Ranger and Rogue

[YoungestGruff]

I heard that Gary Gygax regretted making Rogue abilities specific to Rogues (Sneak Attack, primarily, shouldn't be limited to a single class). I cannot find a source for this, nor can I speak to how that particular change would change the game. But. It did, in fact, inspire a brainwave.

Things that most people can agree on:

• Rangers suffer from a lack of class vision
• A Scout Rogue makes a better archetpyal Ranger than the PHB Ranger
• A lot of the new buffs/subclasses for Ranger's revolve around adding damage modifiers
• Rogues have a weird spot where they aren't strictly thieves, but also have a lot of Thief specific features

Putting all these together: What if the Ranger and Rogue were collapsed into a single class? A skill focused single target damage dealer. It provides a DEX Martial to contrast the Fighter (while not being forced into DEX any more than a Fighter is). The Ranger gets the class identity of the Expert. And my favorite aspect of this is the ability to insert Warlock style layers of customization. Not only could you have your Ranger/Rogue Conclave/Archetype, you could have a level-based damage rider; Favored Foe (pick a type of enemy), Hunter's Mark (pick a specific enemy), Sneak Attack (anyone you can muster Advantage against), or variants thereof. You can get the Cold Sniper, the Assassin, the Wilderness Guide, and the Mastermind all out of one class.

Yes, ultimately, it would be more Rogue than Ranger. But the fact that the Rogue no longer has to worry about stepping on the Ranger's toes means that it could occupy a spot a little more martial and a little less. . . Bardic, for lack of a more specific word.

[OldTrees1]

Rangers suffer from a lack of class vision
A Scout Rogue makes a better archetypal Ranger than the PHB Ranger

Huh? How does it suffer from a lack of vision and yet you refer to an archetype? I think it is more common that people criticize the implementation of the Ranger class rather than its vision.

Putting all these together: What if the Ranger and Rogue were collapsed into a single class? A skill focused single target damage dealer.

Still skill focused is a good move.

Why the focus on single target damage dealer? It would make more sense for a skill focused class to have the combat vary based upon the approach. Some might be single target focused (assassin). Others might be multi target focused (booby trapper).

Does this mean Rogue will be forced to have spells? Rangers were a Druid / Rogue / Fighter hybrid.

Yes, ultimately, it would be more Rogue than Ranger. But the fact that the Rogue no longer has to worry about stepping on the Ranger's toes means that it could occupy a spot a little more martial and a little less. . . Bardic, for lack of a more specific word.

What do you mean less Bardic? Every way I try to parse that implies you are butchering Rogue. Less skilled? Socially inept? Ignorant?

[Pandamonium]

I heard that Gary Gygax regretted making Rogue abilities specific to Rogues (Sneak Attack, primarily, shouldn't be limited to a single class). I cannot find a source for this, nor can I speak to how that particular change would change the game. But. It did, in fact, inspire a brainwave.

If I remember right Rangers Scouts! had a cool variant of Sneak Attack called Skirmish in 3.5.
"Skirmish (Ex): A scout relies on mobility to deal extra damage and improve her defense. She deals an extra 1d6 points of damage on all attacks she makes during any round in which she moves at least 10 feet away from where she was at the start of her turn. The extra damage applies only to attacks made after the scout has moved at least 10 feet. The skirmish ability cannot be used while mounted. The extra damage applies only to attacks taken during the scout's turn. This extra damage increases by 1d6 for every four levels gained above 1st (2d6 at 5th, 3d6 at 9th, 4d6 at 13th, and 5d6 at 17th level)."

It would be cool if it was available to rangers but I guess it is kinda represented by the scout subclass having access to mobility and sneak attack.

[MrStabby]

This would need a lot of careful thought to the implementation but it could kind of work.

I see something similar to the warlock in that you have two main choices - choice of patron and choice of pact type. Both have a pretty big effect.

Here, you would have archetype choice as normal but also a form that would be spellcasting or non-spellcasting which would be another huge change.


I think you are right that it would give both classes a bit of a chance to expand unconstrained by the other - probably more a benefit for the ranger than the rogue. I can see this also helpin with gama balance at higher levels - I find that both classes run into some issues with scaling and the fact that more and more spells obviate the skills brough to the table.

There are problems as well - or maybe obstacles might be a better description. Not things that can't be overcome but real challenges. There are certainly popular features of both classes that maybe kind of overlap like arcane trickster abilities and spellcasting and ranger spellcasting. What spell list should be used? Is half casting too strong with magical ambush? How would you alow an archetype with magical ambush and not have certain spells be too strong whilst those same spells are too weak on a different archetype? How would strip the wilderness theme from the ranger so that you can still build an urban rogue without wasted abilities?

One reason I think the meshing could work, is that I think both rangers and rogues have fairly bland class features but awesomely flavourful subclass features so it isn't like there would be that much thematic overlap.

I think certain subclasses would need to be dropped as redundant: Scout, hunter, assassin would be my starting point. Its easier to balance if fewer things need to mesh. Then there are some others that are problematic like swashbuckler - if you need dex, cha, and wisdom then its a bit too MAD, or same with arcane trickster needing Int. You might need to let this composite class chose their casting stat which would then make multiclass abuse just a bit more likely.

There is also the issue around power scaling - all the ranger goodies and all the rogue stuff would obviously be overpowered. What would you give up, especially at lower levels where both classes are really powerful? I am guessing that you could do something like push extra attack to 11 and keep the damage scaling based on sneak attack before then. This then opens up issues as the ranger is build somewhat on spells like hunter's mark that would be half as good with half the number of attacks or ensaring strike that is less good with fewer chances to land it.

And a wierd side effect? If rangers had fewer atacks but sneak attack... then we might see some two weapon fighter rangers after all.

[sophontteks]

I never really saw a problem with rogues. They have a unique fighting style, a buttload of skills, great base abilities, and some solid subclasses. I don't know what they'd need from rangers. It's all covered in the scout subclass already.

Rangers are pretty much fixed in Tashas too. IMO we should just ditch the base ranger completely. Favored enemy, favored terrain, and all the rest was terribly written unfun garbage that was replaced in tasha's. The new ranger, however, has awesome abilities including: expertise and mobility buffs, free castings of various animal-relsted spells, and a no-action-needed single-target damage buff.

The new subclasses are not just damage too. Gloomstalkers may be damage monsters, but Beastmaster works just fine now and fey wanderers turn rangers into party faces.

I'm not sure what we really need to fix here.

[JellyPooga]

• Rogues have a weird spot where they aren't strictly thieves, but also have a lot of Thief specific features

This, in particular, I disagree on.

Even the Thief archetype isn't even particularly thief specific, let alone the Class as a whole. 5e Rogue is a different beast to previous editions, with a suite of abilities that give them a fairly unique dynamic. Their skill focus is not tied to being sneaky or larcenous and their combat focus is not tied to a reliance on hiding or even necessarily a deceptive fighter. The Thief archetype gains increased athleticism, more utility from items, the ability to act faster and yes, one feature that improves their ability to sneak. None of it really screams "you gotta go steal stuff, yo". The sole exception is Thieves Cant (which I, personally have always interpreted as easily refluffed into any secret language; Druidic, Ranger Signs, Guild Code). Even Thieves Tools, despite their name, are really just lockpicks plus trapsmiths tools, which aren't unique to the thieving professions.

When you really break down the Rogue, it can be;

• A skirmisher
• An archer
• A tank
• A skill guy (whether that be a thief, a trapmonkey, face, lore-dude, survivalist, athlete or whatever)
• Any or all of the above

And that's before adding a subclass.

That said, I do think there's a solid argument that the Ranger could easily be incorporated into the Rogue chassis as an archetype. The problem with Ranger, for me, is that there isn't enough variation on the theme to really justify the subclasses; they could all be rolled into one and I honestly wouldn't miss the differentiation between Hunter, Beastmaster or Gloomstalker. I'd be pretty happy if there was a Rogue Archetype called "Ranger" and it had:
- Arcane Trickster spell progression that took from the Druid list (to which I would add all the Ranger specific spells).
- Favoured Enemy/Natural Explorer, offered pretty much as is without changing it.
- Fighting Style and martial weapon proficiency.
What else is unique to the Ranger, bearing in mind the Rogue chassis upon which this would be built?

[Droppeddead]

I more or less disagree with all of those, to a degree. Let's break it down.

Things that most people can agree on:[*]Rangers suffer from a lack of class vision

Yes, or at least they suffer froma poorly executed class vision. Which was fixed for the subclasses with XGtE and for the whole class as of Tasha's.

[*]A Scout Rogue makes a better archetpyal Ranger than the PHB Ranger

Depends on what kind of Ranger you want. For a mundane survivalist expert who just sneaks around in the forest? Yeah. For more of a mystical warrior and hunter of monsters and fantastical beasts? Not so much.

[*]A lot of the new buffs/subclasses for Ranger's revolve around adding damage modifiers

Well, yes and no. The new subclasses has ways of adding more damage but that's not what they revolve around. The fact that damage is all that most players focus on is a user problem, not a fault of the class itself. For example, when talking about the Gloom Stalker's ability to be invisible to creatures with darkvision most people talk about its combat utility but ignore the other parts of the game. Why not talk about the exploration aspect of having someone who can scout through a dark mansion at night or, scare the pants of someone by sneaking up on them during a blackout at a dinner party?
There more to the game than combat but if all you focus on is damage, that's all youäre going to see.

[*]Rogues have a weird spot where they aren't strictly thieves, but also have a lot of Thief specific features

Again, yes and no. They have a lot of abilities that are good for thieves but that doesn't mean that they have to be thieves. Much of this goes back to previous editions where your class was not just "the stuff you are trained in" but also "what you" which is something that 5E tends to get away from. A character in 5E is more than there class so the way of thinking "Hi, I'm Steve. I'm a Rogue" (that's nice Steve, but what do you actually *do*?) doesn't really work. For example, being able to use thieves' tools is not only useful for actual thieves but also for locksmiths, private investigators, police officers, spies and a lot of other professions. A trader, especially a shady one, would be very happy to have expertise in deception and persuasion and say a paramedic or park ranger could have great use of expertise in perception nad medicine, for example.
In short, you don't have to limit the usefulness of certain abilities to a few specific areas.

Putting all these together: What if the Ranger and Rogue were collapsed into a single class? A skill focused single target damage dealer. It provides a DEX Martial to contrast the Fighter (while not being forced into DEX any more than a Fighter is). The Ranger gets the class identity of the Expert. And my favorite aspect of this is the ability to insert Warlock style layers of customization. Not only could you have your Ranger/Rogue Conclave/Archetype, you could have a level-based damage rider; Favored Foe (pick a type of enemy), Hunter's Mark (pick a specific enemy), Sneak Attack (anyone you can muster Advantage against), or variants thereof. You can get the Cold Sniper, the Assassin, the Wilderness Guide, and the Mastermind all out of one class.

Really no need to lump them all together and you can already achieve what you want by multiclassing or picking the right subclass. You would only lose variety if you force classes together. Besides, how are you supposed to pick what abilities from which class to keep? You are either going to get a new class that is very over-powered or a class that lacks the more iconic features of their "parent" class.

Yes, ultimately, it would be more Rogue than Ranger. But the fact that the Rogue no longer has to worry about stepping on the Ranger's toes means that it could occupy a spot a little more martial and a little less. . . Bardic, for lack of a more specific word.

I don't recognize the problem with bards that you are talking about. Nor do you really need to make rogue more martial.

[Rawhide]

Fixed the glitch.

[YoungestGruff]

Well, yes and no. The new subclasses has ways of adding more damage but that's not what they revolve around. The fact that damage is all that most players focus on is a user problem, not a fault of the class itself. For example, when talking about the Gloom Stalker's ability to be invisible to creatures with darkvision most people talk about its combat utility but ignore the other parts of the game. Why not talk about the exploration aspect of having someone who can scout through a dark mansion at night or, scare the pants of someone by sneaking up on them during a blackout at a dinner party?
There more to the game than combat but if all you focus on is damage, that's all youäre going to see.

This I absolutely agree with. Combat is easy to quantify, but it doesn't define everything you can do. Hell, I'm considering moving to games where Combat isn't the one and only thing you roll for. (Hyperbole)

That said, the only out of combat niche that a Ranger fills that obviously clashes with a Rogue is the Beastmaster or Drakewarden. Outside of that, the supernatural stealth artist is obviously not, say, a Fighter, but equally fits Ranger and Rogue. The Phantom Rogue could have just as easily been a Ranger, and the Monster Slayer's actual abilities play incredibly nicely with a single target Sneak Attack (There, I fall back into combat for that last example).

Again, yes and no. They have a lot of abilities that are good for thieves but that doesn't mean that they have to be thieves. Much of this goes back to previous editions where your class was not just "the stuff you are trained in" but also "what you" which is something that 5E tends to get away from. A character in 5E is more than there class so the way of thinking "Hi, I'm Steve. I'm a Rogue" (that's nice Steve, but what do you actually *do*?) doesn't really work. For example, being able to use thieves' tools is not only useful for actual thieves but also for locksmiths, private investigators, police officers, spies and a lot of other professions. A trader, especially a shady one, would be very happy to have expertise in deception and persuasion and say a paramedic or park ranger could have great use of expertise in perception nad medicine, for example.
In short, you don't have to limit the usefulness of certain abilities to a few specific areas.

This lies somewhere between a design flaw and a user error. Yeah, Rogues can be more than Thieves (I've had that exact conversation before, painstakingly explaining that class and career can be easily different) but also: Thieves' Tools can be useful for a lot of professions, but, say, a Doctor has limited need for them. A Cook probably wouldn't know Thieves Cant. It isn't pervasive, but the assumption is definitely there.


QUOTE]Really no need to lump them all together and you can already achieve what you want by multiclassing or picking the right subclass. You would only lose variety if you force classes together. [/QUOTE]
I don't think we would lose variety, though. In point of fact, with a Warlock style split (Subclass and Pact Boon are separate splits) there could be as many variations as the classes split off from each other. Also, the end goal of this thought exercise isn't to achieve a character vision; multiclassing is. . . totally unrelated.

Besides, how are you supposed to pick what abilities from which class to keep? You are either going to get a new class that is very over-powered or a class that lacks the more iconic features of their "parent" class.

So for the Rogue, the iconic abilities are Sneak Attack, some means for being a skill monkey, and Evasion. For the Ranger, it's, I think, Favored Enemies (dual wielding, archery, having a pet. . . for some reason they seem like they should be iconic but really aren't). I see no reason that these aren't mutually compatible. In the first post I had the Sneak Attack/Favored Enemy/Hunter's Mark "Pact Boon" as a way these could coexist, and while I like it, it is by no means the only way for them all to work.

I don't recognize the problem with bards that you are talking about. Nor do you really need to make rogue more martial

Bards are so versatile that in the little Venn diagram of my head they overlap with Rogues a lot - heck, they both get double proficiency just by different names. Giving the Rogue more headway in a direction lets it cover more stuff that a Bard totally can't.
All of that is totally beside the point and not really a tenable argument, though. Ignore it is it makes the conversation flow better.

[YoungestGruff]

Huh? How does it suffer from a lack of vision and yet you refer to an archetype? I think it is more common that people criticize the implementation of the Ranger class rather than its vision.

Good point. The Scout Rogue fills the Wilderness Guide vision of the Ranger that the designers were clearly aiming for. But before then, if you tried to figure out what makes a Ranger a Ranger it's all over the place. Archer? Dual wielding? Having a pet? Favored Enemies? Being based in the wilderness? At some point all of those can be taken out and you still have a Ranger left (see the variety of revisions and subclasses that omit some of these).

Why the focus on single target damage dealer? It would make more sense for a skill focused class to have the combat vary based upon the approach. Some might be single target focused (assassin). Others might be multi target focused (booby trapper).

Honestly? Because so far this design has been entirely in my head, and thus fairly simple. I hadn't even considered having a way to snag multiple targets. Best I can say? Because as the Sniper/Assassin/Hunter in my head, Single Target is the move. Trapper hadn't even crossed my mind as a possibility (also though I don't know how to implement PC traps in DnD).

Does this mean Rogue will be forced to have spells? Rangers were a Druid / Rogue / Fighter hybrid.

I'd say no. I think that Spellcasting is honestly the least important part of a Ranger. 1/3 or 1/2 Caster subclasses or boons or whatever? Absolutely. But a pure martial genuinely works, imo.

What do you mean less Bardic? Every way I try to parse that implies you are butchering Rogue. Less skilled? Socially inept? Ignorant?

Bards are so versatile that in the little Venn diagram of my head they overlap with Rogues a lot - heck, they both get double proficiency just by different names. Giving the Rogue more headway in a direction lets it cover more stuff that a Bard totally can't.
All of that is totally beside the point and not really a tenable argument, though. Ignore it is it makes the conversation flow better.

[OldTrees1]

Good point. The Scout Rogue fills the Wilderness Guide vision of the Ranger that the designers were clearly aiming for. But before then, if you tried to figure out what makes a Ranger a Ranger it's all over the place. Archer? Dual wielding? Having a pet? Favored Enemies? Being based in the wilderness? At some point all of those can be taken out and you still have a Ranger left (see the variety of revisions and subclasses that omit some of these).

In my mind Ranger is, at its minimum, someone that has practical knowledge about nature and is skilled with weaponry and tools relevant to a natural environment. Different variations on ranger choose to emphasize a different form of practical knowledge about nature or a different style of weaponry / tools that are still relevant to the natural environment. Drastic variants change the assumed natural environment from wooden hills to desert, arctic, deep ocean, volcanic, etc. Basically it is a warrior that uses knowledge about the environment to inform its relevant combat tactics.

Yes, this does make them sound like a Fighter / Rogue multiclass that has a heavy nature specialization and was able to trade away Sneak Attack (which really should be a subclass Rogue feature rather than a base class feature). However usually WOTC also gives Ranger some divine spells from the druid list as additional examples of practical knowledge about nature. Then by making Ranger its own class, they could flesh out some unique mechanics to represent some of that practical knowledge.

Honestly? Because so far this design has been entirely in my head, and thus fairly simple. I hadn't even considered having a way to snag multiple targets. Best I can say? Because as the Sniper/Assassin/Hunter in my head, Single Target is the move. Trapper hadn't even crossed my mind as a possibility (also though I don't know how to implement PC traps in DnD).

Thief Rogue + Ball Bearings & Caltrops seems to be 5E's attempt at trapper. However a more general answer would be to have actions that let you throw out a hazard (net, fire, poison, caltrops, ball bearings, etc) that cover a small area. The contribution being less damage based and more debuffing / control based means you can lower the damage (not have sneak attack) but instead increase the number of foes affected, the DC for the effects, and the severity of the effects.

Bards are so versatile that in the little Venn diagram of my head they overlap with Rogues a lot - heck, they both get double proficiency just by different names. Giving the Rogue more headway in a direction lets it cover more stuff that a Bard totally can't.
All of that is totally beside the point and not really a tenable argument, though. Ignore it is it makes the conversation flow better.

Yeah, I am going to blame Bards there. Bards are the jack of all trades that dabble in arcana, divine, martial, and skill. Rogue should not lose its skill versatility merely because Bard wanted to borrow some.


In summary, it sounds like if you add more Rogue to Ranger it might address some of the implementation issues 5E Ranger has but I think the Rogue class should remain. After all, Rogue is the class about skill use, Bards are merely borrowing from Rogue.

[Amechra]

If I remember right Rangers Scouts! had a cool variant of Sneak Attack called Skirmish in 3.5.

Technically you're not wrong to say that Rangers had Skirmish. There was a pretty cool feat called Swift Hunter that made it so your Ranger levels progressed Skirmish and your Scout levels progressed Favored Enemy.

[Droppeddead]

This I absolutely agree with. Combat is easy to quantify, but it doesn't define everything you can do. Hell, I'm considering moving to games where Combat isn't the one and only thing you roll for. (Hyperbole)

That said, the only out of combat niche that a Ranger fills that obviously clashes with a Rogue is the Beastmaster or Drakewarden. Outside of that, the supernatural stealth artist is obviously not, say, a Fighter, but equally fits Ranger and Rogue. The Phantom Rogue could have just as easily been a Ranger, and the Monster Slayer's actual abilities play incredibly nicely with a single target Sneak Attack (There, I fall back into combat for that last example).

You do realize that you are contradicting yourself, right? Not only by the fact rangers and rogues clashes on other places than Beastmaster and Drakewarden but also that tehy fill rather different niches all together. There will always be some overlap between classes, that is nothing unique to these two classes.
And giving Monster Slayers sneak attack would be rather OP.

This lies somewhere between a design flaw and a user error. Yeah, Rogues can be more than Thieves (I've had that exact conversation before, painstakingly explaining that class and career can be easily different) but also: Thieves' Tools can be useful for a lot of professions, but, say, a Doctor has limited need for them. A Cook probably wouldn't know Thieves Cant. It isn't pervasive, but the assumption is definitely there.

What design flaw? Of course not every class ability will be useful for every concievable profession but no-one is saying that. A doctor who wants to steal supplies from a rival could have a use for thieves' tools and a cook who eomploys ex-criminals (or just doesn't want rivals knowing their recipes) would have a good use for Thieves' cant.

QUOTE]Really no need to lump them all together and you can already achieve what you want by multiclassing or picking the right subclass. You would only lose variety if you force classes together.

I don't think we would lose variety, though. In point of fact, with a Warlock style split (Subclass and Pact Boon are separate splits) there could be as many variations as the classes split off from each other. Also, the end goal of this thought exercise isn't to achieve a character vision; multiclassing is. . . totally unrelated.[/QUOTE]

Well, objectively you are wrong. The warlock is a single class with variety in it, sure. But if you had to combine warlock with, say sorcerer, you would lose variety from that.

So for the Rogue, the iconic abilities are Sneak Attack, some means for being a skill monkey, and Evasion. For the Ranger, it's, I think, Favored Enemies (dual wielding, archery, having a pet. . . for some reason they seem like they should be iconic but really aren't). I see no reason that these aren't mutually compatible. In the first post I had the Sneak Attack/Favored Enemy/Hunter's Mark "Pact Boon" as a way these could coexist, and while I like it, it is by no means the only way for them all to work.

Well, sure, if you choose to ignore half of the things that has been said and written about the classes they are quite similar. But then you would lose that much variety and flavour. A ranger is most often a rugged outdoorsman. That clashes quite a bit with, for example, suave swashbuckling rogues.

Bards are so versatile that in the little Venn diagram of my head they overlap with Rogues a lot - heck, they both get double proficiency just by different names. Giving the Rogue more headway in a direction lets it cover more stuff that a Bard totally can't.
All of that is totally beside the point and not really a tenable argument, though. Ignore it is it makes the conversation flow better.

Double proficiency? You mean the Expertise that they both get? Yeah, exactly the same name.

Good point. The Scout Rogue fills the Wilderness Guide vision of the Ranger that the designers were clearly aiming for. But before then, if you tried to figure out what makes a Ranger a Ranger it's all over the place. Archer? Dual wielding? Having a pet? Favored Enemies? Being based in the wilderness? At some point all of those can be taken out and you still have a Ranger left (see the variety of revisions and subclasses that omit some of these).

Except that if you take out all of those things which are all examples of what makes a ranger, you no longer have a ranger. SO again, you lose variety and the things that makes rangers what they are.

I'd say no. I think that Spellcasting is honestly the least important part of a Ranger. 1/3 or 1/2 Caster subclasses or boons or whatever? Absolutely. But a pure martial genuinely works, imo.

Again, ignoring the parts of the ranger that makes the ranger and ranger is a bit intellectually dishonest. Ranger spellcasting has been around since pretty much forever. It's one of the things that sets them apart from, for example, fighters. But it is very much a ranger thing.

[Tanarii]

Things that most people can agree on:

• Rangers suffer from a lack of class vision
• A Scout Rogue makes a better archetpyal Ranger than the PHB Ranger

Disagree.

That said, I do think there's a solid argument that the Ranger could easily be incorporated into the Rogue chassis as an archetype. The problem with Ranger, for me, is that there isn't enough variation on the theme to really justify the subclasses; they could all be rolled into one and I honestly wouldn't miss the differentiation between Hunter, Beastmaster or Gloomstalker. I'd be pretty happy if there was a Rogue Archetype called "Ranger" and it had:
- Arcane Trickster spell progression that took from the Druid list (to which I would add all the Ranger specific spells).
- Favoured Enemy/Natural Explorer, offered pretty much as is without changing it.
- Fighting Style and martial weapon proficiency.
What else is unique to the Ranger, bearing in mind the Rogue chassis upon which this would be built?

Rangers are Fighters with a splash of Druid and a splash of skill monkey, with focus on nature/survival skills.

[sophontteks]

Rangers are martial druids; for people who wanted the druid theme but didn't want to be full casters. With the poor phb rollout, rangers were replaced by barbarians mostly, as they could capture that nature theme quite well. For those who had to be ranged, fighters also worked out quite well. They share very little in common with Rogues outside of a specific subclass (scout). Tashas fixed that problem good though. With the new options Rangers are very fun and unique. They don't have the offensive power of a fighter, nor the defensive power of a barbarian, but they have a lot of really cool skills including expertise and enhanced movement options.

Rogues are one of the most unique classes in the game, so it's weird to hear that they have any sort of identity crisis. Their sneak attack, bonus action dash/hide, lack of magic, and extreme skill expertise sets them apart. They are far more squishy then a martial, yet lack any spells that all the non-martials possess. Compared to bards, their only real similarity is expertise. Bards are full casters specializing in support. Rogues are skirmishers specializing in DPS. They are completely different in their role outside of both of them making good skill monkeys outside combat.

Neither Rogues nor (tashas) Rangers are in any way weak, so the purpose of this can't be to buff the classes, and there is very little overlap in abilities between the two. If we were to merge them for some reason we'd lose a ton of options available and I don't see what we'd be gaining.

I'm going to be rolling up a fey wanderer soon. I'm pretty excited, as a fey version of the ranger has been long overdue. I finally have a martial character then can be the party face! I really strongly recommend taking another look at rangers and giving them a second chance. They got a lot of cool stuff going for them right now.

[JellyPooga]

Rangers are Fighters with a splash of Druid and a splash of skill monkey, with focus on nature/survival skills.

So...nothing else unique, then? There are also solid arguments to make Ranger a subclass of Fighter or Druid too. As I recall, there was a whole thread on it a little while back. For myself, I prefer the Rogue as the base, because I focus on the skill/survival aspect as being the USP of the Ranger, but that's just my opinion. To put it another way, if you took away the "Fighter" or "Druid" elements, it would still look like a Ranger, but if you took away the "Rogue" elements it would cease being so. I've always seen Rangers as skill-focused first, everything else second (even pre-3e, when they were a literal subclass of Fighter).

[Tanarii]

So...nothing else unique, then?

yes. Favored enemy and Natural Explorer. That is part of the skill monkey aspect, and lets them do stuff no other class can do.

[OldTrees1]

So...nothing else unique, then? There are also solid arguments to make Ranger a subclass of Fighter or Druid too. As I recall, there was a whole thread on it a little while back. For myself, I prefer the Rogue as the base, because I focus on the skill/survival aspect as being the USP of the Ranger, but that's just my opinion. To put it another way, if you took away the "Fighter" or "Druid" elements, it would still look like a Ranger, but if you took away the "Rogue" elements it would cease being so. I've always seen Rangers as skill-focused first, everything else second (even pre-3e, when they were a literal subclass of Fighter).

Ranger loses something when you remove any of those 3 contributions:

Remove Druid and you lose the environment focus.
Remove Rogue and you make them less knowledgeable.
Remove Fighter and you lose why they were applying the practical knowledge.

Remove Druid and you lose
Favored Enemy
Natural Explorer
Need to Refluff Fighting Style.
Primal Awareness
Land's Stride
Need to Refluff Hide in Plain Sight
Need to Refluff Vanish
Feral Senses
Foe Slayer
Hunter's Prey
Defensive Tactics
Superior Hunter’s Defense
Spells

Remove Fighter and you lose
Favored Enemy
Fighting Style
Primal Awareness
Feral Senses
Foe Slayer
Hunter's Prey
Defensive Tactics
Superior Hunter’s Defense
Certain spells

Remove Rogue an you lose
Not much concrete features to be honest, but your knowledge base shrinks which makes it harder to justify the Druidic knowledge being turned into practical applications outside of typical druid craft. So still a very heavy hit.


Ranger is a Fighter / Druid hybrid with skill monkey added to help justify the translation of environmental knowledge into practical strategic and tactical advantages. Yes they are skill focused first, but it is the Druid skills being applied in the Fighter context.

[Tanarii]

All they really get that "Rogue" is an extra skill they can spend on Stealth.

Which matches all the way back to AD&D 1e.

[Segev]

Gygax had nothing to do with the "rogue" class. When he spoke of this regret about the Thief class, the Thief had exclusive access to climbing, lockpicking, disabling traps, and hiding. 3e addressed most of those with the skill system opening up to everyone, and it's only gotten more open as the editions have progressed.

[YoungestGruff]

Well, objectively you are wrong. The warlock is a single class with variety in it, sure. But if you had to combine warlock with, say sorcerer, you would lose variety from that.

. . . You're gonna hate my other class rework idea.

[Kane0]

Technically you're not wrong to say that Rangers had Skirmish. There was a pretty cool feat called Swift Hunter that made it so your Ranger levels progressed Skirmish and your Scout levels progressed Favored Enemy.

It was a very neat way to better blend multiclassing without a prestige class, i like that feat.

Edit: oh right, i suppose should throw in my 2cp on ranger identity

- Where the Rogue hides, the Ranger seeks
- Where the Druid reveres nature, for the Ranger it is a tool
- Where the Barbarian is brutal and direct, the Ranger is cunning and crafty
- Where the Fighter and Monk rely on attack quantity and the Rogue relies on attack quality, the Ranger sits in the middle with the Barbarian and Paladin
- Where the Paladin prioritizes burst damage, the Ranger focuses on consistency
- Rangers fight smarter not harder
- Rangers are equal parts lone wolf and team player
- Rangers primarily operate on the 'second line' or 'flank', much like Rogues and Monks

Rangers are similar to but distinct from rogues, both being less hulking combat types (see also the monk) but ranger being about 40% warrior, 40% druid and 20% skillmonkey as opposed to rogue being 70% skillmonkey 30% combat.
Not exact numbers of course but just to illustrate the point

[JellyPooga]

Ranger loses something when you remove any of those 3 contributions

Of course. What elements of the Ranger "count as" elements relating to any given other class is very much open to debate.

You place Favoured Enemy as a Fighter feature, for example, but let's look at what it actually does; give advantage on certain skill checks and additional languages. Who else gets improved skill features and an addiitonal language? Rogues.

The same difference of opinion on what's what can be applied across the board; you claim the Rangers tie to the environment is entirely from Druid, even claiming Fighting Style to draw from that influence, while I could rightly claim much fewer are drawn from that aspect and call them more of a Fighter or Rogue influenced feature.

I would point out that the Rogue is much more versatile in theme than you give credit; one with Expertise in Survival and Nature, for example, has much greater claim on environmental knowledge than any Druid, despite the latters spellcasting ans theme.

For my copper penny, I break down the Rangers supernatural influence as being Druidic; Spellcasting, Primal Awareness and to an extent Lands Stride. It's martial influence is from Fighter; Fighting Style, HD, weapon/armour proficiencies, Foe Slayer. That leaves everything else as what I would call a Rogue influence, or skill focus; Favoured Enemy, Natural Explorer, HiPS, Vanish. Which of these defines the Ranger identity the most? I say the lattermost group, but that's only my opinion and it's also my opinion that those groups apply in the way they do.

I very much disagree that the 5e Ranger is the Fighter/Druid hybrid that it was in previous editions and to an extent challenge that it ever really was solely that. The "Expert" influence of being a master tracker/hunter/survivalist has been there since day one and in its earliest incarnation it even displayed a certain element of Bardic influence as a Jack-of-all-Trades, possessing fighting, skills and spellcasting of both arcane and divine origin. With the shift in the 5e Rogue identity comes a shift in similarities to other classes, including that to the Ranger.

Identifying the Ranger as a lightly armoured skirmisher with high single target damage and a focus on stealth and survival...looks a lot more like the 5e Rogue than the Fighter.

[sophontteks]

Identifying the Ranger as a lightly armoured skirmisher with high single target damage and a focus on stealth and survival...looks a lot more like the 5e Rogue than the Fighter.

But that's not what they are. They are a medium-armored Martial with many attacks and a focus on wisdom skills and nature spells. They have shields, HP and Armor instead of evasion, stealth, and withdrawal.

What is the focus on stealth outside of any other normal dex build from a fighter? They can't bonus action hide like a rogue. Stealth for them isn't anything special. They don't get a sneak attack, they can't do it in combat without wasting their action. They can stealth, if they are a dex ranger, but that's nothing special.

[OldTrees1]

What is the focus on stealth outside of any other normal dex build from a fighter? They can't bonus action hide like a rogue. Stealth for them isn't anything special. They don't get a sneak attack, they can't do it in combat without wasting their action. They can stealth, if they are a dex ranger, but that's nothing special.

They do get Natural Explorer, Pass Without Trace, Hide in Plain Sight, and Vanish. So it is more of an out of combat stealth but qualitatively improved in contrast to Rogue getting quantitative improvements via Expertise & Reliable Talent.

[JellyPooga]

But that's not what they are. They are a medium-armored Martial with many attacks and a focus on wisdom skills and nature spells. They have shields, HP and Armor instead of evasion, stealth, and withdrawal.

What is the focus on stealth outside of any other normal dex build from a fighter? They can't bonus action hide like a rogue. Stealth for them isn't anything special. They don't get a sneak attack, they can't do it in combat without wasting their action. They can stealth, if they are a dex ranger, but that's nothing special.

You see a Fighter and I see a Rogue...like I said, opinions on what the Ranger is differ and no-one is wrong, per se. Like OldTrees1 says, Rangers do get multiple features that improve their Stealth, they also get features and spells that improve their mobility and single-target damage. My identifying them as I did is not inaccurate, just as you identifying them as med armoured Martial with multiple attacks is also accurate.

The question that I'm asking you to answer is this; if you took away the medium armour and multiple attacks, would they still feel like a Ranger? What about if you took away the spells? Now consider the stealth and survival. Which aspect really identifies the Ranger as a Ranger and not just a knock-off Fighter or Druid? For me, the survival aspect, including stealth and skill, is the heart of the Class and if I were to incorporate the Ranger into any other Class, it would be Rogue because it's the Class that exemplifies the Ranger as that survival/skill expert the most.

[Tanarii]

The only edition a Ranger was close to a Rogue instead of close to a Fighter was 4e, when they were both strikers.

5e Rangers are a Str or Dex, d10 HD, fighting style, Extra Attack class. They're quite clearly a Fighter base chassis, just like the Paladin.

[JellyPooga]

The only edition a Ranger was close to a Rogue instead of close to a Fighter was 4e, when they were both strikers.

5e Rangers are a Str or Dex, d10 HD, fighting style, Extra Attack class. They're quite clearly a Fighter base chassis, just like the Paladin.

Whilst accurate, this entirely misses the point. Yes, Rangers are clearly built off of a Fighter-like chassis in that regard and always have been in previous editions. That's not in question. Conceptually, however, their identity is not that of a Fighter in the same way that, for example, the Barbarian is. If you took the Fighter out of the Barbarian, you're not left with much; it's a core element of the Class identity. If you took the Fighter out of Ranger, on the other hand, you're still left with something that looks and feels conceptually like a Ranger; the Class identity is not that of a Fighter, but of a skilled survivalist. Yes, it's been implemented on a Fighter chassis, but if it wasn't and was instead based on a more Rogue-like chassis (or indeed, as I suggested, was a Rogue Archetype), it would maintain its identity in a way that, for example, the Barbarian or Warlock or Paladin would not.

[Tanarii]

Since it's been a fighter in every edition including this one, I don't see how it could be removed without fundamentally altering its identity.

The only Rogue thing it's got overlap on is a possible scout role (stealth/perception).
It's a skill monkey, but they're mostly nature related features, not traditional rogue ones.

[Droppeddead]

The question that I'm asking you to answer is this; if you took away the medium armour and multiple attacks, would they still feel like a Ranger? What about if you took away the spells? Now consider the stealth and survival. Which aspect really identifies the Ranger as a Ranger and not just a knock-off Fighter or Druid? For me, the survival aspect, including stealth and skill, is the heart of the Class and if I were to incorporate the Ranger into any other Class, it would be Rogue because it's the Class that exemplifies the Ranger as that survival/skill expert the most.

So if we take away all the things that make a ranger a ranger and focus on only the parts that make them similar to rogues, they are rogues? Well, sure but that's cherrypicking.

But I'm more interested in what you said in the last sentence, about survival/skill experts and rogue. Since when has rogues ever been known to be survival experts? Sure, you can build survival/wilderness rogues (especially scouts) with there many skills and epxertise but in general there is nothing in the core rogue class that screams "wilderness guide",is there? That has never been their hat, so to speak.