This is true, but given the problems involved, I think making an animal companion a core class feature instead of something bolted onto a class might allow you more design "breathing space", so you don't have to worry as much about the companion being overpowered.
It predates anime, really, though I'm sure Pokemon and so on have a continuing influence, I think the "summoner"-type class is a different archetype D&D doesn't have, though most full casters can do a credible job there.
the problem of ranger is it has no core no single basic idea to build off.
If it's not in the PHB, it's not workable, and I don't expect sidekicks to be in the PHB. On top of all that, it doesn't even make sense to use the sidekick rules for pets, because pets should be simpler than that.
That's not a real problem. The same could be said for the vast majority of classes. This whole thread is about deciding which of the core ideas it encompasses to build off.
look a spell-less wilderness guy is a fighter, a half caster has more to it but lacks any core the ranger is a Hodge podge of ideas.
So is Sorcerer, Druid, Cleric, Warlock, Artifcer, and so on. Sorcerers identity is literally pulled out of WotCs ass lmfao
Oh man, please don't make the ranger a pet class.
fair but the idea for the druid, cleric/warlock (both are Theurgy and hare honestly the something just the western idea has split them.) seems to have stabilized into something we get and artificer is just a wizard who hung out with engineers too much and went from there.
then what should the ranger be then what makes it sufficiently different that it should not become a sub-class?
That's gibberish. Ranger is a real archetype that exists in fiction and media far beyond D&D. The key elements, when it comes down to it, are Nature, Archery and Stealth, and Fighter doesn't cut it, because none of those are key things for Fighters.
