FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
What about 2e?
Let's Build a Ranger Subclass for Fighter
What about 2e?
Tony Vargas
Legend
2e Drizzztzed all over the poor ranger.
Ancalagon
Dusty Dragon
Our paladin has the outlander background... he's our "nature guy"... honestly it's good enough. (Crap at sneaking though)
Ancalagon
Dusty Dragon
Yes! The thread was lost with the database collapse I think, but there was a *great* thread about "non barbarian barbarians". People came up with wonderful ideas about characters that has the barbarian class but weren't barbarians culturally, mostly by using backgrounds. I had the hermit background - my character was a wandering mandicant, a dervish. Someone had a soldier - someone with terrible PTSD. Another one had a soldier haunted by the ghosts of his mostly dead unit. A lot of possibilities.
And I think it's great we can have the noble-ranger, the scholar-ranger, the raised in a temple rogue etc etc. I LOVE backgrounds!
cbwjm
Seb-wejem
The 2e ranger gained spellcasting at 8th level (possibly 9th although I think that was the paladin) with access to the animal and plant spheres of divine magic.
I believe they could wear any armour that a fighter could wear, but their ability to fight with two-weapons was dependent on being in light armour.
They were the best trackers. They had tracking even if proficiencies weren't used. If proficiencies weren't used, I believe that other classes with the proficiency had a penalty (or maybe the ranger had a bonus).
Favoured enemy gave them a +4 bonus to hit from memory, I don't believe they had a bonus to damage but I think they did have a reaction penalty.
mellored
Legend
How about instead of actual spell slots, they just get spell effects? Avoiding most of the damage and overtly magic ones.
3: you cast speak with animals as a ritual. In addition, you can cast hunters mark, and animal friendship each, once per short rest.
7: you can cast animal messenger and locate animals and plants as a ritual. In addition, you can cast pass without a trace once per short rest.
10: you can cast water breathing and water walk as a ritual. In addition you are always under the effect of non-detection.
14: you are always under the effect of the freedom of movement spell.
18: you can cast commune with nature as a ritual. In addition, you can cast hunters mark at-will.
3: you cast speak with animals as a ritual. In addition, you can cast hunters mark, and animal friendship each, once per short rest.
7: you can cast animal messenger and locate animals and plants as a ritual. In addition, you can cast pass without a trace once per short rest.
10: you can cast water breathing and water walk as a ritual. In addition you are always under the effect of non-detection.
14: you are always under the effect of the freedom of movement spell.
18: you can cast commune with nature as a ritual. In addition, you can cast hunters mark at-will.
BookBarbarian
Expert Long Rester
Me too! Sometimes I want to expand them with things like Background specific Feats, but then I realize that doesn't work for custom Backgrounds which are completely supported by RAW.
ccs
41st lv DM
I was referring to whatever bits you were talking about in your points #s 1, 4, & 5 that I quoted....
You're the one who's worried about important abilities not coming together earlier enough. I presume by that, that you meant early enough to make your fighter based ranger a viable FUN choice? Was I mistaken on that? Is there a difference in you calling those important abilities vs me referring to them as essential bits?
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
Thanks for being more specific
1. The Ranger Class in 5e is generally viewed as being bad and while the subclasses in Xanather's helped the basic concept of an outdoors warrior that gets magical abilities for being so close to nature is lacking.
4. Of course it will be a very generic Ranger subclass and will not be able to cover concepts like beastmaster rangers and such. For that we would need a full class and I hope one day they release a variant ranger class that works for all this.
5. I'm a little leery about whether the important abilities will come together early enough. I think they will but I could be mistaken.
1. I see part of the issue. That shouldn't say lacking but instead should say solid.
5. I was concerned the abilities may not come together fast enough but I was still very hopeful they would.
4. Subclasses are good for specific concepts not super broad ones. Saying a single fighter subclass can't make every type of ranger imaginable is not selling the subclass short, it's acknowledging a simple fact.
So yes I do think the generic nature magic wilderness guy that's more fighter than wizard is a very good concept and one a fighter subclass can nicely fill until we get an actual class that can take on most all the ranger concepts out there.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Really, it's a tad narrow and has little precedent in genre. If MCing were the default, it'd border on superfluous. With 5e's insistence that MCing is optional, though, faux-MC sub-classes, like a de-facto Fighter/Druid (Ranger) do make some sense. (Unlike the Paladin, which is arguably redundant if Fighter/Cleric MCing is available by default - but has a strong archetype in the Holy Knight, Templars (yeah, I know), Lancelot, Galahad/Parsifal, and, vaguely, the actual Paladins of legend - of course, drawing on archetypes that suggest a specific RL religion is a tad fraught, as well.)
