D&D General Rangers should be built on a primary and secondary stat

[Shades of Eternity]

When you pick your ranger, it should be based on your concept and how it is interpreted, with the ability to support it.

for example
Dex/Con - Gritty outlaw, parkour bandit, long-distance runner of Sherwood - Kevin Costner’s or Errol Flynn interpretation of Robin Hood. This also covers the 4e ranger /3e deepwoods sniper.
Dex/Wis – The Mythic Outlaw, Master of the Greenwood - this is your avatar of Herne the Hunter types, otherworldly in both wilderness and given almost a feylike quality and a deep magical connection to the land. This is your mystic archer.
Str/Con - This is your burly mountain men, the Grizzly Adams, the Paul Bunyans, your John Littles, as well as the more nonmagical feral types—essentially an Anthropomorphic Bear at one with the woods.
Str/Wis - not too many examples in fiction, but this should be your 4e Wardens. The wall of nature that few dare to cross.

By reducing the concept to two attributes, it is now easier to define, provide support for the idea, and give a solid archetype for new players.

opinions and/or suggestions?

 

[payn]

I’d rather this concept be stretched to all classes as MAD instead of SAD.

 

[Distracted DM]

I’d rather this concept be stretched to all classes as MAD instead of SAD.

"Make weapon attacks with your spellcasting stat" was one of the worst directions to head with 5e IMO. IIRC it started with Hexblade in Xanathar's, and spread from there throughout the design space.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Con/Cha: You are Aragorn!

Don't be MAD, or SAD. Be BAD!

 

[Minigiant]

It already kinda is.

Only Spellcasting, Tireless, and Natures Viel uses Wisdom. You can choose all spells that don't have saves or attack rolls.

 

[bedir than]

I’d rather this concept be stretched to all classes as MAD instead of SAD.

A 5e variant where every class-subclass is a 2 or 3 attribute MAD would be intriguing

 

[Minigiant]

A 5e variant where every class-subclass is a 2 or 3 attribute MAD would be intriguing

That's what I'd do if I'd make a Heartbreaker.
But it would be interesting if Spell DC were based on 2 or 3 scores.

Like instead of

Spell save DC = 8 + your spellcasting ability modifier + your Proficiency Bonus

it's
Spell save DC = 5 + your 1st spellcasting ability modifier + your 2nd spellcasting ability modifier + your Proficiency Bonus

So Ranger would be 5 + Wisdom modifier + Dexterity modifier + Proficiency Bonus
Wizard: 5 + Intelligence modifier + Wisdom modifier + Proficiency Bonus
Sorcerer: 5 + Charisma modifier + Intelligence modifier + Proficiency Bonus
Warlock: 5 + Charisma modifier + Constitution modifier + Proficiency Bonus
Cleric: 5 + Wisdom modifier + Charisma modifier + Proficiency Bonus
Druid: 5 + Wisdom modifier + ???? modifier + Proficiency Bonus
Paladin: 5 + Wisdom modifier + Strength modifier + Proficiency Bonus

 

[Tonguez]

I think that would be cool to do for all classes but personally I'd shift Ranger to be a subclass of Rogue

Rogue (Dex/Int)
Dex = AC, finesse, initiative
Int = tactics, skills, infiltration

Ranger = Rogue + Wis (Survival, Perception)

 

[humble minion]

"Make weapon attacks with your spellcasting stat" was one of the worst directions to head with 5e IMO. IIRC it started with Hexblade in Xanathar's, and spread from there throughout the design space.

I’d personally argue that it started with making Dex functionally interchangeable with Str for melee attacks in the PHB, meaning you could have good melee attack rolls, damage rolls, AC, ranged attack, and stealth in the same package with one good stat, and zero downside for dumping Str completely.

All the other quasi-equalisations like melee attacks with spellcasting stat have just been an extension of that have-cake-and-eat-it-too philosophy, and trying to keep up with the same power curve.

If you want a real butterfly-flapping-wings inflection point moment, I reckon that a LOT would have been different if rapiers had a d6 damage die from the start of 5e…

 

[Corinnguard]

I think that would be cool to do for all classes but personally I'd shift Ranger to be a subclass of Rogue

Rogue (Dex/Int)
Dex = AC, finesse, initiative
Int = tactics, skills, infiltration

Ranger = Rogue + Wis (Survival, Perception)

So, what would each of the Rogue's four archetype level cover with regards to a Rogue (Ranger)? The Rogue gets them at levels 3,9,13, and 17. That might not be enough. If the Ranger was a Fighter subclass, it would basically be the druidic equivalent of the Eldritch Knight.