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

[halfling rogue]

I think I said this in another Ranger thread, but the current options available offer enough for me and my group to create what we think of as a Ranger. Fighter/Archer + Outlander/Folk Hero or some created rangery background actually does the trick pretty well for most of us. I've always thought of the Ranger as a type of fighter with a dash of rogue. We can do that in 5e with Dex and build a pretty good Ranger (for us) via the Fighter. Now for us Ranger doesn't always equal "pet" or some companion, so I guess we're easily pleased. But I think 5e is the best edition for my group in terms of us being able to come up with a character and using the tools they provide to create it. The system is really, really flexible.

 

[Mavkatzer]

De Facto, "Ranger" is a background in my campaign.

I allow the classes: Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard
Then I use the template for backgrounds (PHB 125): 2 skills, 2 of languages/tools, and a feature based on the character concept.
Then I add: Each character chooses one feat at first level (yes, in addition to the human Variant feat): Did I open up a big enough can of worms here with that ?

Using this I've already had two"ranger" characters that were totally acceptable to the players.

Now, that being said, we are a rules-light crowd. The conept of "balance" has simply never entered our discussions. Your Mileage May (and in many caseds WILL) Vary.

But anecdotally: yeah, "Ranger" can be created through backgrounds, depending on style of play.

 

[Forgember]

I was wondering today if a ranger would be better as a background?

No, Ranger has been a favorite class of mine since 3.0 and I'm glad its still around even if the mechanics get a bit wonky.

 

[Wik]

Ultimately, I think the D&D game needs a ranger. Cutting it out, and replacing with a background, just wouldn't fit in the game. It's core to the game... in the same vein that you can't really do a Dark Sun game without making sure you've got "templar", "Defiler", and "Gladiator" available as class options.

Now, do I think that the 5e ranger is kind of weak? Yeah, I really do. And I don't mean "Weak" as in "Underpowered", I mean "Weak" as in "it really doesn't jump off the page like the other classes do".

The problem is that unlike pretty much every other class in the game, the idea of what MAKES a ranger seems to change every edition. We've always known that rogues are good at skills and striking from surprise. Fighters can take and deal damage and wear armour. Wizards cast spells.

But rangers? Well, sometimes they're good at skills, other times, not so much. They wear light armour... or heavy armour, depending on edition. Sometimes they get animal companions, othertimes, they don't. In 1e, they got both wizard and druid spells. in 2e, they got neither... but instead got a few cleric spells. In 1e, they were great at killing giants... in 2e, that kind of changed, and they suddenly became dual-wielders.

And so on, and so forth.

Because of that, saying "ranger is a background" now doesn't make sense, because you're running into the same problem.

I think if we got rid of legacy issues, and looked at the ranger class as it currently stands, but named it something else ("Scout"?), fan response to it might change.

 

[Wik]

Oh, and for the record, if I were doing a ranger:

1. Good combat abilities
2. Light Armour, but able to move quickly out of harm's reach
3. Good at perception, and avoiding being surprised
4. Can help allies move over bad terrain effects, and can help surprised allies act in surprise round
5. Wins at mobility and seizing terrain objectives
6. Non-magical, but knows a few natural world "tricks" that are kind of magical (think Tarzan).
7. Great with animals... and can almost speak with them.
8. Can't outfight the fighter, but he can definitely outflank him.

Ultimately, the class is a cross between the fighter and the rogue, that helps out his allies instead of needing allies for his abilities to work (as is the case for the rogue). Like the bard, my version of the ranger makes everyone in the party slightly better.

But then, I've played a lot of 1e, where the big reason to have a ranger was so that the rest of the party got surprised 50% less.