D&D 5E Themes: What 5E Can Learn from the Ranger

[CleverNickName]

It took a while for me to warm up to it, but I have come to love the dual options of the 3.5E ranger. You can play the class as an archer, or you can play it like a two-weapon fighter. And no matter which one you choose, your character will still be undeniably a ranger: an outdoorsy, hunter-type fighter who's good with animals and all that jazz. It is a great way to add versatility, without the need for two separate classes.

I think the other classes could learn from this fine example.

Take the cleric, for example. What if we took a page out of the ranger's book, and made two different options for this class...one for the cloistered healer-type characters, and another for the warrior-priests. No matter which one you choose, your character will still be undeniably a cleric: a godly, religious-type spellcaster.

What if there were dual options for the fighter? One option would be for the weapon specialists (those who want to pick one weapon and master it completely), and another option could be for barbarians. Or pirates, or marshals, or whatever. Like the ranger, you would make this choice at first level and you would gain a unique set of abilities and bonuses for doing so, but at the end of the day you would still be a weapon-wielding, non-spellcasting fighter with high BAT and HP.

You could carry this through all of the classes (rogue --> bard/assassin/burglar; wizard --> spellsword/guildmage; sorcerer --> warlock/wildmage; etc., etc.), increasing the versatility of the game without relying on prestige classes, or bloating the PHB with three dozen base classes.

Thoughts? Criticism? Cries of outrage?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Welcome to 4e. We have hand weapon fighters, we have greatweapon fighters, we have tempest fighters (two weapon), we have battleragers (tough), we have arena fighters (exotic and improvised weapons), and we have brawler fighters (sword and fist). Each of those gets bonusses in their preferred fighting style.

 

[CleverNickName]

Welcome to 4e. We have hand weapon fighters, we have greatweapon fighters, we have tempest fighters (two weapon), we have battleragers (tough), we have arena fighters (exotic and improvised weapons), and we have brawler fighters (sword and fist). Each of those gets bonusses in their preferred fighting style.

Yep, that's the sort of thing I am talking about. I would like to see that get extended to other classes as well. We could condense the class list considerably this way. Seriously: how many different "arcane spellcaster with sword" classes do we need, anyway?

[SBLOCK=Off-topic]That said, I am not rooting for the new edition to be an updated 4E. The fourth edition missed the mark for me in a lot of ways, and I would prefer they go "back to Basic" instead. This is one of the few 4E innovations that I would like to see carried into 5E. This is just my opinion, of course, and it is off-topic.[/SBLOCK]

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Maybe you could even broaden the choice. Make subclasses of broader categories. So lets see. One fighter could be the slaying type. Big two handed weapon. A lot of dex. The other could be a knight in shining armor, protecting his allies.

Or maybe have a base class, and then add themes to it.

More seriously though, the idea is good. I am not sure if themes can do all and it could well be, that some people don´t like it if their favourite class is just a derivate of a different one. Especially if themes are just feats.

 

[Trance-Zg]

If you have "Wildscape" book in 3.5e you had more options for your ranger.
2handed ranger,
sword&board ranger,
spear specialist ranger,

 

[Ellington]

I believe this is what they're trying to achieve with themes.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Gods, no. Weapon styles are the stupidest thing they ever came up with. Why must a ranger dual wield? Or choose between dual wielding and archery? Even a mage can choose his fighting style. A ranger (and every other class) should not be shoehorned into any one weapon choice. It should be a player choice. If I want to go sword and board or swing a two-handed weapon, I shouldn't have to ignore class features to do so.

 

[CleverNickName]

Gods, no. Weapon styles are the stupidest thing they ever came up with.

Oh come on now, give them some credit. They've come up with stuff that is MUCH more stupid than this.

I appreciate your candor. How would you handle "themes" if you were one of the designers?

 

[jshaft37]

More and more I'm wondering how Next and Dragon Age RPG will be different.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I don't know that I'd make the ranger a theme. He's essentially a fighter with woodsy and survival skills who by dint of necessity has learned a few spells. I know there are those who don't like a spellcasting ranger, but he needs those spells, else a fighter or rogue who multiclasses to mage makes a better ranger than a ranger. You can either give him a mile long list of special abilities that help him do his trade or just give him access to spells. The theme could be border guard. A warrior who roams the borders of civilization, protecting towns from roving bands of marauders and the odd giant who wanders too near Hommlett.