Agreed on Artificer. Being able to cast spells and make stuff =/= being able to magically make stuff or make magical stuff.
Agree on Psion/Mystic. Thank Pelor (and Vecna) that WotC saw fit to make psionics the pervue of a proper class rather than a bunch of spellcasters getting telepathy spells and psionic sublcasses.
While it wouldn't have upset me as much, I'm glad to see that, too.
Fortunately, there's reason to hope both those are on track.
Mostly agree on Warlord. There is definitely room for a warrior who can boost allies and grant extra actions, but I'm just not sure if he can fill the healer role well.
It did when it was introduced, no reason it can't, again - though it's not like there are exactly roles in 5e. It might fill
a healer role or the 'warlord role.' As long as it's a worthy successor.
Disagree on warblade. Warblade is for the most part a meaningless, made-up name designed because they didn't want call it "Test Fighter 2.0". I think adding a few more options (and CS dice) to the Battlemaster does a good job of emulating the warblade.
A recovery mechanism for CS dice other than resting (focus or momentum or something) would go little ways towards making the Battlemaster more like the warblade.
Partial disagree on Swordmage/bladesinger. To me, Eldritch Knight, Bladesinger, Swordmage, Duskblade, Gish, Magus, and the old Elf class are all different examples of the fighter/mage mix trying to do so without multiclassing. Some lean more on the fighter with spells element, some lean more on the wizard with a sword element. Individual mixes vary. That said, the rumored "bladesinger" subclass in SCAG might be more wizard with sword type, which will balance nicely against the EK's fighter with spells mix.Yeah, Warmage is 1/2 warblade problem (a meaningless name designed to cover a specific mechanical niche) and 1/2 swordmage (a wizard with sword, or in this case evoker with armor). Like the Dread Necromancer, Summoner, and Beguiler, they are just different ways to mechanically do specialist wizards, forced into being their own class.
Nod. I admit those are a tad tenuous, I just find the Ranger's justification even more tenuous.
Potential Agree on Shaman, depending on what you're basing your shaman off of. There are dozens of shaman classes at this point; some are primitive clerics, some are druidic/primal full casters, some deal with nature, some deal with spirits, some deal with none-of-the-above. The mechanical identity of shamans is more schizophrenic than mystics! So a druid or nature cleric COULD cover some old shaman classes, but not others. Its certainly good subclass territory, if not proper class territory.
I was thinking of the bolded sort. A fetch or spirit companion is really the missing piece of the puzzle. Maybe a feat or circle or domain, could finagle it.
And most of the "unique options" you mention are not distinct classic fantasy archetypes the way the "resourceful woodsman" is.
Aside from the psion being arguably science-fiction, they are. Not so much because fantasy fiction is full of Artificers, but because the Ranger archetype is so wobbly, right now, and because "resourceful woodsman" (or whatever identity gets picked out for the ranger) probably isn't all that distinct, at all.
Outlander appended to any class or class-combo that might be deemed 'resourceful' offers an alternate way to do it, that doesn't fall nearly as far short as the current ways to attempt those other examples tend to. Even if there weren't a Ranger class already, there'd be less of a need for a new class to cover the Aragorn/Robin-Hood/(and that's really about it) archetype, than there is for the other classes mentioned.
Warblades are conceptually fighters, however mechanically different they behave.
The fighter is asked to cover too much conceptual ground in most editions of D&D, and 5e is no different. The Warblade is just so much /more/ of what the Battlemaster tries to be, for instance, that, yes that mechanical difference is very meaningful. The same goes for things you could do with the 3.5 or 4e fighter. And, of course, the Warlord.
Swordmages and bladesingers are multiclass characters pretty much by definition.
Yep, as are Paladins and EKs, but, the EK isn't a full class, and like the Paladin, they each put their own spin on said multi-classing-equivalency. Not to say that they have any great right to exist or couldn't be done with multi-classing, just that the Ranger has less and could as easily be.
And I'm honestly not sure what you think distinguishes shamans from druids or nature clerics such that those classes are a poor match for the archetype.
The shaman interacts with a 'spirit world,' has a fetch and so forth.
That really just leaves the warlord... that "mundane leader guy" archetype, along with the "swashbuckler" archetype, are the two things that are conspicuously missing from the 5E PHB. So if you want a new version of that class, I'm with you.
I'd've called out Psionics as the second conspicuous missing character type in the PH after the Warlord - Psionics were in a PH1, just not technically as a class. The Swashbuckler never quite made it into a PH1.
With the use of light weapons & armor all but decoupled from class in 5e, it's not even that hard to do a 'swashbuckler,' there's even a Sailor(Pirate) background to go with it. Having to use fighter as a component of the build might limit it compared to the way some past eds might have implemented it, but it's almost as doable as the Ranger.
But it doesn't have priority over the ranger, and it was never going to. And I don't see much profit in grumbling about that.
The mistake's been made, it can't be un-made - but that doesn't mean it has to be repeated.
This conversation, as I understand it, is about improving the ranger, not going back in time to pluck it out of the PHB in favor of classes we like better. So do you have productive things to say about how the ranger's archetype can be represented mechanically?
I honestly think dropping the re-development of the Ranger as a wasted effort, and delving into other classes with more promise would be the better idea. And, yes, that /is/ productive, because re-developing the Ranger
won't be productive. There are other, better-defined, archetypes that 5e doesn't yet cover nearly as well that would benefit the game more with their inclusion, than would a refined Ranger (or re-cycling the Ranger name on something totally novel, just for the sake of calling something a 'Ranger').
Move re-designing the Ranger to the back of the queue. We already have a Ranger, and can build very ranger-like characters using existing classes & backgrounds. The Psion('Mystic') and perhaps Artificer are already presumably ahead of it in line - other classes like the Warlord and Shaman (and I'm sure there are other excellent candidates) should be, too.
It's discouraging that they're apparently leading up to tackling the Ranger for a third or fourth or whatever time this'll make it (two Rangers in Essentials, iterations of playtest Rangers, the Outlander background, the 5e Ranger, the spell-less Ranger article: 6th+ attempt?) when there are much better uses for that effort.
But, while I'd rather not see WotC waste development hours on the Ranger, we have unlimited time to waste here, so don't let me derail the thread. Heck I'll probably chime in with another actual ranger idea if I ever have one...