Ranger should be a Rogue or Fighter Subclass. Change my mind.

[Garfunion]

And of course change spells known to spells prepared in order to allow the Ranger to actually pick and use these spells.

There is always the option to let them know all Ranger spells, like the UA Artificer.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Who are some heroic fictional characters that play into the Favored Terrain/Enemy archetypes (honestly, the most unique aesthetic of the class) without stepping on the other classes?

Considering how many people have argued that Gandalf, the archetypical wizard, is more like a fighter with a few low-level spells, I'm not sure "Name characters who fit one class without looking anything like other classes" is a useful request to make.

I’m not going to list all the ways I can re-fluff the class but off the top of my head for magical tinkering;
-put a screech beetle inside a walnut (emit noise)
-throw a smelly spore mushroom (emit odor)
- pull out a jar of glow worms/fireflies (emit light)

At that point, you can refluff anything to be nature-ey. My wizard spells are just pacts with local spirits. My barbarian rage is just me chewing some madleaf. My expertise in climbing comes from shoes made from gecko feet.
Moreover, I think this speaks more to the fluff flexibility of a class centered around making stuff than any danger the Artificer poses specifically to the Ranger.

Wisdom is also not indicative to nature because clerics use it. But you do use intelligence for knowledge nature rolls.

But druids use Wisdom, too. As does the Survival skill.

Which is why people need to drop the combat mechanic and focus strongly on the “I am the ultimate outdoors Wilderness Guide & Camp Master”.

The problem being that for all that D&D talks about having three pillars, it only supports one of them. Making exploration and roleplaying more than a couple of die rolls between you and progress, let alone making them engaging, is 100% up to the DM. When the rules put so much focus on combat, any class that doesn't have something unique to do in combat is going to come off as boring, because combat is where the largest part of a player's impression of a class comes from.

I'm not really sure how to multi quote on a phone...

With great patience. And knowledge of where your phone's keyboard hides certain characters.

[T.G. Oskar]

Next I need to clarify something that gets easily lost (because I didn't ever explicitly state it). I believe the Ranger COULD be a full class, but not in D&D 5e. There is a reason it is a highly disliked and rarely played class. I don't have links (because I don't catalogue this stuff for future reference) but there are lots of statistics and polls showing that this is a fact. Also the existence of a Ranger rewrite in UA also indicates that no one is happy with the class.

Actually, the reason why the Ranger was revised isn't because people don't like it. It's more like people want to like it, see that it has its flaws, and want WotC to fix them, because they want an official acknowledgement and patch for it. Though, you pretty much state that point later.

And do note that those statistics and polls place "Human Fighter" as the main choice, by FAR. How you interpret that information is up to you, but there's some statistical bias there. (Which is different from opinion bias.)

I get that the Ranger is a sacred cow and WotC would never get rid of it, this thread isn't about changing WotC it's about debating the merits of the class as a subclass. And for those of you that apparently didn't get it, the title is a meme that is used to put absurd ideas on a sign that says 'change my mind' at the bottom. I have no reason to want you to change my mind I want to talk about the subject. My opinion is just that, and yours is just as valid even if I don't agree with it. If I entered a debate with the intention of changing my mind it would be impossible to defend my stance because I would be trying to justify someone else's argument. Coming here and telling me "I'm wrong" is not productive because this is subjective. There is no objective right or wrong here. And for the record me telling you that I'm not convinced by your argument is not saying you're wrong just that I disagree.

You can debate something without the intention of changing your mind, but still be open to the idea. That's the whole point of a debate - it either strengthens your opinion, allows you to address flaws in that opinion, or even make you change your mind; it can also apply to the other side of the debate, to the point where your own opinion may be shaken, but you'll still make the other side change their mind (mostly because you address the flaws the other side presents, and give an iron-clad case for it.) It's entirely possible, yes.

Which is why the title is still "intellectually dishonest", particularly if it's meant to be sarcastic. Having to explain that it's a meme means it's not viral enough to be used for fun, or whatever intention it is. The intention behind this thread was to seek ideas on how to make the Ranger a subclass, then that should have been the point of the title in the first place. You see the title of a thread before reading the original post; thus, you already formulate the idea of what will be your answer before you even read the post, and IF the original post doesn't address the idea that you don't want to have your opinion changed, it WILL cause a discussion regarding the validity of the Ranger as a class OR subclass. Simply removing that memetic reference would temper things a bit.

And even though I said I wouldn't respond to this my problem is not that the Ranger lacks purpose. It is exactly as I said that it lacks IDENTITY.

The IDENTITY of a Wizard is someone who gains magical power through study.
The IDENTITY of a Warlock is someone who gains magical power through a pact.
The IDENTITY of a Sorcerer is someone who gained their power simply from existing (aka their ancestry).
The IDENTITY of a Fighter is someone who has trained in martial practices to the point of becoming a master of weapon and armor.
The IDENTITY of a Rogue is someone that has practiced agility, stealth, and often deception to get an advantage against their opponent.
The IDENTITY of a Barbarian is someone who harnesses and inner rage to become a powerful warrior.
The IDENTITY of a Paladin is someone that draws power (often holy) from their Oath to smite enemies and empower their allies.
The IDENTITY of a Cleric is someone that channels the power of a deity to destroy thier enemies and protect their allies
The IDENTITY of a Ranger is what? What I've been given is a variety of things that don't seem to define them. The closest is 'a woodsman' and I just don't think that really identifies a class. Almost everything else is a couple of mechanical things that could be given to another class. Stealthy. Rogue. Ambush. Rogue. Deals extra damage. Fighter (though this is a slippery slope for balance). Traps. Rogue. Tracking (skills) Rogue. I don't see an identity here. I see an amalgamation of what mechanics we (as a group even though I haven't voiced it I agree with many of these mechanics. It's what I would be adding to the subclass) want to give them (or identified that they have already).

If your identity can be slapped onto almost any class with a background and maybe a feat or two it's not enough to define a class by my definition. But it fits well as a subclass (or series of them) and I will again repeat that I KNOW the Ranger will not cease being a class in D&D. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. (I dislike Bards as well, but that's a whole different matter and not something I want to get into.)

[...]

I still don't see the unique identity of the Ranger. What are they supposed to be in 5e?

For purposes of clarification: I mentioned a hunter and a woodsman. Can't see why the Ranger can't be a hunter and a woodsman at the same time.

That said, I also like this concept:

The IDENTITY of the Ranger is the Outlander who keeps the boundaries between the wild and civilization. That's a pretty strong thematic niche to have. They are both the hunters who attempt to subjugate nature to their whim, but they also protect civilization from nature with their blades if necessary.

If you need a touchstone character to identify, Aragorn is an excellent one; he knows the lands so well that he can heal with only the herbs of the land, but he will also defend it with the sword.

A better one for modern audiences would be Geralt of Rivia; his entire schtick is tracking the fey and other monsters in his world and protecting people from the harms that might come to them. He does this through nonviolence at times, such as by convincing the fey creatures that they're harming the people and that they should be more careful, but also by killing monsters if they cannot be reasoned with.

So that's a pretty strong thematic and class IDENTITY. How well WotC captured it is up for debate, but that type of character does not neatly fit into any of the class IDENTITIES that you put forward. The Master and Defender of the wilds.

It's a good answer to the question "what the Ranger is?", which is at the core of what's identity. (I'll explain why I used the term "purpose" rather than "identity" below.) It fits the idea of a hunter and a woodsman, and many other concepts as well.

Though I'm hesitant to say that T.G. Oskar was accurate in saying Rangers don't have a purpose (since in my opinion nothing has a purpose; and if something does have a purpose it is nothing beyond what that specific individual says its purpose is and is even less up for debate by others than identity is)[...]

Fair. Identity and purpose can be confusing.

As I said, identity is the answer to the question "what a class is?" It involves definition, fluff and whatnot. Identity, thus, is what a class IS. Purpose, on the other hand, answers a different set of questions: "why the class does?" Hence, purpose is what the class DOES.

Using the four base classes:

• A Fighter fights. That is its purpose. A Fighter is someone trained in the use of weapons and armor with grander expertise. That is what the class IS.
• A Cleric casts divine magic and channels divinity. That is what it DOES. The Cleric is a representative of a deity, ordained by its faith, to spread the word and face the enemies of the faith. That is what it IS.
• A Rogue uses guile and skill to surpass obstacles. That is what it DOES. The Rogue is a witty, often seedy, very often cool, and very talented guy or gal. That's...not exactly what it is, but let's be honest: the Rogue's identity is so tied to what a Thief is, most people will associate the two. Rogues don't need to be criminals (hence the background) or thieves (hence the archetype), but most iconic Rogues will be thieves and/or criminals. (A shame they haven't done an Archaeologist, since Indiana Jones and Lara Croft and evne Nathan Drake definitely seem like Rogues)
• A Wizard casts arcane spells through preparation. That is what it DOES. The Wizard has spent years mastering the arcane arts, and has achieved a level of practice only a few can dream of. That is what they ARE.

Now, I consider your point fair because these are subjective observations. What I think a Fighter IS and DOES will be different than what you think it IS. I mentioned "purpose" because you can get the hang of what you'll do with a Fighter, Cleric, Rogue or Wizard mostly by looking at it. Subclasses, of course, can muddle this: an Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster will have spellcasting ability, hence dabbling on what a Wizard (or Sorcerer, or Warlock) can do, but they'll be primarily a Fighter or a Rogue, and secondarily a spellcaster.

The Ranger's identity, what it IS, is pretty clear to me: a hunter and a woodsman, a force of balance between the natural world and civilization. They're distinct from a Druid, who worships and protects the natural world, because they understand the need for civilization. The issue is what a Ranger DOES, which I would equate to its purpose - and why I said Galithar was more focused on its purpose than on its identity. Galithar pointed out mostly what a Ranger does: it fights, it tracks, it's stealthy and prefers ambushes, but couldn't tie that to an identity. The issues Galithar has are mechanical in nature - acknowledging that the Ranger *could* be a full class, but the mechanics in the game don't lead to it. Now, I can concur that the Ranger suffers, though it's not in any way less contributing to the game than some other options (a Hunter Ranger, or any of the XGtE subclasses, are definitely better than a Berserker Barbarian, or...say, a Mastermind Rogue. YMMV on Four Elements Monk); however, because the chassis of the class has issues, it leads to people dismissing it. This is mostly because the developers hated the idea of Favored Enemy, and they nerfed it to the ground. I think Kane0 and some other posters have given a good replacement: make it like PF Investigator's Studied Foe, which IMO is a fair replacement...provided it works more like 4E's Hunter's Quarry, which added a damage die against a "tagged" enemy (in broad terms, of course; you can correct me if I'm wrong). This correlates to what WotC has implicitly done, by providing all subclasses with a source of damage, noticing that those few Ranger players focus on using Hunter's Mark above anything else, and generally gravitating towards Hunter Ranger and Colossus Slayer for additional damage. Something as simple as "tag an enemy, deal 1d8 damage each time you hit that enemy" is elegant in its execution. THEN, you could tie Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer to it (you treat your favored enemy, as well as all creatures native to your favored terrain, as automatically tagged). That said, it's just an example.

It's also fairly tied to something paladinn said on a post:

Looking at the revised ranger.. Even with the improvements that were made, including the ones to Favored Enemy, I'm still faced with the question, "What can a ranger do that other classes can't?" Wizards, sorcerers and clerics have their spells; druids wildshape; paladins smite; barbarians rage; rogues sneak attack; bards sing (!) Rangers by definition bring a lot to the exploration leg of the tripod; but they need to bring something to the combat side as well. Favored Enemy, even the revised version, is too situational. Thus the proposals for some type of Hunters Mark or Studied Target/Foe. I'd like to see a bonus to hit, AC and saves against the one (at a time) foe in question, maybe equal to the ranger's proficiency bonus?

This thread and the other seem to be going in circles, so I'll probably bow out at this point. Whatever you/we come up with, WotC isn't going to change the official ranger. They had the opportunity with Xanathar's

Peace!

Even WotC has dealt with the issue, giving the class several revisions, and the one unofficially called the "revised Ranger" has a ton of traction; however, it's gonna be nothing if WotC doesn't give it a seal of approval. No matter how many revisions and homebrew fixes and ideas for fixes (and attempts to turn them into a subclass; it's as equally valid as the previously mentioned), if WotC doesn't say "this is the Ranger", it'll amount to nothing. It has a degree of validity if the discussion prompts WotC for action. It also leads to what you say later:

Once I start seeing mechanical means to really enable that creation of unique identities to happen more freely, easily, and broadly (read done more often in the D&D community, and actually shown to others) then the idea of Ranger as subclass will be flat out silly. Sadly as of now, claiming it works better as a subclass is just as valid of an idea as the UA or any home-brew is since you know, UA is just WoTC official home-brew.

I consider this a valid point. It's mostly the reason why paladinn essentially bowed out of the thread; even they (inclduing Galithar) admit that the Ranger could be a base class, but that the inherent issues (something even I agree on) don't help it. The surroundings between these two related things (Ranger can be a class, but Ranger has issues) is where we all differ. I personally have, between the builds I've made, a Monster Slayer Ranger (not the revised one, but the actual PHB Ranger) that I'd love to play, since it'd help me understand many of the issues with the Ranger itself (and hence, help with the discussion), so it's not like I have completely and utterly dismissed the Ranger. (It's mostly that I prefer the Paladin as a class, and I currently play a Cleric because the gaming group I play with had none, and I really play a pretty swell Cleric by default.) I'm willing to test the idea that the Ranger doesn't need a fix, mostly because it challenges any argument I may have, any bias I may have from observation. However, that doesn't invalidate or deny statistical data that shows people are unhappy with the current iteration of the Ranger, and seek a honest revision. But, to even start with it, you need a framework. It can be its identity. It can be both identity and purpose. It can be a concept. As you mention in your post:

Where I see the Ranger's identity crisis, is just that the well known characters that people espouse as the quintessential rangers.... are just IMHO not very unique. They are, as pointed out, a woodsier version of other classes (read as archetypes). The published fluff of the PHB Ranger is awesome! Being the bridge between the urban and wilderness is cool. Acting as a means of keeping what's out, out, and what's in, in is a hugely interesting starting point for the Ranger. I'm just sad that it falls flat after that. What winds up happening is that we get IMHO what the Paladin used to be, a class that only offers 1 (maybe 2) archetype of a way to play. I feel like subclasses of Ranger attempted to make unique options for Ranger, but still fell flat. It's why I initially agreed with the OP and thought that "hmmm.... totally, a Ranger is a Ranger, is a Ranger, is a Ranger, and so why would they need to be their own thing?" But then realized this is more from a lack of creativity on the community's part and historical characterizations of "the ranger" than it is of the class itself.

WotC has the means to deal with this. They already have a pretty solid starting concept. What they need is to revise its execution. This, to me, would be dealing with their purpose, or rather, to answer "what the Ranger DOES?"

I'm going to commit blasphemy here... Drizzt, Aragorn, even the Witcher.... meh. Badass characters, no lie, just.... lackluster in the uniqueness area.

Do note that Aragorn is the Trope Codifier for the Ranger. The concept barely existed before then, or at least, it was more of a Hunter. Drizzt is the Trope Codifier for the Dual Wielder Ranger that was tacked to the original concept, which was more of a way to turn the Elf racial class into a proper class. (Do note that AD&D 1E Rangers could cast both Druid and Magic User spells, before going their own list by AD&D 2nd.) Geralt...someone who uses what's essentially Alchemy is pretty unique, IMO, but I don't really see Geralt as a Ranger. Personally, I consider Native (Northern, Central and Southern) American hunters more akin to the concept of a Ranger than anything else, though their contact with civilization is scarce; they would be a good start, and then adding the idea of being the "line" between nature and civilization strengthens that. So yeah: I can see why you'd consider them unworthy of being examples.

(And, just so you know: I don't like Drizzt either, or Faerunian Drows. Vulkoorim are my kind of Drow anyways.)

Spoiler: Out of Topic

Show

PF2 has almost jumped the shark. Instead of simplifying (especially feats), they have made Everything a feat, including racial abilities, class abilities, etc. It's made an already complex game much moreso.

I feel they went a bit too close to 4E, where everything was a power. Somewhere towards Essentials, where most of your class features were new powers or ways to modify your Basic Attack. PF 2nd ties so much to feats, trying to get in track with all of this can be a headache.

Just now, I was modifying a playtest build I made with the official content, and...while I feel more comfortable with it as a character (compared to my attempt in making a PF 1e character, which felt so worthless), it's still a bit too far from being a build I like (compare to my Paladin builds in 3.5 and 5e, or my Warrior --> Templar spec build in Dragon Age, which I really like a lot). Had to leap a lot of hurdles to figure out what I wanted from the class itself (levels 4, 6 and to an extent 14 are just so horrible! And 1st level isn't that great either), and I had to use a liberal application of Multiclass Archetype feats (for Sorcerer) to feel a bit more comfortable with my build. Shield Ally is kinda trash, since it's restricted by range, which is generally a big no-no in metaplay, and they took many of the ways you could get more powers (and limited the uses of your powers, since you get only one or two uses per encounter, so to speak). Most of the time, I feel that I'm either attacking or...well, attacking; if I didn't have access to Sorcerer spellcasting, I'd feel useless, since the fancy maneuver thingies are pretty much exclusive to Fighter and Ranger.

But, enough ranting. PF 2e is simultaneously simple (the concept of Traits and symbols to shorthand info is pretty swell) and complex (everything is feats, everything is fiddly numbers), and I feel they did that just to distance themselves much more from their "parent" system.

[Snails]

I am surprised that Robin Hood gets such little mention as a prototypical "Ranger".

Rough men of the woods with interesting backstories who were often outlaws surely was a partial inspiration for Aragorn himself.

In fact, certain versions of Robin Hood make him out to be of noble blood, who may someday return to his rightful position. The most extreme: noble whose loyalty to Richard the Lionhearted in the face of treacherous Prince John and greedy Shire-Reeve of Nottingham forces him to outlawry -- that rings multiple Aragorn bells for me.

[Pleh]

Considering how many people have argued that Gandalf, the archetypical wizard, is more like a fighter with a few low-level spells, I'm not sure "Name characters who fit one class without looking anything like other classes" is a useful request to make.

Do note that Aragorn is the Trope Codifier for the Ranger. The concept barely existed before then, or at least, it was more of a Hunter. Drizzt is the Trope Codifier for the Dual Wielder Ranger that was tacked to the original concept, which was more of a way to turn the Elf racial class into a proper class. (Do note that AD&D 1E Rangers could cast both Druid and Magic User spells, before going their own list by AD&D 2nd.) Geralt...someone who uses what's essentially Alchemy is pretty unique, IMO, but I don't really see Geralt as a Ranger. Personally, I consider Native (Northern, Central and Southern) American hunters more akin to the concept of a Ranger than anything else, though their contact with civilization is scarce; they would be a good start, and then adding the idea of being the "line" between nature and civilization strengthens that. So yeah: I can see why you'd consider them unworthy of being examples.

Hmmm.

Perhaps character analysis isn't so far off topic after all?

[paladinn]

Ok, taking the plunge again.. Most of what's been posted here lately has seemed to lean toward, "Let's save the Ranger class". I'd like to (again) propose making the ranger a fighter archetype.

First, the "baseline" fighter abilities are really good for any fighting class. I personally think 2nd Wind, Action Surge and Indomitable are kind of meh. If I had my druthers, I'd make them swappable with archetype features. But we'll roll with it. Regardless, 3 attacks and 7 ASI's are just awesome; and they alone make this idea worth considering. And you get a fighting style one level earlier.

So as an archetype, we would have ranger features at levels 3, 7, 10, 15 and 18. Here is what I would propose:

1. Combine Primeval Awareness and Natural Explorer. Neither are really anything to speak of, and could easily be combined.

2. Replace Favored Enemy with something else. We've discussed some sort of "Studied Foe" ability. I think we could use some combo of Hunter's Mark (spell), Slayer's Prey (from XGtE) and one of the Hunter's Prey abilities (I kinda like Colossus Slayer). They are all very similar and could be easily merged, I think.

3. Use the following for fighter archetype features as follows:

Level 3 - Natural Awareness, Hunters/Slayers Mark/Prey
Level 7 - Choice of Defensive Tactics from Hunter
Level 10 - Hide in Plain Sight; choice of Multiattack option from Hunter
Level 15 - Some combo or choice between Vanish, Evasion and Dodge
Level 18 - Feral Senses and Foe Slayer

Do y'all think this is OP? How/would you tweak?

[Mortis_Elrod]

Ok, taking the plunge again.. Most of what's been posted here lately has seemed to lean toward, "Let's save the Ranger class". I'd like to (again) propose making the ranger a fighter archetype.

First, the "baseline" fighter abilities are really good for any fighting class. I personally think 2nd Wind, Action Surge and Indomitable are kind of meh. If I had my druthers, I'd make them swappable with archetype features. But we'll roll with it. Regardless, 3 attacks and 7 ASI's are just awesome; and they alone make this idea worth considering. And you get a fighting style one level earlier.

So as an archetype, we would have ranger features at levels 3, 7, 10, 15 and 18. Here is what I would propose:

1. Combine Primeval Awareness and Natural Explorer. Neither are really anything to speak of, and could easily be combined.

2. Replace Favored Enemy with something else. We've discussed some sort of "Studied Foe" ability. I think we could use some combo of Hunter's Mark (spell), Slayer's Prey (from XGtE) and one of the Hunter's Prey abilities (I kinda like Colossus Slayer). They are all very similar and could be easily merged, I think.

3. Use the following for fighter archetype features as follows:

Level 3 - Natural Awareness, Hunters/Slayers Mark/Prey
Level 7 - Choice of Defensive Tactics from Hunter
Level 10 - Hide in Plain Sight; choice of Multiattack option from Hunter
Level 15 - Some combo or choice between Vanish, Evasion and Dodge
Level 18 - Feral Senses and Foe Slayer

Do y'all think this is OP? How/would you tweak?

Well, first off where do spells fit in? or my big black panther/wolf? I guess i can't ever have those now ? Wow that sucks. Why is level 15 filled with abilities that are gotten by other classes 6+ levels ago? and why is 18 filled with 2 lack luster abilties?

I get the idea here. But you dont need to strip a class down and shove it somewhere else. Imagine delaying the progression a ranger but at the cost of all the spells and all the subclass abilties (which are some of the best things about the current ranger even if the spellcasting sucks id rather have it than not) just for... what? heavy armor, a couple more attacks and action surge? id rather take 11 levels of fighter and multiclass.

Or id rather play the current ranger and pretend my subclass is my base class like i do now. Where is the room to be nightcrawler teleporting around a room in between each strike? To walk through walls by slipping into another plane?

The subclasses are good(barring beastmaster which needs work). If you take away their base where do they go?

[paladinn]

Well, first off where do spells fit in? or my big black panther/wolf? I guess i can't ever have those now ? Wow that sucks. Why is level 15 filled with abilities that are gotten by other classes 6+ levels ago? and why is 18 filled with 2 lack luster abilties?

I get the idea here. But you dont need to strip a class down and shove it somewhere else. Imagine delaying the progression a ranger but at the cost of all the spells and all the subclass abilties (which are some of the best things about the current ranger even if the spellcasting sucks id rather have it than not) just for... what? heavy armor, a couple more attacks and action surge? id rather take 11 levels of fighter and multiclass.

Or id rather play the current ranger and pretend my subclass is my base class like i do now. Where is the room to be nightcrawler teleporting around a room in between each strike? To walk through walls by slipping into another plane?

The subclasses are good(barring beastmaster which needs work). If you take away their base where do they go?

First, one of my goals was to lose the spells. I don't think a ranger needs to be a junior druid. And the one spell that Every ranger takes (Hunter's Mark) is now an archetype feature. If you want spells that much, you could always take EK and substitute druid spells.

Second, this is my first pass at doing the ranger as a fighter archetype. My intention was, for at least of of the archetype levels, to allow a beastmaster to have his/her pet, or a walker to teleport, or whatever. Just need to sub out for some of the stated abilities.

Third, if a ranger is, at heart, a fighter, I would think that the extra attacks, ASI's, armor etc. would more than make up for some of the lesser features that didn't get brought over.

If the ranger was perfectly fine as-is, why has there been such a hew and cry against it? And if you think foe slayer is so "lackluster", what would you put in its place (short of scrapping the whole thing)?

[PoeticallyPsyco]

What if this rogue sub-class had the option to use Cunning Action to make another attack with a finesse or ranged weapon if they hit with a weapon attack using the Attack Action on their turn.
I'm aware this would mean that you can't use the Two-Weapon Fighting as is. But, nothing is stopping you to make the other attack with a weapon in your off-hand, and you might even make the initial attack using a one-handed weapon and make the "off-hand" attack with a light weapon (kinda like as if you had the Dual Wielder feat and were dual wielding Rapier and Dagger for flavor), plus you'd add your ability modifier to the attack's damage roll as if you had the Two-Weapon Fighting Style.

That could potentially bring back the old 3.5 trick of 'dual wielding' a two handed weapon and unarmed strikes. I have to admit, that does sound cool.

[GlenSmash!]

Do note that Aragorn is the Trope Codifier for the Ranger. The concept barely existed before then, or at least, it was more of a Hunter. Drizzt is the Trope Codifier for the Dual Wielder Ranger that was tacked to the original concept, which was more of a way to turn the Elf racial class into a proper class. (Do note that AD&D 1E Rangers could cast both Druid and Magic User spells, before going their own list by AD&D 2nd.) Geralt...someone who uses what's essentially Alchemy is pretty unique, IMO, but I don't really see Geralt as a Ranger. Personally, I consider Native (Northern, Central and Southern) American hunters more akin to the concept of a Ranger than anything else, though their contact with civilization is scarce; they would be a good start, and then adding the idea of being the "line" between nature and civilization strengthens that. So yeah: I can see why you'd consider them unworthy of being examples.

I've always considered those who stand on the borders, ranging over territory protecting civilization from the dangers of the wild as the prototypical Rangers.

Texas Rangers, Forest Service Rangers, Park Rangers, the Lone Ranger.

The Rangers of Arnor keeping Bree and the Shire safe and the Rangers of Ithilien doing the same for Gondor.

The Witchers were specifically created to protect civilization from monsters that would horrify the most hardened soldier.

I personally don't see the connection to primitive hunters, and certainly not ones from some specific human cultures vs other human cultures.

[patchyman]

I think the discussion of the Ranger’s IDENTITY is a useful one. IMO, in a tabletop game, discussion of a class’ identity has both a thematic (fluff) and a mechanical component. If the class has a very strong and distinctive theme, it is less important that its mechanics don’t really distinguish it from other classes, and vice versa.

For example, the Barbarian’s theme (Outlander Warrior) can be done very easily using a Background plus the Fighter Class, but it’s core mechanic, Rage does a good job of distinguishing it from the Fighter. A Barbarian is built around their Rage mechanic, just like a Rogue is built around Sneak attack (otherwise a Rogue would simply be a Dex Fighter in leather).

I think Rangers suffer because they don’t have a distinctive mechanic. Part of this seems to be a series of questionable design decisions. Some potential contenders for defining characteristic were pushed into the subclasses, where they are no longer universal. Some were poorly implemented as spells (Hunter’s Mark, the Arrow line of spells).

I think rangers could have been great if the designers had made an upfront choice and designed the class around that choice.

[GlenSmash!]

First, one of my goals was to lose the spells. I don't think a ranger needs to be a junior druid.

Is the Paladin a junior Cleric?

And the one spell that Every ranger takes (Hunter's Mark) is now an archetype feature. If you want spells that much, you could always take EK and substitute druid spells.

If the ranger was perfectly fine as-is, why has there been such a hew and cry against it?

This is a bit of a strawman. One can think the Ranger needs improvement without thinking your propasal is the best way to improve.

And if you think foe slayer is so "lackluster", what would you put in its place (short of scrapping the whole thing)?

Lot's of other options besides scrapping the whole thing.

[paladinn]

Is the Paladin a junior Cleric?

Do clerics smite as a class feature?

This is a bit of a strawman. One can think the Ranger needs improvement without thinking your propasal is the best way to improve.

I never said my proposal was the best way, just A way. And I'm asking for ways to make it better.

Lot's of other options besides scrapping the whole thing.

Care to share? You don't like foe slayer; what would you put in its place?

[Mortis_Elrod]

First, one of my goals was to lose the spells. I don't think a ranger needs to be a junior druid. And the one spell that Every ranger takes (Hunter's Mark) is now an archetype feature. If you want spells that much, you could always take EK and substitute druid spells.

Second, this is my first pass at doing the ranger as a fighter archetype. My intention was, for at least of of the archetype levels, to allow a beastmaster to have his/her pet, or a walker to teleport, or whatever. Just need to sub out for some of the stated abilities.

Third, if a ranger is, at heart, a fighter, I would think that the extra attacks, ASI's, armor etc. would more than make up for some of the lesser features that didn't get brought over.

If the ranger was perfectly fine as-is, why has there been such a hew and cry against it? And if you think foe slayer is so "lackluster", what would you put in its place (short of scrapping the whole thing)?

There are plenty of other ranger spells that i would want. and I cant both be an EK and your supposed Archtype so now i dont get the other ranger features.

You cant possibly fit all the subclass abilities in one fighter subclass. Thats just not gona work.

The ranger is not at heart a fighter. The heavy armor isn't wanted. 2 extra ASIs? ok but nothing really stand out. As far as extra attacks goes, level 20 is almost never played so its almost a never used attack, which means you really just get one more. and No. thats not enough.

The ranger isn't perfectly fine as is. But it would definitely better than not being there at all, or playing some wacky fighter with only 1/4th the features.

I would scrap foe slayer and instead improve upon the core feature of the class through out the levels ending upon a capstone that takes to that next level, capstones are supposed to be amazing and represent the class. Look at the Druid, Barbarian, Cleric, even Fighter at least impoves fighting one more step. Paladin usually lets you champion your ideal as a living avatar for a minute of glory. Rogues become can just choose to be luckiest. Even Warlocks get to suck up some magic and act like they didnt just blow all 4 slots last round.

[paladinn]

There are plenty of other ranger spells that i would want. and I cant both be an EK and your supposed Archtype so now i dont get the other ranger features.

You cant possibly fit all the subclass abilities in one fighter subclass. Thats just not gona work.

The ranger is not at heart a fighter. The heavy armor isn't wanted. 2 extra ASIs? ok but nothing really stand out. As far as extra attacks goes, level 20 is almost never played so its almost a never used attack, which means you really just get one more. and No. thats not enough.

The ranger isn't perfectly fine as is. But it would definitely better than not being there at all, or playing some wacky fighter with only 1/4th the features.

I would scrap foe slayer and instead improve upon the core feature of the class through out the levels ending upon a capstone that takes to that next level, capstones are supposed to be amazing and represent the class. Look at the Druid, Barbarian, Cleric, even Fighter at least impoves fighting one more step. Paladin usually lets you champion your ideal as a living avatar for a minute of glory. Rogues become can just choose to be luckiest. Even Warlocks get to suck up some magic and act like they didnt just blow all 4 slots last round.

Nice to see you can disagree without being disagreeable. Now I see why Kane0 started the other thread.

Good luck

[paladinn]

The ranger is not at heart a fighter.

Oh btw, you do realize that as envisioned in SR, and in 1e and 2e and LL and S&W, the ranger is a fighter subclass?

[GreatWyrmGold]

I feel [Paizo] went a bit too close to 4E, where everything was a power.

Both 4e and PF2 have issues, issues I have recognized and acknowledged. But in neither case was one of those issues "everything is a power/feat". Look at Shadowrun; the edition I'm most familiar with (the second one) made everything skills, and nobody sees fit to complain about that. GURPS makes everything an advantage, and nobody complains about that.
The problems are deeper and more structural, and hence harder to pin blame on than "Why did they put everything in a consistent mechanical framework?" or "Why did they take inspiration from the most popular multiplayer fantasy games of the era?"

Robin Hood and cowboys as prototypical rangers

Might as well point to Heracles as the prototypical barbarian over Conan, or Myrddin as the prototypical wizard over Gandalf. You wouldn't be wrong, since those mythic/folkloric characters are deep in the DNA of modern fantasy characters, but that analysis is about as useful as studying Australopithecus to understand modern humanity. A lot has changed since then, and Aragorn serves as a better "most recent common ancestor" to modern fantasy rangers than Robin Hood or the Lone Ranger does.

Do clerics smite as a class feature?

Do druids get favored enemies as a class feature? How about primeval awareness?
Yes, those class features suck. The problem with the ranger isn't that it's druid-derivative; it's no more druid-derivative than the paladin is cleric-derivative. The problem with the ranger is that its abilities are badly-designed.

Care to share? You don't like foe slayer; what would you put in its place?

Here's how I see this conversation:

P: "The ranger is bad and it should be a fighter subclass. Here's an example of how."
G: "No, the ranger can be its own class."
P: "Oh, you think the ranger is perfect as-is? Then why does everyone hate it?"
G: "No. But it doesn't need to be scrapped, it should be redesigned."
P: "Alright then. How about you help me redesign my proposal for scrapping it?"

I feel like you're talking a lot without really communicating.

[paladinn]

Both 4e and PF2 have issues, issues I have recognized and acknowledged. But in neither case was one of those issues "everything is a power/feat". Look at Shadowrun; the edition I'm most familiar with (the second one) made everything skills, and nobody sees fit to complain about that. GURPS makes everything an advantage, and nobody complains about that.
The problems are deeper and more structural, and hence harder to pin blame on than "Why did they put everything in a consistent mechanical framework?" or "Why did they take inspiration from the most popular multiplayer fantasy games of the era?"



Might as well point to Heracles as the prototypical barbarian over Conan, or Myrddin as the prototypical wizard over Gandalf. You wouldn't be wrong, since those mythic/folkloric characters are deep in the DNA of modern fantasy characters, but that analysis is about as useful as studying Australopithecus to understand modern humanity. A lot has changed since then, and Aragorn serves as a better "most recent common ancestor" to modern fantasy rangers than Robin Hood or the Lone Ranger does.



Do druids get favored enemies as a class feature? How about primeval awareness?
Yes, those class features suck. The problem with the ranger isn't that it's druid-derivative; it's no more druid-derivative than the paladin is cleric-derivative. The problem with the ranger is that its abilities are badly-designed.


Here's how I see this conversation:

P: "The ranger is bad and it should be a fighter subclass. Here's an example of how."
G: "No, the ranger can be its own class."
P: "Oh, you think the ranger is perfect as-is? Then why does everyone hate it?"
G: "No. But it doesn't need to be scrapped, it should be redesigned."
P: "Alright then. How about you help me redesign my proposal for scrapping it?"

I feel like you're talking a lot without really communicating.

And here I thought this thread was about the possibility of rangers being a subclass. My bad.

I'm out.

[Garfunion]

Here is my take on the Ranger. (Take 2)

The Ranger is your go to buddy for camping and “wilderness” travel. They makes those activities fun and easy for you.

Proficiencies
•Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields •Weapons: Simple weapons and scimitar
•Tools: Herbalist’s Kit
•Saving Throws: Strength, Dexterity
•Skills: Survival and two other skills chosen from Animal Handling, Athletics, Insight, Investigation, Nature, Perception, and Stealth

Equipment
You start with the following equipment, in addition to the equipment granted by your background:
• (a) scale mail or (b) leather armor
• (a) two scimitar or (b) two simple melee weapons
• (a) a dungeoneer’s pack or (b) an explorer’s pack
•Herbalist’s Kit
•A shortbow and a quiver of 20 arrows

(Move favorite enemy to the Hunter subclass. It feels like it belongs there more than anything.)

(Remove Favorite Terrain)

(1st level) Wilderness Master
-Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel.
-You can add twice your proficiency bonus to any d20 roll you make with Survival skill.
-Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as setting up camp, foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger.
-When you forage, you find enough food to feed a number of creatures equal to your Ranger level +5.
-When you set up or clear a campsite for a short or long rest, you make it difficult for other creatures to detect your campsite. Creatures attempting to detect your campsite have disadvantage on their Wisdom (Perception & Survival) rolls.

(1st level)Weapons of The Wild
(Flavor text)
When you use the Attack action on your turn and are wielding a shortbow, sling, two simple weapons or scimitars in each hand, or a quarterstaff in two hands, you can make one additional weapon attack as a bonus action.

(2nd level) Remove Fighting Style

(2nd level) Healing Poultice
You may use a herbalist’s kit to make a number of healing poultices equal to your Wisdom modifier(minimum 1) each day. The poultice remains potent for 24 hours or until the Ranger takes a long rest. During a short rest a creature may use a healing poultice. Doing so allows the creature to gain the maximum roll on all their hit die they spend to heal themselves during the rest.
Additionally you may use your herbalist’s kit as part of a long rest to allow up to 5 creatures to regain one additional hit die at the end of the long rest.

(2nd level) Spellcasting
You now prepare spells like a Paladin but with wisdom.

(3rd level) Seeker
Replaces Primeval Awareness
You can use your action and expend one ranger spell slot to focus your awareness on a region 1 mile around you for one minute. Choose one of the following options;
•You can sense whether the following types of creatures are present: aberrations, celestials, dragons, elementals, fey, fiends, and undead. This feature doesn’t reveal the creatures’ location or number.
•If you touch the footprints/tracks of a creature that are no more than one day old, you learn the exact distance, which direction they are moving, and at what pace.

Each spell slot you spend above 1st level increases the miles by two.

(6th level) Greater Weapons of The Wild
You gain additional benefits listed below;
•Attacking at long range doesn’t impose disadvantage on your simple weapon attacks.
•You can draw a simple thrown weapon as part of the same action you attack with it.
•You can retrieve any unattended thrown weapon as a free action.

(12th level) Master Weapons of The Wild
You gain additional benefits listed below;
•Your simple weapons and scimitar critical strike on a 19-20.
•???Extra damage with simple weapons & scimitar???
•Creatures do not gain the benefits of half cover and 3/4 cover from any attack you make against them from a simple weapon or scimitar.

[GreatWyrmGold]

And here I thought this thread was about the possibility of rangers being a subclass. My bad.

Hey, almost half of that was related to rangers being a subclass!

Unless you're referring less to the rambliness and more to the fact that people don't think ranger should be a subclass. Whether or not the OP was being honest when he asked the forum to change his mind, anyone coming into a thread where the OP specifically asks people to do so should expect that not everyone thinks the Ranger should be a subclass. The thread isn't about "Let's make the ranger a subclass," it's "Should the ranger be a subclass?"

[GlenSmash!]

Here is my take on the Ranger. (Take 2)

The Ranger is your go to buddy for camping and “wilderness” travel. They makes those activities fun and easy for you.

Proficiencies
•Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields •Weapons: Simple weapons and scimitar
•Tools: Herbalist’s Kit
•Saving Throws: Strength, Dexterity
•Skills: Survival and two other skills chosen from Animal Handling, Athletics, Insight, Investigation, Nature, Perception, and Stealth

Equipment
You start with the following equipment, in addition to the equipment granted by your background:
• (a) scale mail or (b) leather armor
• (a) two scimitar or (b) two simple melee weapons
• (a) a dungeoneer’s pack or (b) an explorer’s pack
•Herbalist’s Kit
•A shortbow and a quiver of 20 arrows

(1st level)Weapons of The Wild
(Flavor text)
When you use the Attack action on your turn and are wielding a shortbow, sling, two simple weapons or scimitars in each hand, or a quarterstaff in two hands, you can make one additional weapon attack as a bonus action.

(12th level) Master Weapons of The Wild
You gain additional benefits listed below;
•Your simple weapons and scimitar critical strike on a 19-20.
•???Extra damage with simple weapons & scimitar???
•Creatures do not gain the benefits of half cover and 3/4 cover from any attack you make against them from a simple weapon or scimitar.

What about being a wilderness-expert/guide/guardian-of-civilization makes Rangers particularly adept with Scimitars?

[GlenSmash!]

Do clerics smite as a class feature?

You were specifically talking about a Rangers ability to cast spells, not it's other class features. So I compared it to a Paladin which also casts spells not the Paladins other features.

Rangers actually have an ability that burns spell slots, it just sucks. I'd rather replace it or rework it that strip them of spells

I never said my proposal was the best way, just A way. And I'm asking for ways to make it better.

In that case to defend of your specific proposal with "If the ranger was perfectly fine as-is, why has there been such a hew and cry against it?" seems to make little sense.

It's not asking for feedback constructive or otherwise. Especially since the poster you asked it to had never claimed the Ranger was perfect as is.

Care to share? You don't like foe slayer; what would you put in its place?

I'm a poor game designer, hence why I've stuck to discussing theme and identity over creating mechanics.

Maybe change it to +Wisdom mod damage to all weapon attacks. Barbarians essentially get +2 to attack and damage with all melee weapons, plus increases to checks and saves, and HP, and possibly AC if going unarmored. A potential +5 to all attacks seems balanced though few Rangers in my have more than +2 or +3 Wisdom bonus so that may still be lackluster.

The Adventures in Middle-Earth version of the Ranger (called the Wanderer) has a capstone that makes them do max weapon damage dice on all weapon attacks. That would also be a potential damage bonus of around 3.5 to 5.5 average damage. Simple if perhaps uninspiring.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Here is my take on the Ranger. (Take 2)

The Ranger is your go to buddy for camping and “wilderness” travel. They makes those activities fun and easy for you.

Proficiencies
•Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields •Weapons: Simple weapons and scimitar
•Tools: Herbalist’s Kit
•Saving Throws: Strength, Dexterity
•Skills: Survival and two other skills chosen from Animal Handling, Athletics, Insight, Investigation, Nature, Perception, and Stealth

Equipment
You start with the following equipment, in addition to the equipment granted by your background:
• (a) scale mail or (b) leather armor
• (a) two scimitar or (b) two simple melee weapons
• (a) a dungeoneer’s pack or (b) an explorer’s pack
•Herbalist’s Kit
•A shortbow and a quiver of 20 arrows

(Move favorite enemy to the Hunter subclass. It feels like it belongs there more than anything.)

(Remove Favorite Terrain)

(1st level) Wilderness Master
-Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel.
-You can add twice your proficiency bonus to any d20 roll you make with Survival skill.
-Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as setting up camp, foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger.
-When you forage, you find enough food to feed a number of creatures equal to your Ranger level +5.
-When you set up or clear a campsite for a short or long rest, you make it difficult for other creatures to detect your campsite. Creatures attempting to detect your campsite have disadvantage on their Wisdom (Perception & Survival) rolls.

(1st level)Weapons of The Wild
(Flavor text)
When you use the Attack action on your turn and are wielding a shortbow, sling, two simple weapons or scimitars in each hand, or a quarterstaff in two hands, you can make one additional weapon attack as a bonus action.

(2nd level) Remove Fighting Style

(2nd level) Healing Poultice
You may use a herbalist’s kit to make a number of healing poultices equal to your Wisdom modifier(minimum 1) each day. The poultice remains potent for 24 hours or until the Ranger takes a long rest. During a short rest a creature may use a healing poultice. Doing so allows the creature to gain the maximum roll on all their hit die they spend to heal themselves during the rest.
Additionally you may use your herbalist’s kit as part of a long rest to allow up to 5 creatures to regain one additional hit die at the end of the long rest.

(2nd level) Spellcasting
You now prepare spells like a Paladin but with wisdom.

(6th level) Greater Weapons of The Wild
You gain additional benefits listed below;
•Attacking at long range doesn’t impose disadvantage on your simple weapon attacks.
•You can draw a simple thrown weapon as part of the same action you attack with it.
•You can retrieve any unattended thrown weapon as a free action.

(12th level) Master Weapons of The Wild
You gain additional benefits listed below;
•Your simple weapons and scimitar critical strike on a 19-20.
•???Extra damage with simple weapons & scimitar???
•Creatures do not gain the benefits of half cover and 3/4 cover from any attack you make against them from a simple weapon or scimitar.

I like some of this but I dont think fighting style and martial weapons need to be removed. The 6th level feature is particularly good for a potential Thrown Weapon feat/style which i do think a ranger would use/appreciate.

More importantly though i think rangers core feature should be usable with all weapons. Rangers are versatile and adaptable and the mechanics should reflect that.

[Garfunion]

What about being a wilderness-expert/guide/guardian-of-civilization makes Rangers particularly adept with Scimitars?

Closest weapon to a machete I could find. It also helps fit certain character tropes.

[GlenSmash!]

I like some of this but I dont think fighting style and martial weapons need to be removed. The 6th level feature is particularly good for a potential Thrown Weapon feat/style which i do think a ranger would use/appreciate.

More importantly though i think rangers core feature should be usable with all weapons. Rangers are versatile and adaptable and the mechanics should reflect that.

Yeah that was my sticking point too.

I can see very little reason why a Barbarian would get proficiency with Martial Weapons and a Ranger would not.

[Garfunion]

I like some of this but I dont think fighting style and martial weapons need to be removed. The 6th level feature is particularly good for a potential Thrown Weapon feat/style which i do think a ranger would use/appreciate.

More importantly though i think rangers core feature should be usable with all weapons. Rangers are versatile and adaptable and the mechanics should reflect that.

With how Weapons of The Wild works 2 of the fighting styles would become useless. Making the +2 to ranged attack the best option.

I also think the Ranger wouldn’t gain proficiency in all martial weapons. Many of those weapons are big and heavy and would weigh Ranger down.

Yeah that was my sticking point too.

I can see very little reason why a Barbarian would get proficiency with Martial Weapons and a Ranger would not.

I personally feel the Barbarian should not have martial weapon proficiency. Instead they gain proficiency in maybe 1 or 2, two-handed martial weapons.

Side note: I was going for a more Native wilderness master.

[Mortis_Elrod]

With how Weapons of The Wild works 2 of the fighting styles would become useless. Making the +2 to ranged attack the best option.

I also think the Ranger wouldn’t gain proficiency and all martial weapons. Many of those weapons are big and heavy and would weigh Ranger down.


I personally feel the Barbarian should not have martial weapon proficiency. Instead they gain proficiency in maybe one or two two-handed martial weapons.

Side note: I was going for a more Native wilderness master.

Well at least your consistent. With that in mind what you suggest makes sense. Though it is essentially giving the ranger some feats in exchange for getting rid of some of the better weapons.

Iconically though I’m against the ranger and Barbarian not having martial weapons.

[Garfunion]

Well at least your consistent. With that in mind what you suggest makes sense. Though it is essentially giving the ranger some feats in exchange for getting rid of some of the better weapons.

Feats are optional, it frees up their ASI for other feats or their ability scores.

Iconically though I’m against the ranger and Barbarian not having martial weapons.

They still get martial weapon pro, just not all of them.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Feats are optional, it frees up their ASI for other feats or their ability scores.

They still get martial weapon pro, just not all of them.

True true. Feats are optional but have yet to see a game that didn’t allow feats, though I recognize this as anecdotal.

Rangers not having longbows and short swords seems off.

And again I think a much better direction would be something independent of weapons at all. This is like weapon FE and it is almost equally limiting.

[GreyBlack]

Actually, the reason why the Ranger was revised isn't because people don't like it. It's more like people want to like it, see that it has its flaws, and want WotC to fix them, because they want an official acknowledgement and patch for it. Though, you pretty much state that point later.

And do note that those statistics and polls place "Human Fighter" as the main choice, by FAR. How you interpret that information is up to you, but there's some statistical bias there. (Which is different from opinion bias.)



You can debate something without the intention of changing your mind, but still be open to the idea. That's the whole point of a debate - it either strengthens your opinion, allows you to address flaws in that opinion, or even make you change your mind; it can also apply to the other side of the debate, to the point where your own opinion may be shaken, but you'll still make the other side change their mind (mostly because you address the flaws the other side presents, and give an iron-clad case for it.) It's entirely possible, yes.

Which is why the title is still "intellectually dishonest", particularly if it's meant to be sarcastic. Having to explain that it's a meme means it's not viral enough to be used for fun, or whatever intention it is. The intention behind this thread was to seek ideas on how to make the Ranger a subclass, then that should have been the point of the title in the first place. You see the title of a thread before reading the original post; thus, you already formulate the idea of what will be your answer before you even read the post, and IF the original post doesn't address the idea that you don't want to have your opinion changed, it WILL cause a discussion regarding the validity of the Ranger as a class OR subclass. Simply removing that memetic reference would temper things a bit.



For purposes of clarification: I mentioned a hunter and a woodsman. Can't see why the Ranger can't be a hunter and a woodsman at the same time.

That said, I also like this concept:



It's a good answer to the question "what the Ranger is?", which is at the core of what's identity. (I'll explain why I used the term "purpose" rather than "identity" below.) It fits the idea of a hunter and a woodsman, and many other concepts as well.



Fair. Identity and purpose can be confusing.

As I said, identity is the answer to the question "what a class is?" It involves definition, fluff and whatnot. Identity, thus, is what a class IS. Purpose, on the other hand, answers a different set of questions: "why the class does?" Hence, purpose is what the class DOES.

Using the four base classes:

• A Fighter fights. That is its purpose. A Fighter is someone trained in the use of weapons and armor with grander expertise. That is what the class IS.
• A Cleric casts divine magic and channels divinity. That is what it DOES. The Cleric is a representative of a deity, ordained by its faith, to spread the word and face the enemies of the faith. That is what it IS.
• A Rogue uses guile and skill to surpass obstacles. That is what it DOES. The Rogue is a witty, often seedy, very often cool, and very talented guy or gal. That's...not exactly what it is, but let's be honest: the Rogue's identity is so tied to what a Thief is, most people will associate the two. Rogues don't need to be criminals (hence the background) or thieves (hence the archetype), but most iconic Rogues will be thieves and/or criminals. (A shame they haven't done an Archaeologist, since Indiana Jones and Lara Croft and evne Nathan Drake definitely seem like Rogues)
• A Wizard casts arcane spells through preparation. That is what it DOES. The Wizard has spent years mastering the arcane arts, and has achieved a level of practice only a few can dream of. That is what they ARE.

Now, I consider your point fair because these are subjective observations. What I think a Fighter IS and DOES will be different than what you think it IS. I mentioned "purpose" because you can get the hang of what you'll do with a Fighter, Cleric, Rogue or Wizard mostly by looking at it. Subclasses, of course, can muddle this: an Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster will have spellcasting ability, hence dabbling on what a Wizard (or Sorcerer, or Warlock) can do, but they'll be primarily a Fighter or a Rogue, and secondarily a spellcaster.

The Ranger's identity, what it IS, is pretty clear to me: a hunter and a woodsman, a force of balance between the natural world and civilization. They're distinct from a Druid, who worships and protects the natural world, because they understand the need for civilization. The issue is what a Ranger DOES, which I would equate to its purpose - and why I said Galithar was more focused on its purpose than on its identity. Galithar pointed out mostly what a Ranger does: it fights, it tracks, it's stealthy and prefers ambushes, but couldn't tie that to an identity. The issues Galithar has are mechanical in nature - acknowledging that the Ranger *could* be a full class, but the mechanics in the game don't lead to it. Now, I can concur that the Ranger suffers, though it's not in any way less contributing to the game than some other options (a Hunter Ranger, or any of the XGtE subclasses, are definitely better than a Berserker Barbarian, or...say, a Mastermind Rogue. YMMV on Four Elements Monk); however, because the chassis of the class has issues, it leads to people dismissing it. This is mostly because the developers hated the idea of Favored Enemy, and they nerfed it to the ground. I think Kane0 and some other posters have given a good replacement: make it like PF Investigator's Studied Foe, which IMO is a fair replacement...provided it works more like 4E's Hunter's Quarry, which added a damage die against a "tagged" enemy (in broad terms, of course; you can correct me if I'm wrong). This correlates to what WotC has implicitly done, by providing all subclasses with a source of damage, noticing that those few Ranger players focus on using Hunter's Mark above anything else, and generally gravitating towards Hunter Ranger and Colossus Slayer for additional damage. Something as simple as "tag an enemy, deal 1d8 damage each time you hit that enemy" is elegant in its execution. THEN, you could tie Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer to it (you treat your favored enemy, as well as all creatures native to your favored terrain, as automatically tagged). That said, it's just an example.

It's also fairly tied to something paladinn said on a post:



Even WotC has dealt with the issue, giving the class several revisions, and the one unofficially called the "revised Ranger" has a ton of traction; however, it's gonna be nothing if WotC doesn't give it a seal of approval. No matter how many revisions and homebrew fixes and ideas for fixes (and attempts to turn them into a subclass; it's as equally valid as the previously mentioned), if WotC doesn't say "this is the Ranger", it'll amount to nothing. It has a degree of validity if the discussion prompts WotC for action. It also leads to what you say later:



I consider this a valid point. It's mostly the reason why paladinn essentially bowed out of the thread; even they (inclduing Galithar) admit that the Ranger could be a base class, but that the inherent issues (something even I agree on) don't help it. The surroundings between these two related things (Ranger can be a class, but Ranger has issues) is where we all differ. I personally have, between the builds I've made, a Monster Slayer Ranger (not the revised one, but the actual PHB Ranger) that I'd love to play, since it'd help me understand many of the issues with the Ranger itself (and hence, help with the discussion), so it's not like I have completely and utterly dismissed the Ranger. (It's mostly that I prefer the Paladin as a class, and I currently play a Cleric because the gaming group I play with had none, and I really play a pretty swell Cleric by default.) I'm willing to test the idea that the Ranger doesn't need a fix, mostly because it challenges any argument I may have, any bias I may have from observation. However, that doesn't invalidate or deny statistical data that shows people are unhappy with the current iteration of the Ranger, and seek a honest revision. But, to even start with it, you need a framework. It can be its identity. It can be both identity and purpose. It can be a concept. As you mention in your post:



WotC has the means to deal with this. They already have a pretty solid starting concept. What they need is to revise its execution. This, to me, would be dealing with their purpose, or rather, to answer "what the Ranger DOES?"



Do note that Aragorn is the Trope Codifier for the Ranger. The concept barely existed before then, or at least, it was more of a Hunter. Drizzt is the Trope Codifier for the Dual Wielder Ranger that was tacked to the original concept, which was more of a way to turn the Elf racial class into a proper class. (Do note that AD&D 1E Rangers could cast both Druid and Magic User spells, before going their own list by AD&D 2nd.) Geralt...someone who uses what's essentially Alchemy is pretty unique, IMO, but I don't really see Geralt as a Ranger. Personally, I consider Native (Northern, Central and Southern) American hunters more akin to the concept of a Ranger than anything else, though their contact with civilization is scarce; they would be a good start, and then adding the idea of being the "line" between nature and civilization strengthens that. So yeah: I can see why you'd consider them unworthy of being examples.

(And, just so you know: I don't like Drizzt either, or Faerunian Drows. Vulkoorim are my kind of Drow anyways.)

Spoiler: Out of Topic

Show

I feel they went a bit too close to 4E, where everything was a power. Somewhere towards Essentials, where most of your class features were new powers or ways to modify your Basic Attack. PF 2nd ties so much to feats, trying to get in track with all of this can be a headache.

Just now, I was modifying a playtest build I made with the official content, and...while I feel more comfortable with it as a character (compared to my attempt in making a PF 1e character, which felt so worthless), it's still a bit too far from being a build I like (compare to my Paladin builds in 3.5 and 5e, or my Warrior --> Templar spec build in Dragon Age, which I really like a lot). Had to leap a lot of hurdles to figure out what I wanted from the class itself (levels 4, 6 and to an extent 14 are just so horrible! And 1st level isn't that great either), and I had to use a liberal application of Multiclass Archetype feats (for Sorcerer) to feel a bit more comfortable with my build. Shield Ally is kinda trash, since it's restricted by range, which is generally a big no-no in metaplay, and they took many of the ways you could get more powers (and limited the uses of your powers, since you get only one or two uses per encounter, so to speak). Most of the time, I feel that I'm either attacking or...well, attacking; if I didn't have access to Sorcerer spellcasting, I'd feel useless, since the fancy maneuver thingies are pretty much exclusive to Fighter and Ranger.

But, enough ranting. PF 2e is simultaneously simple (the concept of Traits and symbols to shorthand info is pretty swell) and complex (everything is feats, everything is fiddly numbers), and I feel they did that just to distance themselves much more from their "parent" system.

Which brings me back to my original point. If your argument is that all classes can be boiled down into archetypes of the 4 basic classes, why don't we? Paladins are just a hybrid of fighters because their identity is warriors crossed with priests, warlocks are just magic users crossed with priests, druids are just priests crossed with magic users... it's a similar format to second edition.

Why do you uniquely single out rangers when every other class in D&D can have the same thing done? It's not for lack of identity, as every class has that identity problem. Is it the mechanics? I'll agree they could use some fine tuning. Just because the mechanics need tuning doesn't mean that the class lacks identity though.

I get the feeling that your complaint is that the Ranger lacks that clean X+Y as above. Which is completely fine; not every class _has_ to fit into some arbitrary spectrum. We're not playing WoW where everyone is either a DPS, tank, or healing spec. This just brings us back to "your personal feelings don't make objective fact"...