D&D 5E Tasha's really improved and changed the feel of Rangers

[Strider1973]

I too miss a spell-less ranger in D&D 5e: even if I know that it's not the same thing, by all means, I tend to build characters similar to rangers without spells with fighters with the outlander background and the Scout subclass from one of the early Unearthed Arcana.
I tried to use the spell less ranger from the first Unearthed Arcana, but it doesn't fit with the later development of the Ranger class, at least to me.
I feel almost the same about the Swashbuckler, which in my opinion should also be a fighter subclass: I tend to build duelist type fighters with the Battle Master Subclass and some cool maneuvers.

 

[Minigiant]

They get Action Surges, Second Wind, and Indomitable! Those options are as fightery as divine smite is paladiny and hunters mark rangery. The fact that you think they're not distinctive enough or that these other martial types could be seen with them is your problem. The fact is, they're fighter abilities because they've been defined as fighter abilities every bit as much as divine smite is a paladin ability and hunters mark a ranger ability. Let them be defined as fighter abilities.

They used to be general features.

They are only fighter abilities because WOTC couldn't think up a new class feature that reached the high bar needed for the playtest so they just made a general feature everyone used to be able to do exclusive.

I'm still upset my Ranger doesn't have Action points and Second Wind.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I wish fighter archetypes were based on martial roles/fighting style; defender, slayer, duelist, archer, spell'n blade, etc
Since feats are optional, there's a lot of feat that should be used as fighter's archetype features as some kind of improved fighting style.

 

[Minigiant]

Part of the issue is that Paladins and Rangers basically started off as elite fighters that you could be only if you rolled well enough. Second addition wound that back a bit by giving only Fighters Weapon Specialisation, but to begin with, it was largely obvious that you didn't go Fighter if you could choose a better option.

Exactly. The Ranger started as Fighter + Rangery Stuff. There was no Fighter + More Fightery stuff. You couldn't roll a 17 STR and 15 Con to be a "Super Fighter"

With no "Super Fighter", the Ranger would either have to be an overpowered prestige class or be downgraded somehow to be equal to Fighter.

Even more reason to nerf the other classes. It may be difficult, but there may be "justified removal" of warrior aspects from the other classes. Like I said, the Paladin's 2nd attack being moved back (now we are dancing close to Cleric, but still a decent difference), or a Fighter losing Action Surge, these are reasonable in my eyes.

But ultimately, a complete redesign and rebalance of all the classes is what is needed. WOTC has decided to go the other way with Tasha's and blurred the lines between classes even more. I know I could come up with more balanced classes, but I don't work for WOTC, and the majority of the 5e community does not want nerfs, they only want buffs.

Again it wouldn't work because the Ranger and Paladin would be too close in combat ability to Wizards.

And if the Wizard is almost as good as a Ranger in fighting, you'd have to nerf their spells.

 

[Voadam]

1st and 2nd edition AD&D.

And 0e when they were a type of Fighting-Man. They originated in The Strategic Review (predecessor to Dragon Magazine) issue #2 in 1975.

 

[Voadam]

More than just name. It also indicated combat tables/saving throw tables to use as well as some magic item compatibility. And in 1e, at least, a ranger who fell from their lofty alignment lost their ranger abilities and became a fighter. Subclass groupings were different in those editions than in 5e.

And percentile strength. And the more than +2 hp per HD for con scores above 16.

 

[Voadam]

Exactly. The Ranger started as Fighter + Rangery Stuff. There was no Fighter + More Fightery stuff. You couldn't roll a 17 STR and 15 Con to be a "Super Fighter"

Not until Unearthed Arcana with the 15 str and con prerequisite cavalier and barbarian spell-less super fighters. The answer to the high prerequisite fighter + classes was more high prereq fighter + classes.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

Exactly. The Ranger started as Fighter + Rangery Stuff. There was no Fighter + More Fightery stuff. You couldn't roll a 17 STR and 15 Con to be a "Super Fighter"

With no "Super Fighter", the Ranger would either have to be an overpowered prestige class or be downgraded somehow to be equal to Fighter.


Again it wouldn't work because the Ranger and Paladin would be too close in combat ability to Wizards.

And if the Wizard is almost as good as a Ranger in fighting, you'd have to nerf their spells.

Yup...like I said, a rebalance would impact ALL the classes. There are multiple cascade effects. And once again, the vast majority of the 5e community would not tolerate nerfs. They only want buffs ala Tashas.

 

[Voadam]

Fighters in 4e were balanced with others, they were defenders with martial themed powers.

In 3e they had warrior base similar to ranger and barbarian and paladin but instead of spells and powers they had bonus feats as the class specific fighter hook.

In AD&D they had exclusive weapon specialization (except for rangers having options for specific ones in 1e).

In 5e it is surge and second wind and the extra extra attacks and bonus ability bumps.

 

[Horwath]

The frequent use of guns and bombs by guerilla fighters in the real world kind of puts a serious dent in your argument...

bowshot or dagger at the throat is little less loud than gunfire or frag grenade.

but, let's compare Hunter's mark to modern night vision goggles or infrared. Or using darkvision spell. It would be an equivalent of putting on goggles while stalking someone and yelling in the dead of night: NIGHT VISION!! and then continue to try to be stealthy.