Psikerlord#
Explorer
I dunno for me a ranger means wilderness commando abilities, spell like herbalism, and a pet. I dont think that all fits into a background. I do think it would have been perfect for a Fighter subclass.
D&D 5E Would "ranger" have been better as a background?
I have to say the idea of having a limited number of 'core' classes, with specialization allowed via feats and/or sub-classes, is an intriguing one. It would, in theory, allow people who prefer the classic AD&D ranger to build that, while allowing folks who prefer the 'spell-less ranger' and similar options to go with the type of ranger they prefer.
The big question then becomes, how many classes do you limit to be 'core'. I could see four (cleric, fighter, magic-user, thief), or even three (sword, spell, skill, to borrow someone else's phrasing). Get down to one, though, and you're not playing D&D anymore. (Not that it wouldn't be a good game -- Savage Worlds is a good game, it's just not D&D for those who want to play D&D.)
The big question then becomes, how many classes do you limit to be 'core'. I could see four (cleric, fighter, magic-user, thief), or even three (sword, spell, skill, to borrow someone else's phrasing). Get down to one, though, and you're not playing D&D anymore. (Not that it wouldn't be a good game -- Savage Worlds is a good game, it's just not D&D for those who want to play D&D.)
Well, my answer is yes until you got to the part about the fanbase. Heck, WotC couldn't do a ranger without upsetting 50% of the fan base with an official class
But I am confident that if you made them subclasses (so they still had the most vital class abilities stay with them only), and expanded backgrounds and feats to cover the rest, you can very well do it from a mechanical standpoint.
Hence the temporary insanity. Its easy to design for yourself. It's hell to design for others with a legacy holding you back.
The design team teased with the idea of making the wizard, warlock, and sorcerer the same class and quit when they realized that none of the subclasses shared anything but HD and balancing the 3 classes on the same rigid schedule is hard. Try balancing rage, smite, action surge, and favored enemy together on 1 class while keeping all your hair and at least 40% of your fans.
But back to backgrounds, it wouldn't work it skills aren't super detailed like 3rd. Actual more detailed than 3rd.
Would be an awesome game.
Fighters:
--Champion: default warrior guy. All the usual fightery stuff.
--Battlemaster: some of the default warrior stuff + Superiority Dice.
--Eldritch Knight: some default warrior stuff + limited magic (choose arcane, divine or druidic).
--Barbarian: some default stuff + rage.
--Paladin: some default warrior stuff + divine powers.
--Ranger: some warrior stuff + nature powers.
Magic-users (a.k.a. "Casters"):
--Mage: default caster guy. All the castery stuff.
--Illusionist: some default caster stuff + illusion/phantasmal magic.
--Cleric: some default caster stuff + divine magic.
--Druid: some default caster stuff + nature magic.
Rogues:
--Thief: default roguey guy. All the roguey skill stuff.
--Acrobat: some roguey stuff + flippy skill mechanic, like "Stunt Dice" or something.
--Trickster: some roguey stuff + limited [illusion] magic.
--Avenger: some roguey stuff + divine powers.
--Bard: some roguey stuff + nature powers.
Things like: Hunter, Knight, Gladiator, Soldier, Acolyte, Friar, Crusader, Sage, Alchemist, Court Magician, Entertainer, Beastmaster, Criminal, Noble, Guild Artisan/Merchant, Mariner, etc. etc. etc...filling in the Background skill sets and additional features.
Sounds awesome. It's not D&D. But sounds like a cool game to play.
Fighters:
--Champion: default warrior guy. All the usual fightery stuff.
--Battlemaster: some of the default warrior stuff + Superiority Dice.
--Eldritch Knight: some default warrior stuff + limited magic (choose arcane, divine or druidic).
--Barbarian: some default stuff + rage.
--Paladin: some default warrior stuff + divine powers.
--Ranger: some warrior stuff + nature powers.
Magic-users (a.k.a. "Casters"):
--Mage: default caster guy. All the castery stuff.
--Illusionist: some default caster stuff + illusion/phantasmal magic.
--Cleric: some default caster stuff + divine magic.
--Druid: some default caster stuff + nature magic.
Rogues:
--Thief: default roguey guy. All the roguey skill stuff.
--Acrobat: some roguey stuff + flippy skill mechanic, like "Stunt Dice" or something.
--Trickster: some roguey stuff + limited [illusion] magic.
--Avenger: some roguey stuff + divine powers.
--Bard: some roguey stuff + nature powers.
Things like: Hunter, Knight, Gladiator, Soldier, Acolyte, Friar, Crusader, Sage, Alchemist, Court Magician, Entertainer, Beastmaster, Criminal, Noble, Guild Artisan/Merchant, Mariner, etc. etc. etc...filling in the Background skill sets and additional features.
Sounds awesome. It's not D&D. But sounds like a cool game to play.
Leatherhead
Possibly a Idiot.
Not sure if this is a joke or not, but the addition of the Thief class was probably the start of the erosion that has plagued the Fighter class, and lead to them being pigeonholed into "The sword guy, and nothing else"
Last edited:
Remathilis
Legend
Partially both. I think the whole idea of arguing if something is a class/subclass/background a fruitless effort, but if we ARE going to try to argue X should be a class and not Y, you ultimately end up with two classes: guy who uses weapons and guy who uses magic. Even clerics are just spellcasters with a unique set of spells and better armor and can be rolled into magic-user with an appropriate spell list. Trying to carve out exceptions, even for cleric and thief, is just showing favoritism.
That said, the Thief was the first proto-skill system, and that did a lot to change the nature of what was doable without training. As a thief/rogue lover, I find it unfair to blame the fighter's woes on him, but I can see some truth in it.
And this basically is the ranger.
The ranger is the "wildness skill system". The class determined the limits a person can do with Nature, Animal Handling, and Survival without dominating with raw magical power like a druid. And you could do the same with any other set of skills if the fanbase wishes.
ZickZak
Explorer
zingbobco000
Explorer
This is a cool list but I would say that Casters should include Warlocks and Rogues should have Assassin and Bard should be changed to be "Rogue-y stuff + music powers" or change Bard to be Magic-users and have it be "Some default caster stuff + roguey skill stuff"
Kichwas
Half-breed, still living despite WotC racism
You can go down this route and start knocking off the classes that are not critical. And once you do you can then start wondering why have classes at all. Plenty of RPGs get by without them.
Then you can look at the success of those RPGs versus DnD. Sure DnD has much of its success from being first... But why didn't MMOs go the classless route - they can even abstract away all the math of the added complexity of fully customizable characters.
And that's when it comes back to... the ease of sitting down to some archetypes for the way many people actually play as opposed to how they claim they play.
Hack and slash gaming is pretty predominant. I'm sure we've all seen the "great roleplayer" who has lots of stories about their character and about being a great improv actor... only to sit down at the table, pick up a die, and go off to kill some elves.
Archetypical concepts facilitate that better because you don't need to figure out how you fit in and what you're supposed to do when its written on your handout sheet. But they're also pretty confining by nature and miss a lot of concepts - so we need more classes... and then it is just a tricky game of finding when the new classes are unique enough (ranger versus rogue), or just another 20 flavors of the same old class (sorcerer versus wizard).
The ranger is the only woodlands concept - but this is a background so sure, OP has a point there.
But the ranger is also the only beast master - and this is the critical role that makes the class unique.
As to twin swords angle, that role better fits rogue or maybe fighter, and should have been kept over there. But a certain Mary Sue Drow has kind of corrupted the class concept for a while now...
The archer... is actually best as a fighter concept. The ranger is really a fighter with pets and woodlands skills.
If you see the ranger as a special forces unit, like an Army Ranger or Navy Seal - then it is a background, mostly for Fighters and Rogues.
If you see the ranger as an archer, then it is a fighter, straight out of the gate.
If you see the ranger as twin sword, then after I am done smacking you with a rolled up copy of an Ed Greenwood poster, I'd suggest you're really wanting to play a fighter/rogue character.
If you see the ranger as a beastmaster... then it has something unique, but only because they failed to put this concept on druid, or to put druid as a subconcept of 'cleric-like' ranger.
Then you can look at the success of those RPGs versus DnD. Sure DnD has much of its success from being first... But why didn't MMOs go the classless route - they can even abstract away all the math of the added complexity of fully customizable characters.
And that's when it comes back to... the ease of sitting down to some archetypes for the way many people actually play as opposed to how they claim they play.
Hack and slash gaming is pretty predominant. I'm sure we've all seen the "great roleplayer" who has lots of stories about their character and about being a great improv actor... only to sit down at the table, pick up a die, and go off to kill some elves.
Archetypical concepts facilitate that better because you don't need to figure out how you fit in and what you're supposed to do when its written on your handout sheet. But they're also pretty confining by nature and miss a lot of concepts - so we need more classes... and then it is just a tricky game of finding when the new classes are unique enough (ranger versus rogue), or just another 20 flavors of the same old class (sorcerer versus wizard).
The ranger is the only woodlands concept - but this is a background so sure, OP has a point there.
But the ranger is also the only beast master - and this is the critical role that makes the class unique.
As to twin swords angle, that role better fits rogue or maybe fighter, and should have been kept over there. But a certain Mary Sue Drow has kind of corrupted the class concept for a while now...
The archer... is actually best as a fighter concept. The ranger is really a fighter with pets and woodlands skills.
If you see the ranger as a special forces unit, like an Army Ranger or Navy Seal - then it is a background, mostly for Fighters and Rogues.
If you see the ranger as an archer, then it is a fighter, straight out of the gate.
If you see the ranger as twin sword, then after I am done smacking you with a rolled up copy of an Ed Greenwood poster, I'd suggest you're really wanting to play a fighter/rogue character.
If you see the ranger as a beastmaster... then it has something unique, but only because they failed to put this concept on druid, or to put druid as a subconcept of 'cleric-like' ranger.
