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

[Minigiant]

background? No. Not in a 5e context. But subclass of fighter? Yep. Then again, IMO I think there should only be 3 classes, with the following as subclasses in a 5e context:

Fighters:
-champion
-battlemaster
-paladin
-ranger
-barbarian

Magic Users
-clerics
-wizards
-sorcerers
-druids
-warlock

Rogues
-thief
-assassin
-arcane trickster
-bard

Subclasses won't work for another reason.

The "popular" classes are too defined and complex to be recombined anymore.. Balancing it would be a monumental headache. The ultimate result would look disgusting and upsetting to the point most would ask "why?".

Like the fighter, paladin, ranger, and barbarian look nothing alike anymore.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I guess I look at it like this. 5e uses a background mechanic to largely emulate skills. It also has feats that are broad and more general.

Re: backgrounds. I think this is where the biggest bonuses to skills checks should come from, and not the class itself. For example, I grew up on a farm. But that's not my job (class). My job is in tech. But I guarantee you that my farming skills are better than someone who didn't grow up on a farm but went to AG school. Experience always trumps education. So in that context, if my background was something like a hunter even if my class is a cleric or something, I should have outdoor tracking at least as good if not better than a level 1 ranger who's background was street urchin or sage or something. Currently, that's not the case.

Re: feats. I would rather see an expansion of feats that replicate class abilities, and then go to what I listed above; few classes with several subclasses. For example, a barbarian is just a fighter subclass with rage and unarmored defense. From there he or she could grab the berserker feat which would grant some of those barbarian abilities. Or grab a totem feat to grant those abilities. AFter all, that totem stuff a barbarian gets is a cultural identity, so why do only barbarian classes get it? Meaning, a shaman from the same tribe, or a scout wouldn't be able to have the same cultural identity? Doesn't make sense to me.

I get why earlier editions had tons of classes, but 5e is built with feats and backgrounds which makes it totally possible to do what I'd like to see them do.

The above is my solution to the below:

Subclasses won't work for another reason.

The "popular" classes are too defined and complex to be recombined anymore.. Balancing it would be a monumental headache. The ultimate result would look disgusting and upsetting to the point most would ask "why?".

Like the fighter, paladin, ranger, and barbarian look nothing alike anymore.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

Obviously, it'd be a lot less Rangery, whatever your vision of that class. So, no. Living on is better for a class than leaving a feat or background headstone behind.

Would the game be better off if you took a Outlander background and played a Fighter/Druid if you wanted to be a woodsy warrior casting nature-oriented spells? Well, it'd be more efficient, you'd've saved some page count. But it wouldn't be as recognizably, ironically, the same game as AD&D was. It would be that much less "D&D for everyone who ever loved D&D."

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I don't think so. The ranger is strong enough as a concept to deserve its own class, at least in a world where paladins and barbarians are seen as different enough from the fighter to deserve it. D&D has lots of classes, some of them overlapping in function and general skills. That's how D&D works. You can always ignore any class you choose, but D&D has not been a game of four classes for at least five editions now, and I must say I'm glad it's not.

 

[Greg K]

Personally, if fighters officially had
a) a decision point at first level for maximum armor proficiency (light, medium, or heavy) each granting specific abilities similar to how Warlocks choose from blade, chain, and tome; and
b) a subclass that received favored terrain, expertise, favored enemy, and an ability to do cure poison and injuries by creating a poultice check (successful survival check to find the herbs)

I wouldn't mind using outlander and the fighter class for the non-spellcaster/non-mystical outdoor warrior while keeping the ranger as some mystical nature warrior.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I genuinely believe that, had WotC presented 5e as a "minimal core classes with tons of build-a-bear options", we'd be seeing at least as many people decrying the idea and/or wondering why the classes had to be shoehorned into so few base frameworks. I dunno. Gamers tend to be tinkers by inclination. No matter what we are given, there are sure to be multitudes ready to show-and-tell how they shoulda/woulda made the mousetrap differently. <shrug>

 

[Mistwell]

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

A critical mass of people want it as a class rather than as a background, for a variety of reasons. Some of those reasons include nostalgia and tradition, others include present character concepts sometimes based on existing fantasy literature and entertainment and sometimes based on their own imagination and design. Whatever the reasons, it seems there is more than sufficient demand for it to be it's own class. In fact Mearls listed it as the next class than came after the base four classes during the playtest, in terms of popular interest.

 

[mellored]

background? No. Not in a 5e context. But subclass of fighter? Yep. Then again, IMO I think there should only be 3 classes, with the following as subclasses in a 5e context:

Fighters:
-champion
-battlemaster
-paladin
-ranger
-barbarian

Magic Users
-clerics
-wizards
-sorcerers
-druids
-warlock

Rogues
-thief
-assassin
-arcane trickster
-bard

Looking at this again.. it could be catagorized as Sword, Spell & Skills

 

[Minigiant]

The above is my solution to the below:

Its all about implementation.

Could you replace the ranger or barbarian with backgrounds?
Maybe.

Could you replace the ranger or barbarian with feats?
Maybe.

Could you do either of the above in a somewhat balanced form without angering more than 50% of the fanbase nor driving oneself temporarily insane?
Probably not.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Its all about implementation.

Could you replace the ranger or barbarian with backgrounds?
Maybe.

Could you replace the ranger or barbarian with feats?
Maybe.

Could you do either of the above in a somewhat balanced form without angering more than 50% of the fanbase nor driving oneself temporarily insane?
Probably not.

Well, my answer is yes until you got to the part about the fanbase. Heck, WotC couldn't do a ranger without upsetting 50% of the fan base with an official class

But I am confident that if you made them subclasses (so they still had the most vital class abilities stay with them only), and expanded backgrounds and feats to cover the rest, you can very well do it from a mechanical standpoint.