I was wondering about how feasible merging rangers and barbarians would be.
Thinking of it, they do similar things when barbarians aren't focused solely on raging. And the AD&D barbarian class seemed to point in that direction.
So, /tg/, would merging these two classes cut down on class bloat?
>>48173700
Rangers are already one of the most bloated classes in the game and you want to merge them with something else? They already can't decide what they're supposed to be. They want to be Nature Rogues, but they also wana have bard/druid magic, but they also wana be a beast-master animal-companion character, but they also wana be expert archer guy, but they also wana be badass fighters and have random shit like two-weapon fighting archetypes that aren't just on the Fighter for some reason. Now you wana make them hit things with big smash weapon guys too?
Seriously, Rangers need to be UNbloated, not bloated more.
>>48173861
That's not what I meant at all, anon.
Rangers and Barbarians both cover the naturalistic survivalist warrior guy pretty well, so I reckon that you could merge them into one class.
As you said, druids are very bloated and crappy, that you also state the reasons why. Do you have an alternate solution to this issue?
>>48173700
Depends on system.
>>48173700
If 5E, make an archetype.
>Archetype of the Ranger
>At third level gain Favored Terrain
>Also at third gain an Animal Companion
>At sixth level gain one of the Hunter Archetype's combat abilities normally at 7th
>At 10th level control animal companion with bonus actions or even no action while raging
>At 14th level, barbarian knows if an invisible creature is within 30ft and where, and doesn't take disadvantage to hit invisibles
This one is shitty, but you get the point.
>>48174021
what
>>48174649
Basically, I think that Rangers and Barbarians overlap in enough ways to merge them into one class.
That way you could have the various ranger/barbarian features be things you can take as a focus. Say druidic magic or rage.
It just never sat well with me that you have three really good wilderness survival classes.
>>48173700
>>48173861
I wouldn't merge the barbarian and the ranger, but what I would consider doing is splitting the ranger and give pieces of it to a few different classes. Which also resolves the second posters issue. A fighter subclass would cover the traditional Aragorn-style ranger, a barbarian subclass could inherit the animal companion stuff, etc. So instead of one bloated class you would just pick the specific type of ranger you want from several different classes.
>>48174796
Where would that leave the ranger?
>>48174827
Gone.
>>48174827
Make tracking, survival, stealth, orientation and hunt actually important in your campaign.
@
Call it "Hunter/Poacher".
>>48174716
No OP, you are the bloat.
>>48175592
We're on /tg/. We're all bloated fa/tg/uys.
>>48174796
Now, as OP there was a hitch in my plan, and I'll ask you, too.
What about the ranged combat stuff? Relegate that to a fighter archetype?
>>48175619
>What about the ranged combat stuff? Relegate that to a fighter archetype?
Make a new class: the Archer.
>>48174021
>>48174716
Are you stupid, not reading, or just shitposting?
>>48174021
Jesus anon, Rangers are bloated with Druid magic. What is your reading comp?
>>48173700
I just get rid of rangers entirely. Barbarians and druids can do nature stuff, rogues can do archery stuff and take some nature skills if they need to be outdoors.
