It’s a holdover from the Tolkien era and does nothing by itselfIt has zero unique mechanics that aren’t already represented by the fighterIt’s the fighter with an extra teaspoon of flavor
Whenever a game didn't have a "ranger", but a hunter instead, I wholefully enjoyed playing them.There is of course and absolutely a case for a skilled wanderer, survival expert, capable both in ranged and melee combat, quick, perceptive, stealthy. The archetype is firmly set in the collective conscious. The hunter is a classic figure.
The ranger definitely came from Tolkien but was later also influenced/infected by Drizzt into the dual-wielder.But I digress and agree. The ranger can easily be replaced by a fighter in terms of combat capabilities.>>98857773The "hunter" is a better class-concept than the current ranger
>>98857745I think the Fighter should removed instead. Ranger, Barb, Monk, and even Pally are held back because they're often designed not to overshadow the Fighter in direct combat, but they end up being neutered overall. The Fighter needs a conceptual overhaul. It's too generic now. I also think the "Rogue" should go back to being called the Thief.
tolkiendrones think tolkien invented the concept of the rangerlmao
>>98857883He popularized it with Strider/Aragorn.But isn't a ranger, historically, just light infantry?
>>98857857This desu
>>98857890Tolkiendrones are so literarily ignorant they think tolkien popularised the idea of the ranger
>>98857745>Removethief and bard, they have had nor have any place other than being professions, as in a criminal and a travelling singer etc. they are unplable and thief became rogue and got a sneak attack and became the sneak attack machine &bard became a full mage with spells up to level 9
Have you tried playing 4e rangers?
>>98857857>Barb,this is a berserker, the fighter with the berserker kit - they can't even name classes properly.
>>98857996>4e
>>98857745Remove all classes except warrior, rogue, magic user, and priest
>>98858029?
>>98857745You're free to do that for your own game, yes.
>>98857745Nah. Let people play. If you're not playing, you're doing it wrong. Badwrongfun rules are shit.
>>98857745You could say the same about Barbarian. I could see keeping it all under 'Fighting Man' or if you want some build differentiation>Meleeist>Ranger
>>98857883>>98857973This thread was made by a DnDrone (such as yourself), they lack imagination and the only thing they can come up is removing features from their game because they're unable to add anything new to it. And like yourself the only thing they do all day is seethe about superior fantasy works like Lord of the Rings while contributing nothing to the genre and being a pest to other forms of life.
>>98857745Why not take it a few steps further, and remove all "narrative archetypes" from the system, and make it a game? Archetypal classes are a holdover from the D&D era, and do nothing by themselves. They have zero unique mechanics, all following a similar formula of "X uses every short rest" or "X uses every long rest".Allow players to choose 1 Racial Class, 1 Background Class, and 1 Discipline Class.>Racial Classes determine base Attributes and grant appropriate Unarmed Skills; these Skills deal different Damage types, have different levels of Power, and have a chance to cause different Effects.>Background Classes determine Armor (or lack thereof) and a Weapon. Armor has different levels of protection and different Damage types it resists or enhances and has different interactions with Stances like Aerial, Cover, Dashing, etc. Weapons offer their own Damage types and Follow-Up style.>Discipline Classes determine a supernatural power that synergizes with Racial and Background abilities. Each Discipline has a different method of setup, cost, and execution, and covers different roles in combat, rather than some fart-snorting story.
>>98857745>It has zero unique mechanics that aren’t already represented by the fighterI didn't know fighter had Hunter's Mark or an animal companion as a class feature. What core fighter class feature offers these?
>>98858628>This thread was made by a DnDrone (such as yourself), they lack imagination and the only thing they can come up is removing features from their game because they're unable to add anything new to it. And like yourself the only thing they do all day is seethe about superior fantasy works like Lord of the Rings while contributing nothing to the genre and being a pest to other forms of life.
>>98858824I say all of these.
>>98858475>roguerolled into warrior>priestrolled into magic user
>>98858899Magic User should also be rolled into Warrior, just add an optional feat that allows you to cast spells.
>>98857809>Tolkien invented Robbin Hood. lol okay. >>98858628its a puckee thread actually >>98858899This is the way. >>98858914>feats Fuck that.
>>98857996>original complaint was that ranger is too similar to fighter>suggests 4e, an edition that waters every class down into the same thing with different numbers attachedyour edition is not making a comeback, bro, let it go
>>98857745Ranger should have been the Silver Bullet class, the one with the ability to bypass or dispel the resistances/abilities of monsters. Pierces natural armor, counts as cold iron against fey, keeps flying enemies grounded, reduces elemental immunities, etc.
>>98858824Oh look, we have another flavor mentally ill subhuman spammer. This fatherless behavior you have would have been fixed if your mother was allowed to abort you just like she wanted.https://desuarchive.org/tg/search/image/9FqylPberp0ERXm-9tiksQ/
>>98859013>Robbin Hood.That's a rogue
>>98859034>every class down into the same thing with different numbers attachedThis has been debunked.
>>98857745So, like paladins?
>>98859490>rogue That's a fighter.
>>98857809Drizzt (1988) was closer to The Lord of the Rings (1955=33 years) than we are to Drizzt (2026=38 years). Most ttrpg players today weren't even alive or were toddlers during the Ranger's heyday. If it were removed as a class no one would care.
>>98858628Your post is made by a retarded nogames.
>>98859334Ironic thing to post seeing there a faggot in the thread who is buttblasted about a game he is too stupid to play.
>>98857745The minor in nature-related magic PLUS nature-related skill-suite put it in a space that is incredibly awkward for "normal" class systems to handle with intra-class and multi-class variance. Technically, its niche "should" be more of a Rogue with a minor in Druid, but it was first done as a Fighter kit working as an alternative front-line combatant and that baggage leaves it very hard to untangle from a "hybrid" class.>>98857773The "hunter" is usually just filing fringes off the "Ranger", the way that JRPG-Priests/White Mages (and consequently MMO-Priests) are basically the party-niche-defining healbot pried out of the rest of the Cleric, and has some issues in "truer" RPGs with being pretty much Distilled Overland Adventurer. Though it does frequently mesh better from leaving out the Druid factor as intersecting only the Fighter and Rogue "categories" to fix the problems of said "distillation".>>98857857I have somewhat the opposite feeling myself, that the Ranger, Paladin, and Barbarian "should" be consolidated by intra-class variance so that the initial class choice is only committing to the broad party role and mechanical foundation used to fill it.>>98857883Technically true in broader genre-fiction terms, but much as the Barbarian is primarily informed by the Conan-type sword-and-sorcery protagonists of the Ranger is primarily informed by Aragorn-type "wilderness dude with a decent bit of Special Sauce".
>>98858719>Why not take it a few steps further, and remove all "narrative archetypes" from the system, and make it a game?Because the game includes role-playing determined by said narrative archetypes, for all the gamism complicates such.>They have zero unique mechanics, all following a similar formula of "X uses every short rest" or "X uses every long rest".Even in 5.24 this is untrue, because the spell mechanics still have SOME meaningful variance driven by rate and list. Though I would definitely be on board with demanding every "base" class having at least one distinct subsystem structurally demanding its separation, leaving "hybrids" to intra-class variance and inter-class access.>>98858787Technically that's a spell and a subclass option that used to be a spell (which even came back in 5e!), not "truly" a core feature for all it is obnoxiously obvious that Hunter's Mark is as much an expected Ranger function as the Warlock's Eldritch Blast "cantrip" (meanwhile the exact same writers had no issue making the Paladin's slot-dump-for-damage a "hard" class feature...)>>98858899No, rolling all magic into a single class is a retarded meme and leaving the already damned-close Wizard in is a constant source of structural problems for any kind of balance in narrative agency between classes.
>>98860006If you spent less time being a subhuman spammer you would have time to play whatever game you're talking about.
>>98857745I just gave rangers an extra reaction/bonus action ontop of the best additional movement of the four major archtypes in my game (fighter, ranger, mage, cleric). They also gain access to some of the best utility/exploration skills of all the classes as well.You could also just play them as a fighter, but fighter will always have more extra attacks than them on top of better weapon skills.
>>98860270Forgot to mention, they have no magic whatsoever unless they heavily invest into it.
>>98859334tolkiendrone seething
>>98860167You didn't answer my question, you dodged it. You're wrong. Hunter's Mark is exclusively on the Ranger list and that's only 5.5. In 5e, it's a class feature available only to Ranger.Technically druid as of 5e can get an animal companion too, but they gave it to ranger with tasha's. Not fighter though.They also have half-casting, which fighter is incapable of getting access to.A ranger is not a fighter. By your logic, Paladin shouldn't exist either. It should just be a fighter subclass.
>>98860243That just applies to you and your smells, retard nogames
>>98860949>You didn't answer my question, you dodged it.You asked for "core" fighter features analogous to technically-secondary Ranger options. Noting this error in the structure of your question is entirely valid, for all it's a fiddly technical interjection.>Hunter's Mark is exclusively on the Ranger list and that's only 5.5. In 5e, it's a class feature available only to Ranger.It's a spell in both cases.>Technically druid as of 5e can get an animal companion too, but they gave it to ranger with tasha's.As a subclass OPTION.>They also have half-casting, which fighter is incapable of getting access to.>A ranger is not a fighter. By your logic, Paladin shouldn't exist either.I direct you to my immediately previous post >>98860138>It should just be a fighter subclass.Things worked fine enough back when they were explicitly defined as such. 5e dragging up their casting while flattening "martial" progression finally puts their mechanics in a place that doesn't end up with hair-splitting issues between the two and Fighter, but between eachother and their relatively specific baselines it still causes design-space problems. Not that 5e bothers using design space in the first place...
One of the major problems with Ranger is it's theme and flavor.They forget Favored enemy even exists and is barely used in any of it's subclasses. It's not even a resource to active abilities in the same way Wild Shape sometimes gets drafted into doing.Rogue is better in that it at least remembers to feature something unique to do with Sneak Attack in its subclasses.
>ranger is just a fighterdamn, that is very retarded
>>98860167>the game includes role-playing determined by said narrative archetypesThen the ranger is fine where it is.
i don't like how they're supposed to be the 'archer' character but a archery fighter is just better
>>98859013Isn't Robin Hood more of a rogue?
>>98860138>Barbarian is primarily informed by the Conan-type sword-and-sorcery protagonistsConan is more of a ranger/fighter/thief/rogue.
>be a retard>an absolute buffoon, a cretin, a complete smoothbrain>decide play 5e because you are a stupid fucking genetic dead end>decide to play ranger because you're uneducated, genuinely misinformed garbage>session happens outside of town>"okay guys, I'll go gather some wood and make a nice cozy bonf-">Wizard casts Create Bonfire>"Hey guys, I can help you t-">the cleric casts Create Food and Water>"Hey guys, I can find water so we-">the cleric casts Create Food and Water again>"I'll help this party tread this dangerous forest, for I have lived here for more than 50 yea-">Cleric casts Find the Path>"Well...I can help us setup a safe and effective camp in order to se-">the wizards casts Galder's Tower>"Okay, I can go hunt some animals and try to figure out a way to produce a soap so I can-">the wizard casts Prestidigitation>"guys I dug a whole so we can bury the meat so later then we return, the meat sta-">the wizard casts Shape Water and entombs meat in ice>"Hey guys, I have studied these plants all my life and some of them might me poiso-">cleric casts Detect Poison and Disease>"Guys I spent most of the day collecting help and carved a small needle from the bone of the last wolf we killed, we could use this to-">literally anyone casts Mending>"Hey fellas, I've spent most of the week sewing a couple of ghillie suits so we can blend into our environme-">wizard casts Disguise Self>go to Mongolian basket weaving forum>"RANGERS ARE USELESS WAAAAAAAAAAA WAAAAAAAAAAAA"
>delete fighter, wizard and ranger >game is now playable You're welcome.
>>98857745>remove ranger, monk, paladin & druid>add them back as fighter subclass, druid as nature clericunironically would be better than 5.5e
>>98862725favoured enemy: Spellcasters
>>98859013Nobody ever called Robin Hood a "Ranger".An outlaw, a bandit, a disinherited nobleman, and a knight at various points.But calling him a "Ranger" is an anachronism born from attempting to shoehorn old things into new frameworks, which is one of the most common ways people fail to understand the past.
