What the...
[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]
"Keep it clean: Don't use obscenities or profanity, don't use clever tricks to run around the profanity filters"
What the...
Rangers are a lost class, IMO. Historically, they are such a hodge-podge of implementations and ideas that they always seem a bit off to somebody. And much like bards, it makes it hard to a Ranger to mechanically stand out.
We have them " 'cause tradition", but really the modern concept: "Woodsyguy Notadruid" isn't enough to warrant a class, IMO. If it were my call, both Rangers and Paladins would be Fighter subclasses at best (and I'm not even sure Ranger rises to more than a Background, TBH.)
Yes, the proposed Ranger abilities come across as written by someone with zero clue.
I mean, when you can give an ability a casual glance and *immediately* say "that will ruin the game" something is off - professional devs are supposed to familiarize themselves with the various ways their product is played...
I was going to mention that. Ranger, Paladin, Assasin, Illusionist, even Druid, were all sub-classes back in the day. But sub-classes wasn't, well, diminutive like it is in 5e. An Illusionist was maybe less magic-user than the Magic-user, getting only 7 spell levels, but everyone else was different or more than the 'main' class.well, both were fighter subclasses in 1E/2E, but at the same time, they could both do stuff that a fighter couldn't.
To that point, you've described the 5e Outlander background ...anyway... the 'idea of the ranger' to me is: A person from the edges of civilization who has spent a lifetime learning how to survive in the wilds
and the rest is more skills, and some goals or relationships to NPCs, also background-appropriate.... and about the dangerous creatures that live there. They are distinct from the barbarian in that they have a settled/rural/part of civilization background and are dedicated to protecting that civilization from the dangers in the wild...
I think that the Ranger, and even more so the Thief, were classes only* because the system lacked skills, so the only way to introduce exploration skills was to add a class with arbitrary special abilities.When the later editions went heavy into skills and feats, the ranger started becoming 'lost'.
In fact, with an even more robust skill and feat system, you really could go back to the three core classes: fighter, cleric, and magic user.
That will never happen of course.
Like RuneQuest did in '78.With an *even more* robust skill and feat system, you could go classless.
With an *even more* robust skill and feat system, you could go classless.
It already did happen - it is called "GURPS".
Indeed, with a more robust background and skill and feat system, many of those classes could be obsolete and no longer needed.
In fact, with an even more robust skill and feat system, you really could go back to the three core classes: fighter, cleric, and magic user.
That will never happen of course.