Let's Build a Ranger Subclass for Fighter

[FrogReaver]

Really, it's a tad narrow and has little precedent in genre. If MCing were the default, it'd border on superfluous. With 5e's insistence that MCing is optional, though, faux-MC sub-classes, like a de-facto Fighter/Druid (Ranger) do make some sense. (Unlike the Paladin, which is arguably redundant if Fighter/Cleric MCing is available by default - but has a strong archetype in the Holy Knight, Templars (yeah, I know), Lancelot, Galahad/Parsifal, and, vaguely, the actual Paladins of legend - of course, drawing on archetypes that suggest a specific RL religion is a tad fraught, as well.)

A nature magic wilderness guy that's more of a Fighter than a wizard has no precedent in the D&D genre?

Is this like a Mandela effect and now spell casting nature magic guys called Rangers have never been part of the game?

 

[Tony Vargas]

A nature magic wilderness guy that's more of a Fighter than a wizard has no precedent in the D&D genre?

D&D isn't a genre, it's an FRPG, Fantasy is a rather broad genre. But even Aragorn wasn't a magic wilderness guy, he was a fated monarch who used a magicalish herb to heal someone once. Not that there are /no/ magic wilderness guys in genre, just not a whole lot...

Ranger archetypes, if we insist on magic, pretty much go Aragorn (non-magic guy, magic herb & ghosts), Beastmaster, er, um...

... skip the magic and there's, y'know, Robin Hood, Grisly Adams, and just every, woodsman, hunter, poacher, guide, etc...