Ranger, Paladin & Barbarian all started as Fighter subclasses. In the case of the former two I wish they'd gone back to that. I like how the 5e Barbarian worked out but it would have been ok as a subclass too. Ranger & Paladin IMO turned out very badly in 5e, being spell-based from level 2 I feel is completely inappropriate, and this is probably my biggest dissatisfaction with 5e.
D&D 5E 5th edition Ranger: Why does every class have to have it's own schtick?
Ranger, Paladin & Barbarian all started as Fighter subclasses. In the case of the former two I wish they'd gone back to that. I like how the 5e Barbarian worked out but it would have been ok as a subclass too. Ranger & Paladin IMO turned out very badly in 5e, being spell-based from level 2 I feel is completely inappropriate, and this is probably my biggest dissatisfaction with 5e.
delericho
Legend
Possibly. You've seen the controversy over the Warlord no longer being a class, and that was one of 4e's newcomers. Can you imagine the response if the Ranger got dropped?
Personally, I take the view that there are two approaches that work well: you can have few, broad classes or you can have lots of little classes. Under the former approach, the Ranger should probably be brought under the same umbrella as the Fighter (and the Barbarian, Monk, and Rogue). Under the latter approach, the Fighter itself probably wants broken up.
The Ranger is therefore something of a victim of 5e's halfway-house approach. Which isn't new - it was problematic in 3e too. (4e didn't seem to have the same issues, though, largely because that edition's hard-coded class roles ensured every class had a clear purpose.)
Mouseferatu
Hero
Huh. I could maybe get behind you on the ranger, but not the paladin. The 5E paladin is one of my favorite interpretations of the class, which has itself been one of my favorites throughout most* of the editions.
But then, I'm one of those people who would like the spell-less ranger to be an option.
*(I wasn't crazy about its execution in 4E, for whatever reason. Whereas the 4E ranger was one of my favorites.)
I've been really not happy with my 5e Paladin PC. He feels like a Cleric - he's quite squishy, and most of his power comes from casting spells, or using spell slots to power Smites. The spell-less NPC 'Paladin' in my own 5e campaign feels a lot better. If they were going to give Paladins & Rangers spells at all, it should have been utility stuff coming in at 11th level. Instead we got a "more 3e than 3e" approach.
Blame Blenderism.
In D&D, if you are not a combat blender (carving foes into chunky red paste) or just straight up WIN skill checks, you need magic.
3rd edition taught us that with all the non-full casters being way behind the full casters once the group had some gold and XP.
4th edition nerfed the magic so everyone had the same level of "power and game influence"
So 5th edition took the easy route and made the ranger and paladin get magic at level 2 and made the fighter and barbarian into combat blenders. Either the ranger was going to get magic early or we were getting 4th edition's "Twin Strike DPR Mania".
Mouseferatu
Hero
Huh. I love the "spells to power smites" thing. I could see myself playing a paladin who didn't use spells at all, but only used the slots for smiting.
As for squishy, all I can say is, that's not at all what I saw when I was DMing for a 5E paladin. I'm surprised to hear it's a problem for you.
I have always seen a ranger as a rogue or fighter variant, but I was never into a magic ranger hybrid. But magic is really the main mechanic in 5E to offer flexibility to a class. That is why the majority of 5E classes use it and why the martial side tends to be locked into single path specialization.
Klaus
First Post
(I loved the Cavalier -- the Essentials Paladin -- with its focus on a Virtue; a precursor to the 5e Oaths)
You mentioned the spell-less ranger: I think therein might lie the way to have the cake and eat it. Baseline class with zero spells, and with a choice of fighting/archery fighting styles, and you choose an Order that gives you your choice of skirmishing**, animal companion or spellcasting.
** - See 3.5E Scout.
MoonSong
Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
Sorcerer, Nale is a fighter/rogue/sorcerer, not wizard.
Warmaster Horus
Explorer
A long time ago a Ranger was a guy with 2d8 starting hit dice, could use two weapons, had a favored enemy and if you stuck with him long enough, got a few spells. I have a 'ranger-y' fighter who's proficient in athletics, stealth, nature, survival and perception as well as the Outlander ability to not get lost and find food. Having any deeper bond with nature sounds like taking some sort of druid MC to me.
Similar Threads
