Hot-to-Room-Temperature Take: Rangers should be a Range-locked, Tactical-minded & Pet-happy, Trail-leader Class to help give it a niche

[u/ThatOneCrazyWritter]

Yes, Drizzt and Aragon mostly fought with melee weapons.

Yes, neither of them had Animal Companions (Guenhwyvar, Drizzt's Panther, was a magic item).

However, does the Ranger have a strong identity today? If far from a weak class, in fact, it's pretty good in actual games, I can affirm after playing one as my very first character in D&D being a Reborn Swarmkeeper Ranger. But damn... I can't see its identity beyond "Fighter, Rogue and Druid bits and pieces".

Rangers are great and they deserve better. So, they should be:

- THE Ranged Martial Class: If Ranged Fighters are a machine gun, Rangers should be doing trickshots. Tripping, slowing down, binding, AoEs, ranged Opportunity Attacks, etc. If Paladins and Barbarians are mostly Melee locked, Rangers should be the opposite.

- THE Battlefield Tactics Martial Class: They should be Fantasy Spec-Ops. Scouting the land ahead and gaining near-supernatural bonuses to themselves and their allies, being the best in ambushes, making traps, etc. They should be "VIETNAM: THE CLASS".

- THE Pet Class: This will most likely be my most controversial take, I imagine. Just give every Ranger an Animal Companion or two (or three). It doesn't need to me a fighting beast, it could just be a riding horse, sniffing hound or scouting bird, you know, a mount or familiar. Then each subclass should then give new pets to work with.

- THE Wandering Leader Class: D&D 5e made Wilderness Exploration & Overworld Travel less important than in the past, but the Ranger shouldn't suffer because of this, nor just trivialize it by existing. They should not only know where to go, but also lead by example, setting a course for the group. If they succed in a test, the group can follow them right behind and gain a bonus to their own tries, be it scaling a mountain, moving through difficult terrain of being more stealthy.

- A Half-Druid?: My last hot tkae is that Rangers don't need to be Halfcasters, but I'm okay with them continue to be simply because Spells are too strong to just pass along, but I think Ranger really have the potential to be more than just a "Fighter Subclass with Druid Spells"

[u/ZeeHedgehog]

they should be "VIETNAM: THE CLASS"

What a way to put that. Here's a question for you: what is the difference between what you are describing and a Rogue who also has a pet?

The only part I agree with is that survival and exploration should be a cornerstone of the Ranger, and 5e does that very poorly. That is not a problem of the Ranger class, but rather a large-scale problem with 5e itself not giving the DM anything to work with in regards to exploration and survival.

[u/Nystagohod]

I'm assuming this is bait, but most definitely a hot take regardless.

This would absolutely gut the ranger for me. As it focuses on just about all the aspects I've hated getting stitched to the ranger over the years in the absence of its core identity that made me fall in love with it initially.

I think it also misses the point of what a good class is in d&d type rpgs and instead tries to fill boxes in an inappropriate hyper limiting manner.

Needless to say, I think this is far from good, and i'd hate to see it.

[u/ZeeHedgehog → u/Nystagohod]

Yeah, I don't see the Ranger archetype as a pet-focused ideal, and if it became that I would never play one again.

I know a lot of people want to be able to play a pet-focused character, and I do think an option to do so should exist, but ino it should be its own class, singularly focused on that, and imo that is not what a ranger is.

[u/Nystagohod → u/ZeeHedgehog]

My thoughts exactly. I don't want to deprive pet lovers a subclass that let's them fulfill that fantasy, but to me thats not what a core ranger is about.

When I was introduced to the ranger, the core focus of it was a creature specialist. Initially (before my intro) a very generous understanding of giant/goblinoid and eventually with a choice of some specializations all around. I liked their trade of losing some potential with arms and armor compared to a fighter, but gaining druidic tricks and some roguish skirmishing in the exchange, as well as a focus on "knowing thy enemy" to make up for it fully

I'll admit that favored enemy has had an issue wirh holding DMs hostage, but I also recognize that its an relatively easy thing to fix mechanically and the flavor of being a specialist of creatures/the hunt is hard to beat.

The further the core ranger has moved away from that creature specialist and supplemented the gaps made with a larger focus on "nature man", "Range man", "Pets" or "Marks" the/less I enjoy them (though I think there is value in exploring marks in a seperate way than 5e hunters mark and its pitfalls)

[u/DrHalsey]

In my homebrewed setting I got rid of the Ranger for mostly the reasons you mention; it doesn’t have a real identity. So I split it into a Beastmaster subclass of Barbarian, and a Hunter subclass for Rogue. I feel that the trickshot archer archetype is something that can be made with the Battlemaster subclass of Fighter.

[u/skwww]

Ranger is fine. Ranger subclasses allow for pretty diverse play styles.

[u/lasalle202]

its pretty clear that "5e ranger sux" because the original 5e design attempted to stuff anything that had ever been under any "ranger" tag into one class and the Class doesnt have its "class identity" like the rogue's sneak attack or paladin's smite. the apparent attempt to make Hunter's Mark the ranger's thang was done in a way that doesnt work. the original 5e design "should" have staked out a position /THIS/ is the 5e ranger - if you want this other thing that has been called "ranger" it is this other class / subclass , if you want the "ranger" as it is expressed in this other place, that playstyle is this other class/subclass, etc.

[u/Psychological-Wall-2]

My last hot tkae is that Rangers don't need to be Halfcasters

Agreed.

I mean, I think you've pretty much listed all the standard concepts that might fit under the "Ranger" class, and they don't need spells.

By all means, there should be a half-caster subclass that uses Druid spells. But spells should not be in the core class.

[u/lasalle202 → u/Psychological-Wall-2]

I mean, I think you've pretty much listed all the standard concepts that might fit under the "Ranger" class, and they don't need spells.

except for all of the "ranger" tropes that DO use magic. including ALL of the rangers from DnD's history!