D&D General What is a Ranger? A miserable pile of secrets! (+)

[Shardstone]

If being just a fighter was a reason to disqualify something from class status, there would be no non-magical classes other than fighter.

True, but that's taking my arguement to a nonsensical conclusion.

The Barbarian I buy. Its a primal warrior who has supernatural abilities based on eschewing modern fighting styles and intsead embracing a more rabid and bestial way. You can easily make an argument that this is a Fighter, but I think it stands on its own.

What about a martial Ranger stands on its own? You're literally a fighter with a wilderness focus. At least the Barbarian has this cool emotional power aspect to it that has enough design space to fit many subclasses.

I suppose if I had to, a supportive martial who buffs the party w/o magic via wild natural = non-spellcasting ranger. But what are the subclasses? Desert/Tundra/Forest, etc? I dunno, really, this class actually invalidates the Fighter a lot more than the Fighter invalidates the martial Ranger.

 

[Shardstone]

But I don’t want it to be a fighter subclass, i want it to be the ranger

But why would I want to play a fighter if I can play the way more interesting Fighter-on-Wild-Steroids? The martial Ranger just ends up making the Fighter seem pretty boring.

 

[CreamCloud0]

True, but that's taking my arguement to a nonsensical conclusion.

The Barbarian I buy. Its a primal warrior who has supernatural abilities based on eschewing modern fighting styles and intsead embracing a more rabid and bestial way. You can easily make an argument that this is a Fighter, but I think it stands on its own.

What about a martial Ranger stands on its own? You're literally a fighter with a wilderness focus. At least the Barbarian has this cool emotional power aspect to it that has enough design space to fit many subclasses.

I suppose if I had to, a supportive martial who buffs the party w/o magic via wild natural = non-spellcasting ranger. But what are the subclasses? Desert/Tundra/Forest, etc? I dunno, really, this class actually invalidates the Fighter a lot more than the Fighter invalidates the martial Ranger.

The difference to me is that while the fighter is a warrior able to take on hoards of foes the ranger is a survivalist, less direct combat and more outmanoeuvring and chipping away from a distance, you drop a fighter and a ranger in the middle of the wilds somewhere the fighter had basically nothing to support themselves there while the ranger thrives.

 

[Vaalingrade]

If being just a fighter was a reason to disqualify something from class status, there would be no non-magical classes other than fighter.

And the fighter isn't doing itself any favors in being counted as a class.

 

[Charlaquin]

But why would I want to play a fighter if I can play the way more interesting Fighter-on-Wild-Steroids? The martial Ranger just ends up making the Fighter seem pretty boring.

That’s the Fighter’s problem, not the Ranger’s.

 

[Shardstone]

That’s the Fighter’s problem, not the Ranger’s.

Correct, yet it is still a problem lol

 

[Shardstone]

The difference to me is that while the fighter is a warrior able to take on hoards of foes the ranger is a survivalist, less direct combat and more outmanoeuvring and chipping away from a distance, you drop a fighter and a ranger in the middle of the wilds somewhere the fighter had basically nothing to support themselves there while the ranger thrives.

Ok, sold!

But what about the Barbarian, who has Primal every two words written in every name, title, and description? I guess at that point its like the martial version of Cleric/Paladin?

 

[CreamCloud0]

But why would I want to play a fighter if I can play the way more interesting Fighter-on-Wild-Steroids? The martial Ranger just ends up making the Fighter seem pretty boring.

This ranger is more like a bow-rogue:light/med armour, ranged focused and using sneak attack(hunters mark/favoured foe) for situational damage boosts, while the fighter has more health, better armour and weapons, higher and non-situational base damage, more attacks, manoeuvres...

 

[Shardstone]

This ranger is more like a bow-rogue:light/med armour, ranged focused and using sneak attack(hunters mark/favoured foe) for situational damage boosts, while the fighter has more health, better armour and weapons, higher and non-situational base damage, more attacks, manoeuvres...

Hmmmm....

If martial classes had any scaling past 9th level, I'd be more inclined to agree. But with the sorry state Martials are in now, this feels more to me that your Ranger should absorb your definition of a Fighter, and just replace it. But, FYI, I'd prefer your Ranger any day to the contemporary Fighter!!

 

[James Gasik]

The difference to me is that while the fighter is a warrior able to take on hoards of foes the ranger is a survivalist, less direct combat and more outmanoeuvring and chipping away from a distance, you drop a fighter and a ranger in the middle of the wilds somewhere the fighter had basically nothing to support themselves there while the ranger thrives.

And yet the Ranger is the one with the horde fighting abilities.