D&D General Match the class with the historical inspriation

[Voadam]

The disguise is the one that seems to cut more rogue than ranger in D&D.

Rangers would be expected to use camouflage, but not to dress up as a servant to gain access somewhere.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Yep. The Iga clan. Looking at their actual battles against Nobunaga, it would seem that the ranger class would be a perfect fit based on what they actually did. Yet in D&D, it seems the ninja class/subclass was inspired by the 80s myth, and not the actual Iga.

Just struck me odd that there was already a perfect class for the ninja of Iga and no one ever played a ranger that way (although the new gloom stalker sure seems to be close). I would posit that the ranger was a better fit through most editions to emulate the real Iga clan, then the various ninja classes did.

Part of the issue is that there are so many iterations of what "ninja" means to people. From the original historical information-gatherers and social agitators, through mythological status to the black-clad killing machines with the specialised tools of the hollywood 80s, to the wizards of naruto.
There are already a couple of classes that are almost labelled as ninja archetypes (rogue and shadow monk.) However you could play most classes as a ninja character if you wised. Rangers are a pretty good fit for some depictions, with their mix of stealth, martial abilities and magic.

I think the Monk should be reforged to include, yes, the unarmored wuxia fist-fighter archetype, but also sohei, kensei and ninja using actual weapons and armors, without so much work around to include such equipment.

Why would these need to be made as Monk classes? Can't you protray your particular concept of them using existing systems?
What are they missing?

 

[Greg K]

The disguise is the one that seems to cut more rogue than ranger in D&D.

Rangers would be expected to use camouflage, but not to dress up as a servant to gain access somewhere.

Since the introduction of the urban ranger to D&D, I can see rangers dressing up as servants to infiltrate places.

 

[Voadam]

Since the introduction of the urban ranger to D&D, I can see rangers dressing up as servants to infiltrate places.

Its something that could work with the concept but not something I have really seen as part of any so far. The 3.5 Urban Ranger for example was more an urban bounty hunter with no disguise skill on his altered skill list.

In contrast disguise is part of the 1e assassin thief subclass special abilities, disguise is part of the 2e rogue list of non-weapon proficiencies, it is on the 3e rogue class skill list, and in 4e was part of the bluff skill which was also on the rogue's skill list but not the ranger one.

Disguise can fit a ranger concept, Robin Hood comes to mind, but not generally the D&D classes so far.

The closest I could find was a 2e ranger kit from the 2e Complete Ranger's Handbook which had disguise NWP being only one slot cost for the forest runner rangers who defied greedy overlords (looking a lot like a Robin Hood emulation).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Why would these need to be made as Monk classes? Can't you protray your particular concept of them using existing systems?
What are they missing?

Monk is inherently a mystical warrior, not just a martial artist. They have always been mystical in DnD, and they are pretty unavoidably so in 5e, without reflavoring ki as something else.

So, ki and special abilities with it, speed, learning techniques that are weirdly esoteric like becoming immune to poison or slowing your aging in a way that even when you appear old and wizened you are still incredibly dangerous, all fit pretty much any idea of a mystic warrior.