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

[Azzy]

when you have DMs that played lot's of baldur's gate, you know that casting has to be in a trong loud chant, hahaha!

Considering that the PHB says nothing about verbal components having to be loud, that's a DM-specific inflicted issue.

 

[Azzy]

The problem is this is true of almost any ability a "fighter" has.

What ability can you give a "fighter" that shouldn't be open to every martial class?

Didn't 4e solve that problem?

 

[Undrave]

The problem is this is true of almost any ability a "fighter" has.

What ability can you give a "fighter" that shouldn't be open to every martial class?

Rangers, Paladins, Rogues -- they are, conceptually, fighters with extra narrative hooks attached.

The REAL problem is that too many people treat the Fighter as the 'default'. A class for characters without a class. The class for simple NPCs. Probably because, as you say, older version of the game had stuff like Rangers and Paladins who were gated 'Fighter+Other Stuff' classes.

It's always the same song and dance since then: if you give X to Fighter, suddenly EVERYBODY should be able to do X. After all, if a FIGHTER can do it, why not MY character who is a SUPERIOR class?

You can see it in the Feats that feel like Fighter class features that were hidden away in the Feat section (multiple weapons feats feel like aborted 'Advanced Fighting Styles'), a move that was probably designed to give the Fighter the same number of class features while giving that 3.x "Fighters get lots of feats!" feeling back into the game... but also giving EVERYBODY access to the same toys.

This is not a design issue, it's an issue of how a class is sold to players and the players' perception of it being hung up on previous edition. The Fighter should be able to stand on his own, so should the Rangers and Paladins, without ever referencing each other.

 

[NotAYakk]

Didn't 4e solve that problem?

D&D solved it two different ways. And I think the 2nd was actually better.

The first way they solved it is they redefined "fighter" to mean "front line defender". And then they made the Ranger class for "Lightly Armored Skirmisher".

The second way they solved it was in the essentials era. In it, they made meaty subclasses.

The Fighter had 3 subclasses: the Knight, Slayer and Weaponmaster. Weaponmaster was the original fighter. They where all the same class; so they had access to similar feats, paragon paths and somewhat overlapping power selection (sometimes not, because 2 of them where simplified).

The Knight/Slayer where Fighters who specialize in defence and offence respectively. The Weaponmaster was defined by mechanical complexity really; if it was "regreened" it would probably lean into a more defined narrative.

If you imagine 4e starting with that essentials pattern, we get sort of what I wrote above.

The essentials era Ranger, which was a hybrid Primal/Martial character, was also clever. It split the martial part from the primal ones.

You could imagine a Ranger literally picking Martial powers from the same list as the Fighter-Archer would, or a Rogue-Scout. But they would also pick up Primal powers from a different list. With a 4e like budget system, your choice of Primal powers would mean you where not picking a Martial one, not your inability to pick a Martial power.

Now, throw in built-in hybridization here. A PC might pick a class and 2 specializations.

A Fighter (Archer + Primal Bond) could be a Ranger.

The core book might have pre-built packages of specializations. Fighter (Knight + Divine Oath) is a Paladin (Martial|Divine hybrid), Fighter (Knight + Exemplar of Might) is a different (pure martial) character.

Each of the specialization picks would give you your some level 1 class features, and influence what powers you can pick from.

This is easier in a 4e like system, because most of your advancement comes in the form of modular powers. In a 5e like system where advancement comes in new features which are often "always on", the combinatorics get harder to deal with.

Still, in 5e, you could imagine making subclasses a bit less tied to exact levels and making them beefy enough to support "Paladin".

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

The "subclass" model works better, however.

Have Class, Subclass, Archetype.

Class: Fighter
Subclass: Barbarian/Ranger/Paladin/Paragon/Weaponmaster
Archetype: Subclass specific.

Put more meat into Subclass.

Class: Trickster
Subclass: Rogue/Monk/Bard
Archetype: Subclass specific

Class: Magic-User
Subclass: Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock/Artificer
Archetype: Subclass specific

Class: Priest
Subclass: Cleric/Druid/Shaman
Archetype: Subclass specific

The "class" here ends up looking a bit like a 4e power source.

Fighter
Fighters are at home on the front lines of combat. Tough, resourceful and deadly.

Tier 1: Tier 1 Fighters gain Fighting Styles and Second Wind
Tier 2: Tier 2 Fighters gain Extra Attack and Indomidable (reroll some saves)
Tier 3: Tier 3 Fighters gain Weapon Mastery (extra set of weapon damage dice) and Legendary Resistances (Indomidable now auto-succeeds)

The Paladin subclass might make the Weapon Mastery damage radiant, as an example of how the subclasses would modify base class features.

On top of it, the Paladin subclass would add spellcasting. The Weaponmaster subclass might add weapon specific features and abilities. The Paragon might add Battlemaster maneuvers, or might be the "simple" class with some extra static bonuses.

As a sketch:

Tricksters:

Tier 1: Tier 1 Tricksters gain Mobility and Expertise
Tier 2: Tier 2 Tricksters gain Sudden Strike (reaction attack) and Tumble (like the rogue 1/2 damage ability)
Tier 3: Tier 3 Tricksters gain Disable (stunning strike ish) and Reliable Talent

Magic-Users

Tier 1: Tier 1 Magic-Users gain Spellcasting and Familiars
Tier 2: Tier 2 Magic-Users gain Focus and Wards
Tier 3: Tier 3 Magic-Users gain Arcanum and Refuge

Priests

Tier 1: Tier 1 Priests gain Channel and Blessing
Tier 2: Tier 2 Priests gain Sanctuary and Smite
Tier 3: Tier 3 Priests gain Intervention and Incarnation

In the playtest, there was an extra layer of character building where you choose a specialty, which was something like a feat chain that you got automatically at x-y-z levels. It was pretty close to what you are describing.

 

[ECMO3]

No one can state what a Fighter does better than a Ranger that is significant enough to not make the Fighter second fiddle to a Ranger.

It's "Paladins get Divine Smite. Rangers get Hunter's Mark. Fighter get ???"

A fighter is generally going to be better with weapons and damage, has better saves and has the both heal himself as a bonus action and take a second action in combat, he also gets an extra ASI, heavy armor and more attacks. Finally fighter gets unique and more martial-oriented fighting styles. Some/most of the fighter subclasses build on these themes.

In a straight up fight with weapons, whether ranged or melee, a fighter will usually defeat a Ranger. Rannger is a more powerful class overall considering all 3 pillars but it is not a more powerful combat class.

I also would not say Rangers "get" Hunter's Mark. It is a spell and not a particularly good one. It is difficult to use effectively because it muddles up your bonus action, especially at higher levels when you have extra attack and would get the biggest damage boost. While everyone took it 4 years ago, I see many Rangers that never take it at all now and those that do generally trade it out once 2nd level spells become available.

 

[ECMO3]

The biggest problem with a fighter-subclass based Ranger is the subclass does not have enough room for the amount of abilities everyone wants in a Ranger, especially in tier 1 and tier 2. You get a subclass ability at 3, 7, 10, 15, 18. You would have to fit every "Ranger thing" you want into those 5 levels.

 

[Minigiant]

A fighter is generally going to be better with weapons and damage, has better saves and has the both heal himself as a bonus action and take a second action in combat, he also gets an extra ASI, heavy armor and more attacks. Finally fighter gets unique and more martial-oriented fighting styles. Some/most of the fighter subclasses build on these themes.

In a straight up fight with weapons, whether ranged or melee, a fighter will usually defeat a Ranger. Rannger is a more powerful class overall considering all 3 pillars but it is not a more powerful combat class.

Half of that isn't true in 5e or most editions as base fighter and base rangers get the same thing from ability score, levels, and fighting styles.

The other stuff is either arbitrarily locked from rangers due to not having better ideas for fighter or not real that logical.

Where 5e missed the boat is not making Superiority dice base for both fighters and rangers but restricting rangers to certain chosen targets like how the Hunter subclass works. The fighter would not be as restricted and be able to use dice on any target or specialize with certain equipment

But we all know what happened.

 

[billd91]

Where 5e missed the boat is not making Superiority dice base for both fighters and rangers but restricting rangers to certain chosen targets like how the Hunter subclass works. The fighter would not be as restricted and be able to use dice on any target or specialize with certain equipment

But we all know what happened.

Yeah, they didn't get on that boat - thankfully - because it would have been the wrong boat.

 

[NotAYakk]

In the playtest, there was an extra layer of character building where you choose a specialty, which was something like a feat chain that you got automatically at x-y-z levels. It was pretty close to what you are describing.

In one of my "5e heartbreaker"s I everyone advanced in 3 paths "at the same time". Each granted HD.

You'd always have a class and subclass. You could swap your subclass for a 2nd class (multiclassing).

In T1 you'd also have a background, T2 a paragon path, T3 an epic destiny, and T4 a legend.

T1 would go from 5 to 8 HD (2/1/2 to 3/3/2) over 4 levels (1-4), T2 from 12 to 20 HD (4/4/2/2 to 6/6/2/6) over 6 levels (5-10), T3 from 26 to 40 HD (7/7/2/6/2 to 10/10/2/6/12) over 10 levels (11-20).

If you kill con-to-HP at each level, you get HP totals not that far off from 5e at level 20.

The goal was that "adding up HD" was sufficient to generate a rough balance of encounters. Monsters would have stars ( * ) next to their HD representing "elite" status (so a single * was worth x2 HD, a double * was worth x5 HD, a triple * was worth x10 HD, a quad ** was worth x20 HD). A dragon might be 20*** HD (so "200 HD" of danger).

You could use your "other" HD to multiclass, or even multisubclass. Each category was capped at a given level.

Because each tier was a 1.6x, 1.7x, 1.5x ratio of HD, threats can be described by tier. A heroic threat is aimed at 30 HD total party size (20-40), a paragon threat at 60 HD total party size (40-80), and epic threats at 120 HD total party size (80-160). Legendary threats would hit at around 240 HD (160-320) total party size.

The "power budget" of subclasses (per HD) was equal to that of the main class. Ditto for paragon/epic paths.

Starting off 2 class, 1 subclass and 2 background was aimed at making the "dead at level 1" problem go away. You could still do apprentice tier -- 1/0/2 for example -- relatively easily.

2 background HD that don't scale lets you say "I'm an elf (1HD) woodsman (1HD)" as your background. Or "I'm a woodsman(1 HD) mercenary (1HD)". Or "I used to be a fighter (1HD) but am on the run (1HD)" as your background. Writing backgrounds that come attached to subclasses (can be extended with them) works as well.