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

[Sacrosanct]

I think that people, at first, picked the Ranger to get the 2d8 hit points. But people quickly realized it wasn't worth it.
Expected hp at fifth level (Ranger) = 27
Expected hp at fifth level (Fighter) = 27.5
.

In AD&D 1e, you were lucky to make it to 5th level, so yeah, that was an advantage

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Minigiant]

[MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION]
The fairy blood thing is a A Song Of Ice and Fire reference.

The Nights Watch allied with the Children of the Forest to defeat the Walkerr the first time. When the Walkers disappeared, they stopped using magic and keeping the alliance with the fairy people. When the magical beings came back, the Watch was unprepared.

The Default D&D is a high magic game or eventually becomes one. So the Default Ranger needs magic eventually as he or she is alone in their fight against nature.

Its not about being cool. Its about realism. An rogue, fighter, or barbarian replicating a ranger in core isn't realistic.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Minigiant]

No. No no no no. You are just going back to the original point. Which is-
Some people, back in the day, wanted fighter who could cast spells. Voila- ranger. There was no reason for the *archetype* that you are describing (wilderness dude) to have spells!

This is the same as saying, "D&D has magic. At some point, thieves will need magic. Therefore, the default rogue must have magic, because otherwise, it's silly."

Then again, I find it hard to argue with someone saying that wilderness dude class requires magic- not because magic is cool, or awesome, but because it's realistic. While ignoring the fact that almost all variant rangers proposed (including UA, recently) fix the Ranger by getting rid of the spellcasting.

There's no "right" answer here- but it shows how confused this class concept is. I have to admit to being a little surprised that someone is advancing the idea that spellcasting is core to wilderness, as opposed to just being core to the whole ranger as "fighter with spells."

My point is
The ranger is his own party. The classic party is a fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard.
The ranger has to be his own as rangers are designed to be alone or as escorts.

He has to be his own front line and ranged fighter. His own healer and buffer. His own scout and damager. His own controller and utility guy.

Because the ranger is often alone out there or has people leaning on him to do everything.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Minigiant]

Your Ranger sounds ... dreamy. Makes me want to burst into song! All by myself.... don't want to be ... all by myself (unless I'm a Ranger!).

I'm busting on you. But this kind of sort of sounds like wish fulfillment, just a little? I mean, we talk about parties (with hats, and noisemakers, and four people). But there's no reason that you can't have different conceptions. A fighter, out there on his own (the Conan model). The classic of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser. I'm running a side campaign of two- a Barbarian and a Bard. It's kind of fun.

The fighter barbarian, and rogue all fail the saving throw from a dragon's fear and breath weapon.
Nor can they charm a wild beast..
Nor can they cure the poison of a viper bite.

Look, if that is what the Ranger means to you, then more power to you. I just hope that you see that your Strong, Silent, Alone Ranger that needs absolutely no one because he is so awesome is a slightly different Ranger than what other people have in mind. There's nothing wrong with that- but that's why I think it continues to have class identity issues.

Hell, I still wish Illusionist had its own identity. To heck with the Warlock. Now that's a class.... and if you don't believe me, I have an awesome illustration from the 1e Rogue's Gallery that proves my point.

The problem is many aren't imagining a ranger.
They are imagining fighters and rogues. Fighters and rogues can't range in Core D&D. A DM would house rule something or you could invent a skill system for ranger thing. But you'd just be replicating magic via skills.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Your Ranger sounds ... dreamy. Makes me want to burst into song! All by myself.... don't want to be ... all by myself (unless I'm a Ranger!).

I'm busting on you. But this kind of sort of sounds like wish fulfillment, just a little? I mean, we talk about parties (with hats, and noisemakers, and four people). But there's no reason that you can't have different conceptions. A fighter, out there on his own (the Conan model). The classic of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser. I'm running a side campaign of two- a Barbarian and a Bard. It's kind of fun.

Look, if that is what the Ranger means to you, then more power to you. I just hope that you see that your Strong, Silent, Alone Ranger that needs absolutely no one because he is so awesome is a slightly different Ranger than what other people have in mind. There's nothing wrong with that- but that's why I think it continues to have class identity issues.

Hell, I still wish Illusionist had its own identity. To heck with the Warlock. Now that's a class.... and if you don't believe me, I have an awesome illustration from the 1e Rogue's Gallery that proves my point.

I think people often fall into a trap when they want their favorite PC class to be uber awesome at everything. Of course that can't happen because we need at least some semblance of balance. That comment reminded me of the warlord discussions, where a lot of big fans of warlords essentially wanted a class that had everything the battlemaster fighter had PLUS a bunch of stuff a cleric had.

 

[Minigiant]

I think people often fall into a trap when they want their favorite PC class to be uber awesome at everything. Of course that can't happen because we need at least some semblance of balance. That comment reminded me of the warlord discussions, where a lot of big fans of warlords essentially wanted a class that had everything the battlemaster fighter had PLUS a bunch of stuff a cleric had.

The ranger can fill all 4 classic roles. They aren't good at them all. But they can fight, sneak, heal, and control once they get enough level under their belt in every edition. Once you get enough levels as a ranger, you don't need to go back to town.

That's kinda the rangers thing. They can sit out in the wild without outside help for a long time and dealt with all appropriate encounters without help. That is what is expected or border guards, wilderness guide, escorts, hunters, and nature caretakers.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*