D&D 5E Would "ranger" have been better as a background?

Corpsetaker

First Post

• Sep 24, 2015

• #1

I was wondering today if a ranger would be better as a background?

 

log in or register to remove this ad

Bawylie

A very OK person

• Sep 24, 2015

• #2

Wouldn't all these classes have been better as subclasses off the Big 4?

 

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich

• Sep 24, 2015

• #3

It's called Outlander.

"Better," I dunno. I think to a lot of people being a ranger is more than Survival proficiency.

 

akr71

Hero

• Sep 24, 2015

• #4

I'm with Bawylie. Though, if I remember my 1e character sheets correctly, Bard and Monk were shoe-horned into the Multiclass & Thief sheet respectively.

 

Last edited: Sep 24, 2015

Mercule

Adventurer

• Sep 24, 2015

• #5

Maybe. I really, really love the Ranger archetype (the one in my head), but the public definition is so diluted that I'm not sure it can ever be restored. I'd rather have no Ranger than have it be some combination of Druidic Paladin, militant hippy, and magical beastmaster. None of those are core to Ranger, and the second one really isn't even compatible with the archetype, IMO.

 

Remathilis

Legend

• Sep 24, 2015

• #6

Bawylie said:

Wouldn't all these classes have been better as subclasses off the Big 4?

Click to expand...

Why stop there? Cleric could be a subclass of magic-user and rogue a subclass of warrior.

 

mellored

Legend

• Sep 24, 2015

• #7

I would prefer build-a-class talent trees or similar.

But yes, ranger should of remained a background. There are only a few unique ranger mechanics like ensnaring strike.

 

Minigiant

Legend

Supporter

• Sep 24, 2015

• #8

I'm A Banana said:

It's called Outlander.

"Better," I dunno. I think to a lot of people being a ranger is more than Survival proficiency.

Click to expand...

Agreed.
Or more accurately, the very freeform and variable nature of skills in 5th edition does not allow the varying allowed usages of the Nature and Survival skill from one DM to another to be anyway practical without another more complex system (classes) taking up the slack.

What one DM might allow a "ranger" to do with the Nature and Survival skill would be very different from another DM in the absence of a "ranger" class.

Essentially the class is a basic standardization device for the system.

 

ExploderWizard

Hero

• Sep 24, 2015

• #9

It would be tough to include all the iconic ranger abilities and squeeze them into a background. Expert tracking, woodcraft, magic user & druid spells. It would be the most unbalanced background ever.

 

Imaro

Legend

• Sep 24, 2015

• #10

Corpsetaker said:

I was wondering today if a ranger would be better as a background?

Click to expand...

I think a better question is... Why does there have to be a single way to create a "Ranger"? Right now you can go Ranger-lite with the Outlander background or full on Ranger with the class...