Irrelevant. It’s needlessly reductive.
Noted. Is this dumb semantics argument done now? I'll call them "Pet Classes" if it's really that important to you.
Yes, they do. They can, optionally, find and train a spirit instead of a mundane beast. The default is still very much not summoning.
I can guarantee you that will change when we get to see the OneD&D Beast Master.
Except that is completely false. Rangers range, in the context of protecting, and in relation to the wild places of the world. This is true of all rangers in 5e.
How do Gloomstalkers protect the wild? Or Rangers that choose Beasts as their favored enemies? How do the rules enforce "protecting the wild"? How is the Ranger version of protecting the wild thematically different from the Paladin way (through Oath of the Ancients)?
Good thing “type of ranger” is distinct from “type”, primarily in that it’s much more specific.
You're being purposefully dense here. "Type of ranger" is no more specific than the "type" of any other class. The Wizard subclasses from the PHB are different types of wizard that focus on different spell schools. The subclasses that make a different type of oath that grants them different features. The subclasses of Rangers are just "different types of Rangers". They're different types of Rangers for any purpose.
Literally the worst lore widget in 5e.
Not a fan of Discworld, I take it. Or Theros. Or Planescape.
Symmetry is for buildings.
I didn't say "symmetry". I said "consistency". Things can be consistent without being symmetrical.
And yet, all paladins are basically the same thing.
No, they're not. They all act very differently based on their oaths. Conquest Paladins are terrifying conquerors that subjugate the weak and often side with Devils. Ancient Paladins protect nature and use its powers to protect their allies and harm others. Redemption Paladins are pacifists that believe humanoids can be redeemed and shouldn't be killed unprovoked, but that demons and other monsters should be exterminated. Vengeance Paladins swear a sacred oath to get revenge against those that wrong them and avenge those that have been wronged. Oathbreakers have broken their oaths and made pacts with unholy monsters.
How in the world are "all paladins basically the same thing"?
No, it cannot. Forced Symmetry, which is all the sort of consistency that demands all subclasses work the same is, is the assassin of creativity.
By that argument, the classes shouldn't exist. If classes demand internal consistency or "forced symmetry", then they're overly restrictive, harm creativity, and should be removed from the game. By this point, I think that the game has proved that creativity can thrive under restraints. And restraints can help make creativity easier.
If kept in check and used where necessary, sure. If focused on as a design goal, it leads to terrible design like Bitopia, and all the other crap in D&D that exists because someone said, “the existence of a lawful good place implies the existence of a chaotic evil place” and no one had the good sense to laugh.
The Great Wheel is a victim of alignment, which is a nonsensical system that should not have been mapped on an afterlife/cosmological system. Eberron has the constraint of all of its major topics (moons, planes of existence, dragonmarks, nations on Khorvaire) coming in sets of 13-1. It has restrictions on the number of planes and other major factors of the world, but doesn't suffer for it. Alignment (and the in-between alignments) are the main problems with the Great Wheel. Not "internal consistence".
That isn’t quite what I said. Someone who ranges through the wilds to protect the wilds and people, is going to reflect the wilds through which they range, and that reflection will to varying degrees be about the terrain, what endangers that terrain, and what tools and methods the ranger needs to deal with those threats. It makes sense that some rangers focus harder than others on adapting to the darkness that many monsters use to hunt in, while a ranger that protects places tied to the Feywild would have Fey glamours and the like, and that some rangers focus harder on a given type of tool, such as tactics for fighting a broad type of monster or training a creature or spirit to help them fight and hunt.
Then the lore should have said that! If Rangers get their magic from protecting a certain part of nature (Fey Forests or the Underdark, for example) and their version of magic is specific to the part of nature they protected that is how the subclass system should have worked. Change Natural Explorer to be what the subclasses are based on in that case. Have an Arctic Ranger subclass, a Desert Nomad, a Deepsea Stalker, Fey Wanderer, Underdark Explorer, and Rangers of all other types of terrain! That would have been good class design! Then, whether the Ranger has a Pet, monster-hunting specialization, or some other primal feature could have been the Ranger's version of the Warlock's Pact Boons! That is an interesting design for the Ranger class!
But that's not what we got. We have Environment Rangers (Feywild, Underdark/Shadowfell, Planar Traveler) as some subclasses, Monster Hunters (Monster Slayer, Hunter) as other subclasses, Pet Summoners as other subclasses (Drakewarden, Beastmaster, Swarmkeeper). The subclasses don't share anything besides the Ranger class! The lore doesn't unite them and explain why the different types exist! That is a flaw in the design of the Ranger! Under this theoretical design of the Ranger, all of the different "types" you would want a Ranger to fill could still be playable. But the class would be better designed because you would have an ounce of understanding of why the different subclasses exist and what different types could exist in the future!
It makes more sense than “all subclasses are like Domains” style classes, especially in the specific case in question.
In what world does "I get different magic based on what different god/concept I worship" make less sense than "I get any random nature-y nonsense that the designers feel like giving me because my subclasses don't make sense"?
They don’t need any special justification. It’s built into the whole premise of the class.
The whole premise of the class poorly explains it. Mages/Spellcasters in D&D do need explanations for their magic. That was clearly an intended part of the design of 5e classes. Rangers fail at that goal because it just says "you're kind of like a druid in how you get magic". It doesn't say why they get that magic, just that they're connected to nature in some unexplained unique way compared to Druids/Nature Clerics and that they use magic to help hunt enemies. Every other class has at least a serviceable explanation.
Warlocks explain why they have magic. Powerful demigod-like entities give it to them. Their subclasses change based on these "demigods". They get different benefits specific to the pact they make with this demigod (Pact Boons). Warlocks are one of the best-designed classes in 5e because of this.
Rangers could be like that. They could have a good lore explanation for their magic and it could enhance their class features. It could make them more versatile and compelling characters.
