D&D 5E Let's Tweak the 5E Ranger!

[Minigiant]

How is that different than a Barbarian?
How is that different than fighter with the appropriate background and skills?

Why does that need spellcasting?

Barbarians and fighters don't use everything available in nature to defend themselves from nature. They jut hit nature and take hits back.

Can't charm beasts.
Can't use magic to escape hunting animals or raiders.
Can't cure poison.
Can't communicate with the wild
Can't make a beast a companion
Can't use foilage and dirt for disguises.

 

[Gadget]

Hmmm...yet another variant Ranger. It seems that the devs struggle to get this right. IIRC, the Ranger was not in the public play test, so they did not get much feed back from the General public. There is such a diversity of views on what he Ranger is, I guess this is inevitable. One of the Ranger's problems has been that in many games, the exploration pillar where a lot of the Rangers specialty and flavor lives, is glossed over a lot. You have to have some flash in the combat pillar to really get noticed. Now I know this is not a universal truth, but I think it happens often enough to cause problems in many players' perception of the class.

For what it's worth, I don't feel the Ranger's schtick is to be 'gish' class, at least in the strict definition of "Warrior who fights with both blade and spell" sense. Nor do I feel a 'nature paladin' is a fit either (that could be the oath of ancients paladin), as that is just smacks of forced symmetry and filling in the matrix. Most of the Ranger's magic has been to reinforce the utility abilities and skills the archetype has in a D&D sense and give the class some ommph; especially in a system that traditionally has skills that lag far behind other character abilities. In this sense I like that the Ranger has its own spell list, tailored for him, rather than borrowing from the Druid list (though there is some overlap). If you look at most of the Ranger spells as 'cool things a Ranger can do because...reasons(skill, training, talent, etc), then they start to make more sense. Admittedly this does not work for all of the Ranger's spells, but this is D&D after all.

 

[Wrathamon]

It wouldn't be D&D without tons of players making variant rangers. This goes back to 1st edition!

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Minigiant]

But to be specific, must of this has a lot more to do with a very specific conception of a type of Barbarian (the wild, Remus and Romulus, non-Conan type) than it does any kind of Ranger archetype. Barbarian = wild. Also, not sure about the using magic to escape- that's more shaman/druid.

The main aspect is "use anything to defend themselves from nature".

Druids and shaman command nature.
Barbarians take nature to the chin and the toughest survive.

Rangers make allies of the parts of nature they willing to deal with and give the rest the finger. They talk to the fauna and flora for info and help killing some orcs, learn a spell to not drown incase the river floods, and figures out a trick to make vines appear out of nowhere to slow a giant.

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but this shows the confusion in the class to me. You have articulated a clear class concept- which is great! It seems more like a Barbarian subclass to me, but that's fine- personal preference and all. But your clear class concept doesn't match the other clear class concepts that other people seem to have. Which is the problem.

If you're going to have more "generic" overclasses, like Fighter, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have muddled classes. I am reminded of people that have clear class concepts- like duelist, or brawler. It's great that they have them, and they can certainly create and houserule them. Not sure it needs to be part of RAW.

Heck, personally I still feel a lot of affinity to the old Illusionist and the Incantrix (Dragon). Doesn't mean I need to have them as separate class concepts.

See the key aspect of the ranger is NOT the ranger. It is the wilderness.

You make the wilderness, then you make the rangers to survive that.

Cold and some free starving human barbarians? Some basic warriors in leathers with stealth is fine.

Add some nercomantic near immortal yeti-men? Your rangers need some ancient lore, dire wolf allies, and fairy blood now.

Scariest thing is a lion? A super archer in mail is okay for a ranger.
Add bad wings, a manface, a tail that shoots spikes and a bad attitude? Your archer rangers better shoot lightning on their arrows and create instant fog for aerial cover.

A few gators and swamp water are the biggest hazards. Your ranger just need a knife and know how to swim.
There's a black dragon in that swamp too? They need fear resistance, acid resistance, water walk, and a lot of damage.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Mephista]

My opinion - Every class should be thematically and mechanically distinct from all other classes. If there's significant overlap with the Fighter or Rogue with any background, we need to go back to the drawing board.

 

[Azurewraith]

My opinion - Every class should be thematically and mechanically distinct from all other classes. If there's significant overlap with the Fighter or Rogue with any background, we need to go back to the drawing board.

While i agree in a perfect world this would be great i don't think it will ever be achieved as overlap is bound to happen when both classes base mechanics are i hit the bad guy with my weapon.

I think a little overlap is okay its when a class becomes inferior to another i have issue with.

 

[Minigiant]

[MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION]

You missed my point.

The wilderness rogue gets eaten by the free dragon because he can make the save vs fear reliably nor take the hit from its claws.

The wilderness fighter can't take out the orc band because he can't outrun them, create instant cover, nor set up areas for guerrilla warfare.

The outlander barbarian can't deal with the pack of wild giant wolves because he can't charm them, lose them underwater or in the trees, nor masummon a distraction.

But a ranger can do all of that.

The D&D wilderness is littered with sleeping dragons, roving orc bands, shut in kobolds, packs of wild wolves, cats, and bears, evil druids, cloistered .ages, troupes of killer gnolls, fickle fey, visiting giants, toxic plants, and all sorts of natural harzards.

The rangers are the guys and gals who can sit in the middle of that and be fine.

This isn't 14th Century England, Westeros, Azeroth, Draenor, or Ferelden. Those places have wilds D&D rangers laugh at during parties.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*