D&D 5E Would "ranger" have been better as a background?

[I'm A Banana]

Why stop there? Cleric could be a subclass of magic-user and rogue a subclass of warrior.

Totally. But why stop there?

Spells and weapon attacks should be class options of a single Adventurer class, so you could do a little or a lot of spellcasting as is your wont.

For the OP, there is certainly desirable complexity that we opt into. A ranger class is one of those desirable complexities. It may or may not be in your particular game, of course.

 

[TerraDave]

Something is clearly off. I have seen and done a lot of this polling over the years, and the ranger was always popular as a class. As such, its probably better to fix it as a class.

The fact that it is behind bard, barbarian, and paladin is a testament to how well 5E did those classes (I mean...bard...), but also that something should be done about the ranger.

 

[Green1]

Agreed.
Or more accurately, the very freeform and variable nature of skills in 5th edition does not allow the varying allowed usages of the Nature and Survival skill from one DM to another to be anyway practical without another more complex system (classes) taking up the slack.

What one DM might allow a "ranger" to do with the Nature and Survival skill would be very different from another DM in the absence of a "ranger" class.

Essentially the class is a basic standardization device for the system.

If the session is just Final Fantasy Tactics and just a cut scene then combat then cut scene making a skill not worthwhile, that affects a lot of characters, not just Mr. Ranger. Same could be said about Arcana or Persuasion or Insight. In that case, any skill without a combat use would be worthless.

You still, even in that boat have Fighting Style and Ranger Spells.

 

[JackOfAllTirades]

Wouldn't all these classes have been better as subclasses off the Big 4?

Don't you be messin' with my Warlock!

 

[Minigiant]

If the session is just Final Fantasy Tactics and just a cut scene then combat then cut scene making a skill not worthwhile, that affects a lot of characters, not just Mr. Ranger. Same could be said about Arcana or Persuasion or Insight. In that case, any skill without a combat use would be worthless.

You still, even in that boat have Fighting Style and Ranger Spells.

It is less about combat ability any more what a DM would allow.

One DM might allow a PC to collect seeds to cure poison or sprout roots with a high Survival check. Another might say that is crazy.

But if a DM were to say a high level ranger can't easily cure poison nor summon ensnaring roots/vines/branches, a D&D fan would look at them funny.

As long as skills are "roll and do stuff your DM thinks are okay", the classes and class features would have to pick up the slack as definitions of the iconic actions of the game which are stated at a mutually agreed starting point and jointly adjusted or left alone as a case by case basis.

TL,DR: Freeform skills means more hardwritten classes and class features.

 

[aramis erak]

I'm with Bawylie. Though, if I remember my 1e character sheets correctly, Bard and Monk were shoe-horned into the Multiclass & Thief sheet respectively.

Monk was separate in AD&D 1E, and merged into cleric in 2E.

 

[Sacrosanct]

background? No. Not in a 5e context. But subclass of fighter? Yep. Then again, IMO I think there should only be 3 classes, with the following as subclasses in a 5e context:

Fighters:
-champion
-battlemaster
-paladin
-ranger
-barbarian

Magic Users
-clerics
-wizards
-sorcerers
-druids
-warlock

Rogues
-thief
-assassin
-arcane trickster
-bard

 

[mellored]

IMO class features should expand on the basic skills.

Anyone can do a survival check.
Rangers do it harder/better/faster/stronger.

i.e.
Advantage on survival checks.
Or minimum 10 on survival checks.
Or find twice as much food on survival checks.
Or find food twice as fast.

 

[mellored]

background? No. Not in a 5e context. But subclass of fighter? Yep. Then again, IMO I think there should only be 3 classes, with the following as subclasses in a 5e context:

Fighters:
-champion
-battlemaster
-paladin
-ranger
-barbarian

Magic Users
-clerics
-wizards
-sorcerers
-druids
-warlock

Rogues
-thief
-assassin
-arcane trickster
-bard
-warlord

Needed a warlord

 

[Sacrosanct]

I guess I look at it like this. 5e uses a background mechanic to largely emulate skills. It also has feats that are broad and more general.

Re: backgrounds. I think this is where the biggest bonuses to skills checks should come from, and not the class itself. For example, I grew up on a farm. But that's not my job (class). My job is in tech. But I guarantee you that my farming skills are better than someone who didn't grow up on a farm but went to AG school. Experience always trumps education. So in that context, if my background was something like a hunter even if my class is a cleric or something, I should have outdoor tracking at least as good if not better than a level 1 ranger who's background was street urchin or sage or something. Currently, that's not the case.

Re: feats. I would rather see an expansion of feats that replicate class abilities, and then go to what I listed above; few classes with several subclasses. For example, a barbarian is just a fighter subclass with rage and unarmored defense. From there he or she could grab the berserker feat which would grant some of those barbarian abilities. Or grab a totem feat to grant those abilities. AFter all, that totem stuff a barbarian gets is a cultural identity, so why do only barbarian classes get it? Meaning, a shaman from the same tribe, or a scout wouldn't be able to have the same cultural identity? Doesn't make sense to me.

I get why earlier editions had tons of classes, but 5e is built with feats and backgrounds which makes it totally possible to do what I'd like to see them do.