (usually reflected through being sneaky and good at scouting) and leveraging situational advantages to win fights. It's just that they decided to give one of them mastery of all mundane skills, while the other class got a grab-bag of ranger-y stuff.

[Naanomi]

Honestly, they just need to merge the Ranger and Rogue into a single class, or keep them as two similar classes built off of similar principles (like spellcasters are).

Both of them are about environmental mastery (usually reflected through being sneaky and good at scouting) and leveraging situational advantages to win fights. It's just that they decided to give one of them mastery of all mundane skills, while the other class got a grab-bag of ranger-y stuff.
If it didn't have such historical weight, I would entirely agree... It would be akin to Arcane Trickster but with some druid casting instead

[Psyren]

It's not just tradition/history though. Ranger and Rogue have a great deal of thematic divergence that would be obliterated if they were combined, much like Fighters and Paladins do. Sure you could finagle one into being nothing more than a subset of the other, but we would lose out on far more than we gain that way, both as players and as DMs.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's not just tradition/history though. Ranger and Rogue have a great deal of thematic divergence that would be obliterated if they were combined, much like Fighters and Paladins do. Sure you could finagle one into being nothing more than a subset of the other, but we would lose out on far more than we gain that way, both as players and as DMs.

Agreed.

Personally, I'm fond of more, tighter (thematically) classes rather than trying to subsume everything into a few giant bloated blobs.

For example, I've dreamed of splitting
* Wizards into a bunch of specialists ranging from half-casters to warlock-style casters to more conventional (but narrowly-themed) full casters.
* Druids into a full-time shapeshifter who might, at most, have 1/3 casting and something similar to the 4e shaman (placeable aura "spirits" or "totems") + spellcasting.
* Cleric into the "warrior type" (with more of a martial focus, being the offensive-caster holy inquisitor variant) and the more "priest" type (low/no armor, uses warlock-style spell-casting plus lots of "miracles" aka invocations).
* Fighter into a few smaller classes, with the "weapon specialist" being one of them.

[Ulsan Krow]

Sounds boring as all get-out.


``
AA is an easy fix, they just need their shots to scale. Either PB shots/SR, or 3x PB shots/LR (+ recover 1 on a SR) should do the trick. This gives them roughly the same output at low levels but much improved output later on.


Int modifier uses per short rest (min 2). And instead of only recharging 1 use when you roll initiative with no uses remaining, recharge 1 use whenever you roll initiative, period

[Amnestic]

A lotta people have a lotta different opinions on what the ranger 'should' be - core mechanics wise. Master+pet? Dual wielder drizzt? 2her/bow/tracker Aragorn?

And if Paladins had been mechanically weaker in 5e (like they were in 3.5) we'd see similar conversations about them too.

Doesn't mean they need scrapping, just means that WotC need to either a) pick one concept for their core mechanic and make that the main part of the class, to the detriment of the other ideas* or b) reduce the power level of the main class and boost the power level of the subclasses, to let people express their beastmaster, their drizzt, their aragorn through those instead. Outside of a fighting style, Ranger doesn't really have any dual wield support, and certainly there isn't a "dual wielder" subclass for them.

*my preference is ranged-focused half-caster, to complement the melee-focused half-caster that is paladin.

[Arkhios]

Don't remove anything. Just add.

This. Commander/Marshal/Warlord/whatever you want to call it could, however, fit into the chassis of ranger, as a subclass.

[Psyren]

Doesn't mean they need scrapping, just means that WotC need to either a) pick one concept for their core mechanic and make that the main part of the class, to the detriment of the other ideas* or b) reduce the power level of the main class and boost the power level of the subclasses, to let people express their beastmaster, their drizzt, their aragorn through those instead.

Are people really having trouble with (b)? Even after Tasha's? :smallconfused:
I definitely don't see why the base class would need a nerf in any event, it literally just got buffed.


Outside of a fighting style, Ranger doesn't really have any dual wield support, and certainly there isn't a "dual wielder" subclass for them.


Nobody in this game is good at dual-wielding (except maybe Soulknife) - that's not really a fault of the Ranger. The problem is with the TWF rules themselves.

[Amnestic]

Are people really having trouble with (b)? Even after Tasha's? :smallconfused:
I definitely don't see why the base class would need a nerf in any event, it literally just got buffed.


Oh I didn't mean that ranger's needed a buff, esp. post-Tasha's* just that if people are concerned about it being thematically 'incoherent', then lowering the power of the core class to boost the power of the subclasses lets them flex the themes through that instead. "Weak" core class+powerful, varied subclasses is a design philosophy that might be something some people want out of the ranger, giving its myriad of themes/archetypes it draws on.

*Okay they could've fixed the 18th and 20th level features, those are still a bit not-good, lets be honest.



Nobody in this game is good at dual-wielding (except maybe Soulknife) - that's not really a fault of the Ranger. The problem is with the TWF rules themselves.

This is true, though if there were a TWF focused subclass maybe they would be good at it. Maybe.

[Rilmani]

It's not just tradition/history though. Ranger and Rogue have a great deal of thematic divergence that would be obliterated if they were combined, much like Fighters and Paladins do. Sure you could finagle one into being nothing more than a subset of the other, but we would lose out on far more than we gain that way, both as players and as DMs.

I completely agree, Ranger =/= Rogue, aside from the "skill proficiency" angle. Mechanically I think Ranger could use something like Bardic Inspiration or gifted Luck points (inspiration) to show how they are a team player, leading the party through terrain and reacting with aid when a spot unexpectedly crumbles. If the Guidance and Resistance cantrips didn't exist... grumbles or if they were changed to a X times per rest feature with duration Y (which would obviously be similar to Bardic Inspiraiton).

Anyway, aside from that feature, I think if Ranger was eliminated, it should be merged into Barbarian instead for thematic reasons and the mechanical options I discussed last page. I could also see it getting included into Fighter, if Fighter got two or three Gish subclasses, but that would be a bit clunky. The third class I could see them getting slotted into is Monk, but it would not be graceful. Basically in my mind, some of Monk's passive supernatural abilities would become active ones by spending spell slots. Or maybe it'd be based on the Spell Points sorcerer. It'd be odd.

...gah, the more I think about it, the more I wonder how Ranger could be designed as a prestige class that barbarians, fighters- anyone could dip into. But 5e hasn't taken that route, so it won't happen.

[Psyren]

Oh I didn't mean that ranger's needed a buff, esp. post-Tasha's* just that if people are concerned about it being thematically 'incoherent', then lowering the power of the core class to boost the power of the subclasses lets them flex the themes through that instead. "Weak" core class+powerful, varied subclasses is a design philosophy that might be something some people want out of the ranger, giving its myriad of themes/archetypes it draws on.

I honestly think ranger is in a mostly okay spot now. Okay, Hunter/Monster Slayer/Horizon Walker could still use some buffs, but the rest are fine. And Ranger should know its whole list like Paladin does.


*Okay they could've fixed the 18th and 20th level features, those are still a bit not-good, lets be honest.

I think Feral Senses is fine, though if they just upgraded it to 30' blindsight that would be both cleaner and stronger.
Foe Slayer should apply to every attack.


This is true, though if there were a TWF focused subclass maybe they would be good at it. Maybe.

I'd still rather just buff TWF in general (both the fighting style and the feat) but I wouldn't hate a TWF subclass either.

[Amechra]

It's not just tradition/history though. Ranger and Rogue have a great deal of thematic divergence that would be obliterated if they were combined, much like Fighters and Paladins do. Sure you could finagle one into being nothing more than a subset of the other, but we would lose out on far more than we gain that way, both as players and as DMs.

You see, I'd agree with you if Rangers had a single coherent identity other than "be Aragorn and/or Drizz't???"

[Amnestic]

You see, I'd agree with you if Rangers had a single coherent identity other than "be Aragorn and/or Drizz't???"

From their PHB description, they're hunters, trackers, wilderness experts, monster slayers, and defenders of the wild from the wild.

Now granted whether that's mechanically satisfied is another matter, and whether that's what people want from a 'ranger' is also another matter, but that is a coherent identity - certainly as much as other classes.

[Kane0]

Rogues hide, Rangers seek. That is of course not all they do, but i could see them being two sides of the same coin.

[Naanomi]

From their PHB description, they're hunters, trackers, wilderness experts, monster slayers, and defenders of the wild from the wild.
I could be alone in this but... I don't see anything in that wouldn't just be background more than class (any given outlander rogue or fighter... Or others really... Could easily fit that description)

[Amnestic]

I could be alone in this but... I don't see anything in that wouldn't just be background more than class (any given outlander rogue or fighter... Or others really... Could easily fit that description)

A number of backgrounds correspond directly to class archetypes, so I don't really see how that matters?

Fighter:Soldier
Rogue:Criminal
Bard:Entertainer
Wizard/Warlock:Sage

That they exist doesn't mean the class should disappear. No one's crowing for the wizard class to go away because their class lore of "being really good at studying" is totally overshadowed by the Sage background.

[Psyren]

You see, I'd agree with you if Rangers had a single coherent identity other than "be Aragorn and/or Drizz't???"

Or Van Helsing. Or Rambo. Or Rexxar. Or Hemingway. Or the Mandalorian. Or Daryl Dixon. Or Elyas. Or Geralt.

(I really want to make a sophisticated Giff Beastmaster with a monocle, a blunderbuss, and a pygmy rhino companion.)


From their PHB description, they're hunters, trackers, wilderness experts, monster slayers, and defenders of the wild from the wild.

Now granted whether that's mechanically satisfied is another matter, and whether that's what people want from a 'ranger' is also another matter, but that is a coherent identity - certainly as much as other classes.

They're fine mechanically now, they just have a couple of subclasses left that could use a bit of a buff to get them closer to the strong ones.
I agree with your assessment of their identity however.

I also like reading how other editions describe the base classes since each new group of designers had to grapple with these same questions. For instance, here's how they're described in 4e:

"Rangers are watchful warriors who roam past the horizon to safeguard a region, a principle, or a way of life. Masters of bow and blade, rangers excel at hit-and-run assaults and can quickly and silently eliminate foes. Rangers lay superb ambushes and excel at avoiding danger."

Some of that overlaps with rogue (i.e. the "quickly and silently eliminate foes" / "excel at avoiding danger" bits) but some doesn't fit with rogue at all ("watchful warriors who safeguard a region, principle, or way of life") Rogues aren't really known for wanting to "safeguard" anything but their own skins, and loyalty to specific regions or principles is not really part of their identity. Certainly you can make a rogue who is devoted to safeguarding a particular place or ideal, just like you can make a barbarian who is an avid scholar, but a ranger fits the former concept much more smoothly.

[Naanomi]

See, I don't see motivation as part of class design... Well at least not for rangers or rogues (druid and paladin and the like an argument can be made)... I can make a noble and just rogue, I can make a vicious slaver of a ranger... It isn't part of the identity (or at least not since alignment requirements for classes were phased out)