The two that stand out as generalists are Samurai and Cavalier.
The problem with the samurai is that the name is culturally specific. The problem with cavalier is that most people don't want to deal with mounted combat (and it tends to amount to "okay, your horse died as collateral damage, now you get to walk like everyone else"). Both could be reworked without a lot of work, but they aren't at zero work.
Looking at the existing fighter subclasses from the core books:
Arcane Archer: most people who want a spellcasting archer are satisfied with a ranger.
Cavalier: I think there's demand for both 'mounted combatant' and 'protection-focused fighter', but they're an uneasy fit together. Cavalier does a better job of implementing the second than the first but the name is pretty explicitly about mounted combat. I would want to either rebuild the class so it actually is about mounted combat, or rename it and replace 'born to the saddle' with a more relevant feature.
Psi Warrior: I don't think the core books have a lot of interest in 'psi' effects, though I know there's people who want it. It's otherwise reasonably functional.
Rune Knight: there's certainly demand for playing giant size characters, but with the new goliath it might be unnecessary.
Samurai: the name is culturally specific, they'd want to rename it. If your goal is to actually play a courtly fighter, there's better choices; its remaining features are functional but fairly bland.
Of options in non-core books
Echo Knight and Gunslinger are out due to being partnered content.
Purple Dragon Knight, if renamed, does represent a concept people want (the leadership character), but doesn't do a very good job at it.
I can't say they won't choose AA, because they don't have great options. As you say rune knight or psi warrior are probably the best picks, but they aren't really perfect fits.
I don't think culture is samurai's problem, its just not that great a sub.
So when no options are great, other decisions might be made.
however since I think their primary concern at this stage is time, they will pick the one that requires the least changes and is popular, they will then try to twist some analogy to get a pairing, but it won't really resonate on that level.
Apparently AA is 6th in popularity, so the question is, would it still be popular in a onednd context without significant changes. I personally don't think so, but I wouldn't put this as the 6th class.
There could be more ranged fighting styles. There could be the "sniper", for example. And that he ignored covers or who knows. There could be the "blank range" style, which would eliminate the disadvantage of being 5 feet away. There could be "Piercing Shot" that ignores resistance to piercing damage or something less broken. And, anyway, a lot more ranged fighting styles could exists. If they don't exist, it's not because Archery covers 90% of the possibilities, it's because the designers, for whatever reason, don't want to.
I think part of the problems with your examples is that ignoring cover or shooting point blank aren’t really styles of fighting. But Ranged (Archery/thrown weapon) and heavy weapons (GWF), sword and board (dueling, protection), two weapons (TWF), or unarmed (Unarmed fs) are and covered.
I agree that when most people think of fighters they think melee. But fighters by their very nature are flexible and can do both melee and ranged very well. They have the fighting styles to back them up and extra ASI’s for feats to boost those styles.
There could be more ranged fighting styles. There could be the "sniper", for example. And that he ignored covers or who knows. There could be the "blank range" style, which would eliminate the disadvantage of being 5 feet away. There could be "Piercing Shot" that ignores resistance to piercing damage or something less broken. And, anyway, a lot more ranged fighting styles could exists. If they don't exist, it's not because Archery covers 90% of the possibilities, it's because the designers, for whatever reason, don't want to.
That sounds like the sharpshooter feat, the crossbow expert feat and the piercer feat.
There could be more ranged fighting styles. There could be the "sniper", for example. And that he ignored covers or who knows. There could be the "blank range" style, which would eliminate the disadvantage of being 5 feet away. There could be "Piercing Shot" that ignores resistance to piercing damage or something less broken. And, anyway, a lot more ranged fighting styles could exists. If they don't exist, it's not because Archery covers 90% of the possibilities, it's because the designers, for whatever reason, don't want to.
So archery would work for every weapon you used one of your made fighting styles on. Dueling does not work on a two handed weapon. Great weapon fighting does not work with a one handed weapon. Two weapon fighting does nothing if you aren’t using two weapons, unarmed fighting does not help if you hit with a weapon. If you took your made up “sniper” you could also take “archery.” So like I said Archery covers 90% of ranged combat. Yes they could have made separate fighting styles for each ranged weapon, but they didn’t do that for melee weapons either. They made separate style to accommodate the ways you use the weapons. Fighter is not melee focused by design. Unless you were the 5e designer I’m going to have to ask you to stop saying that. Also if you are the 5e fighter designer I will let you know that if your goal was to make a melee focus combatant that could be ranged, you failed. You made all rounder that can equally fight in melee or ranged.
I don't understand why you answer me so aggressively. And no, I am not a 5e designer nor do I claim to be. But it is obvious that the fighter is designed to be in the front row, but that it also allows a ranged fighter to be played. That is, you can become many types of fighter, most of them melee. And you can also be a ranged fighter too. But that comes later. It's an "Also." What you will see the most, the first objective of the class, is to make you a character that goes with a melee weapon. Think about it another way. A fighter can be a str or dex, and both work. But it is mainly designed to go to str. That's why its competition in str saves (and not in dex). Or put another way: The design assumes that the majority of fighters will go with a melee weapon, and that they will choose str. There are other possibilities, of course. And they are viable. But the main objective of the class is that. There is no balance between melee fighters options and ranged fighter options. The fighter options are mainly melee, and you "also" have the option to do it ranged.
Why do you keeping saying the same false things I keep asking you not to say and then this time you say something else that is false.
Since you have now acknowledged you aren’t the fighter designer I would like you to stop presenting your assumptions as truth when it comes to the fighter design. The book says they are frontliners and archers. There is no reason to have this debate. You keep trying to paint this picture that ranged combat is secondary to their design and it’s not. Stop it. The objective of the class was to be flexible. It says so in the books. Your personal views mean very little compared to what the actually designers have printed in the core books.
Your saving throw example is also bad. The best proof of this is Paladin. It is a Str based class but doesn’t have Str saving throws. If you want another example we can use monk who gets Str saves even though it is really difficult to build a Str based monk. Saves don’t prove design intent. It’s okay to accept that you were wrong.
The two that stand out as generalists are Samurai and Cavalier.
The problem with the samurai is that the name is culturally specific. The problem with cavalier is that most people don't want to deal with mounted combat (and it tends to amount to "okay, your horse died as collateral damage, now you get to walk like everyone else"). Both could be reworked without a lot of work, but they aren't at zero work.
Looking at the existing fighter subclasses from the core books:
Arcane Archer: most people who want a spellcasting archer are satisfied with a ranger.
Cavalier: I think there's demand for both 'mounted combatant' and 'protection-focused fighter', but they're an uneasy fit together. Cavalier does a better job of implementing the second than the first but the name is pretty explicitly about mounted combat. I would want to either rebuild the class so it actually is about mounted combat, or rename it and replace 'born to the saddle' with a more relevant feature.
Psi Warrior: I don't think the core books have a lot of interest in 'psi' effects, though I know there's people who want it. It's otherwise reasonably functional.
Rune Knight: there's certainly demand for playing giant size characters, but with the new goliath it might be unnecessary.
Samurai: the name is culturally specific, they'd want to rename it. If your goal is to actually play a courtly fighter, there's better choices; its remaining features are functional but fairly bland.
Of options in non-core books
Echo Knight and Gunslinger are out due to being partnered content.
Purple Dragon Knight, if renamed, does represent a concept people want (the leadership character), but doesn't do a very good job at it.
Cavalier is quite good outside of mounted combat too. The mounted stuff is nearly a ribbon feature. Once I accepted that in my mind and looked at everything else, I felt it was a really solid class for someone wanting to be the party meat shield. I think the name being culturally specific isn't a problem. After all, they are trying to make the monk less eastern in flavor as a stated goal.
As far as being somewhat bland, that's perfect for a core rulebook. Putting the sexy, niche stuff in supplements will increase interest in purchasing those supplements.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I think the name being culturally specific isn't a problem. After all, they are trying to make the monk less eastern in flavor as a stated goal.
If it weren't for forty years of tradition I suspect they'd rename the monk. You don't want people glancing at a subclass and immediately skipping over it because the game isn't set in Japan (or some form of faux-Japan, such as Kara-Tur or Rokugan).
I agree that when most people think of fighters they think melee. But fighters by their very nature are flexible and can do both melee and ranged very well. They have the fighting styles to back them up and extra ASI’s for feats to boost those styles.
I agree. I have never said otherwise. What I do say is that the fighter is mainly melee. And hence most fighting styles work well in melee. Many do not work in ranged fighters. And only 1 0 2 don't work in melee. There is no balance there. It is also true that there is no feature that does not work in ranged fighters. And that's by design, so you can play a ranged fighter without feeling like you've lost anything. But there are several who support a character who is going to be on the front line. If we go to the subclasses, there is only one designed specifically for ranged combat. There are many that work well ranged and melee. And there are a few that are designed for melee.
Sure, but the name is obviously about mounted combat (it's the same root as cavalry), which is why I'd rename it.
Technically speaking, Cavalier isn't any more cavalry-specific than the word knight is. In fact, Cavalier is further removed from the cavalry-based origins than knight is, as it was mainly used to refer to English noblemen who favored a specific attitude, style of dress, and political ideology. It was used to describe someone who was more of a swashbuckler rogue. Arrogant, daring, dressed foppishly, etc.
If you really wanted to change the name just add an h. Suddenly it's Chevalier, which is still just another way to say knight but has more chivalric connotations, which suits Cavalier's more defensive style.
All that said, they can just add to the Born in the Saddle feature to let the mount scale in HP with the rider. I dunno what crazy person thought it was fine to have a mounted combatant whose mount keeps the same 19 HP all the way to level 20.
What I do say is that the fighter is mainly melee. And hence most fighting styles work well in melee. Many do not work in ranged fighters.
There are more melee fighting styles because there are more melee weapons. In the core rules:
A bow user has two viable choices (archery and defense)
A great weapon user has two viable choices (great weapon and defense)
A light weapon user has two viable choices (two weapon and defense)
A weapon and shield user has three viable choices (dueling, defense, protection), though calling protection 'viable' is being generous.
That's true, yes. But there are still 4 melee styles vs 1 ranged.
I understand your point of view that if we separate the fighting styles not into melee vs ranged, but by weapon type, what we have are 4 "groups". You mean that, right? But it can also be understood that there are more options for melee than ranged. In fact that is a reality.
Then the syllogisms that are derived from that fact can be considered true or false. Even half true. For example, I say "there are more options for melee fighters because it is assumed that most fighters are going to use melee weapons." Although that seems to me to be the logical conclusion, and it is also supported by the fighters seen in the actual game, I understand why someone would say: "that's because there are more melee weapons." Ok, that's true too.
A counterargument to what I'm saying could be "But the ranger is supposed to primarily go with ranged weapons, and has no other options for ranged weapons." And yes, that is something that has always surprised me. Although I suppose that argument is not being used because those of you who defend that the fighter is not designed to go mainly melee, also defend that the ranger is not designed to go mainly ranged. I've even read people arguing that the ranger -> ranged association is because of the name, which seems like an alien argument to me. The ranger is mainly associated with ranged weapons by tradition (except for the particular case of the two-weapon ranger, like Drizz, which is also very traditional), just as the fighter is mainly associated with melee weapons by tradition.
What I do want to clarify is that I am not saying that a ranged fighter cannot exist, or that it does not fit into the archetype, or that it is "a variant", or anything like that. The fighter provides that you can use ranged weapons. What I do say is that mainly the fighter is going to go melee, and that the ranged fighter is an "additional" option. I do not know if is understandable what I'm trying to say.
What I do say is that the fighter is mainly melee. And hence most fighting styles work well in melee. Many do not work in ranged fighters.
There are more melee fighting styles because there are more melee weapons. In the core rules:
A bow user has two viable choices (archery and defense)
A great weapon user has two viable choices (great weapon and defense)
A light weapon user has two viable choices (two weapon and defense)
A weapon and shield user has three viable choices (dueling, defense, protection), though calling protection 'viable' is being generous.
That's true, yes. But there are still 4 melee styles vs 1 ranged.
I understand your point of view that if we separate the fighting styles not into melee vs ranged, but by weapon type, what we have are 4 "groups". You mean that, right? But it can also be understood that there are more options for melee than ranged. In fact that is a reality.
Then the syllogisms that are derived from that fact can be considered true or false. Even half true. For example, I say "there are more options for melee fighters because it is assumed that most fighters are going to use melee weapons." Although that seems to me to be the logical conclusion, and it is also supported by the fighters seen in the actual game, I understand why someone would say: "that's because there are more melee weapons." Ok, that's true too.
A counterargument to what I'm saying could be "But the ranger is supposed to primarily go with ranged weapons, and has no other options for ranged weapons." And yes, that is something that has always surprised me. Although I suppose that argument is not being used because those of you who defend that the fighter is not designed to go mainly melee, also defend that the ranger is not designed to go mainly ranged. I've even read people arguing that the ranger -> ranged association is because of the name, which seems like an alien argument to me. The ranger is mainly associated with ranged weapons by tradition (except for the particular case of the two-weapon ranger, like Drizz, which is also very traditional), just as the fighter is mainly associated with melee weapons by tradition.
What I do want to clarify is that I am not saying that a ranged fighter cannot exist, or that it does not fit into the archetype, or that it is "a variant", or anything like that. The fighter provides that you can use ranged weapons. What I do say is that mainly the fighter is going to go melee, and that the ranged fighter is an "additional" option. I do not know if is understandable what I'm trying to say.
the ranger isnt really primarily ranged.
I think the thing is your mental rolodex on these tropes is pulling from a different pool. most of these tropes were referenced 30 years ago+ and heavily based on Tolkien.
the ranger of dnd isnt based on the concept of like ff and videogames, as primarily a ranged character, but on Aragorn, a survivalist and woodsman.Its a called a ranger because it ranges the lands.
The fighter isnt based on the concept of videogames which usually has a melee frontlines, but on soldiers, like legolas/boromir/gimli.
specifically, in 5e the ranger represents the tropes of scout, survivalist, and nature knowledge/magic, tracker, forest guide. it uses whatever weapon fits its needs
specifically in 5e fighter represents the tropes of soldiers, mercenaries, professional warriors, weapon master, it uses whatever weapon fits its needs.
you keep clashing because you are looking to fit these concepts into a framework they were never meant to represent. its not mele dps, melee tank, ranged dps.
in dnd terms what you think of as a ranger, and knight, are the same thing.
Ranger in 5e is based on its connection to the wilderness/land
yes ranged dps via weapon is a subset of fighter. But is also the literal best class at it, on purpose.
they aren't the melee guys who can use ranged attacks, they are the masters of using weapons.
I understand your point of view that if we separate the fighting styles not into melee vs ranged, but by weapon type, what we have are 4 "groups". You mean that, right? But it can also be understood that there are more options for melee than ranged. In fact that is a reality.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with fighters per se, as it's true for every class.
Arcane Archer: most people who want a spellcasting archer are satisfied with a ranger.
I would not use the word "satisfied" here. I would use the word "placated." Still not a perfect word fit, but a much better fit than "satisfied."
IMO, the reason to choose "Ranger" when you want an "Arcane Archer" is not because the Ranger is a satisfying fit for all archer concepts ... it's because AA is so poorly implemented that you will be more frustrated by the poor AA mechanics than frustrated by the poor fit you get by picking Ranger. A better AA would probably capture a lot of existing Ranger builds, and fit the underlying concept better. Why should every sniper, trick-shot artist, or magical gunslinger, be a woodsman or eco-warrior? And keep in mind that the "Ranger" class is NOT "the ranged attacker class". Instead, it is the "park ranger/hunter/lord's game warden" class. The latter just happens to also be things that mesh well with being good at ranged attacking, but they don't overlap to the extent that it's appropriate to call the Venn Diagram for it "a perfect circle."
While Percy in Deus Ex Machina is not built as an Arcane Archer, he would be a better fit for Arcane Archer than being a Ranger. (and yeah, I'm aware of a niche class for gunslinger, but I prefer classes that aren't so niche ... and we need fewer core classes, not more). I'm not saying that Percy's best build is as a fixed-AA, I'm saying that model of ranged attacker is better as an AA than as a Ranger (Percy himself, when you get deeper into his specifics, is probably best as an un-written subclass of Artificer, maybe with some levels of Warlock).
Actually, that might be the best path for Arcane Archer ... they're device specific character concepts. Move Arcane Archer to the Artificer.
It’s because Irrelevant_guy made a false claim that Rangers are designed to be ranged combatants to try to prove that fighters are designed to be melee combatants. In truth he has already admitted that he isn’t a part of the 5e design team and I can’t figure out why he is still pushing these false narratives. The design of both Fighter and Ranger is to be able to use both melee and ranged combat equally effectively. Multiple people have already explained this to him, but he continues to push his assumptions as objective truth. I would be okay with it if he were pulling up new information from the books to support his claim and then others had to rebuttal, but so far he makes the unsupported claim and someone shoots it down. He semi agrees with them, but makes the claim again. Wash and repeat.
Sure, but the name is obviously about mounted combat (it's the same root as cavalry), which is why I'd rename it.
Technically speaking, Cavalier isn't any more cavalry-specific than the word knight is. In fact, Cavalier is further removed from the cavalry-based origins than knight is, as it was mainly used to refer to English noblemen who favored a specific attitude, style of dress, and political ideology. It was used to describe someone who was more of a swashbuckler rogue. Arrogant, daring, dressed foppishly, etc.
If you really wanted to change the name just add an h. Suddenly it's Chevalier, which is still just another way to say knight but has more chivalric connotations, which suits Cavalier's more defensive style.
All that said, they can just add to the Born in the Saddle feature to let the mount scale in HP with the rider. I dunno what crazy person thought it was fine to have a mounted combatant whose mount keeps the same 19 HP all the way to level 20.
Well, technically speaking Cavalier is more equestrian-specific than Knight, because the former comes from the word for horse or horseman in French, while the latter comes from a word that originally meant young man in Old English. Now, both words have certainly altered in meaning over the years (since, for example, Knave comes from the same word as Knight), and their original connotations may (arguably) have changed significantly, but if we are talking technicalities, then Cavalier (or Chevalier as you have suggested) are both specifically related to horses.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I can't say they won't choose AA, because they don't have great options. As you say rune knight or psi warrior are probably the best picks, but they aren't really perfect fits.
I don't think culture is samurai's problem, its just not that great a sub.
So when no options are great, other decisions might be made.
however since I think their primary concern at this stage is time, they will pick the one that requires the least changes and is popular, they will then try to twist some analogy to get a pairing, but it won't really resonate on that level.
Apparently AA is 6th in popularity, so the question is, would it still be popular in a onednd context without significant changes. I personally don't think so, but I wouldn't put this as the 6th class.
https://www.thegamer.com/dungeons-dragons-best-fighter-subclasses-ranked-popularity-dnd-gunslinger-arcane-archer-cavalier/#cavalier
I think part of the problems with your examples is that ignoring cover or shooting point blank aren’t really styles of fighting. But Ranged (Archery/thrown weapon) and heavy weapons (GWF), sword and board (dueling, protection), two weapons (TWF), or unarmed (Unarmed fs) are and covered.
I agree that when most people think of fighters they think melee. But fighters by their very nature are flexible and can do both melee and ranged very well. They have the fighting styles to back them up and extra ASI’s for feats to boost those styles.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
That sounds like the sharpshooter feat, the crossbow expert feat and the piercer feat.
Why do you keeping saying the same false things I keep asking you not to say and then this time you say something else that is false.
Since you have now acknowledged you aren’t the fighter designer I would like you to stop presenting your assumptions as truth when it comes to the fighter design. The book says they are frontliners and archers. There is no reason to have this debate. You keep trying to paint this picture that ranged combat is secondary to their design and it’s not. Stop it. The objective of the class was to be flexible. It says so in the books. Your personal views mean very little compared to what the actually designers have printed in the core books.
Your saving throw example is also bad. The best proof of this is Paladin. It is a Str based class but doesn’t have Str saving throws. If you want another example we can use monk who gets Str saves even though it is really difficult to build a Str based monk. Saves don’t prove design intent. It’s okay to accept that you were wrong.
Cavalier is quite good outside of mounted combat too. The mounted stuff is nearly a ribbon feature. Once I accepted that in my mind and looked at everything else, I felt it was a really solid class for someone wanting to be the party meat shield. I think the name being culturally specific isn't a problem. After all, they are trying to make the monk less eastern in flavor as a stated goal.
As far as being somewhat bland, that's perfect for a core rulebook. Putting the sexy, niche stuff in supplements will increase interest in purchasing those supplements.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I like how this thread turned into that 4th fighter subclass one.
Sure, but the name is obviously about mounted combat (it's the same root as cavalry), which is why I'd rename it.
If it weren't for forty years of tradition I suspect they'd rename the monk. You don't want people glancing at a subclass and immediately skipping over it because the game isn't set in Japan (or some form of faux-Japan, such as Kara-Tur or Rokugan).
I agree. I have never said otherwise.
What I do say is that the fighter is mainly melee. And hence most fighting styles work well in melee. Many do not work in ranged fighters. And only 1 0 2 don't work in melee.
There is no balance there.
It is also true that there is no feature that does not work in ranged fighters. And that's by design, so you can play a ranged fighter without feeling like you've lost anything. But there are several who support a character who is going to be on the front line.
If we go to the subclasses, there is only one designed specifically for ranged combat. There are many that work well ranged and melee. And there are a few that are designed for melee.
There are more melee fighting styles because there are more melee weapons. In the core rules:
Technically speaking, Cavalier isn't any more cavalry-specific than the word knight is. In fact, Cavalier is further removed from the cavalry-based origins than knight is, as it was mainly used to refer to English noblemen who favored a specific attitude, style of dress, and political ideology. It was used to describe someone who was more of a swashbuckler rogue. Arrogant, daring, dressed foppishly, etc.
If you really wanted to change the name just add an h. Suddenly it's Chevalier, which is still just another way to say knight but has more chivalric connotations, which suits Cavalier's more defensive style.
All that said, they can just add to the Born in the Saddle feature to let the mount scale in HP with the rider. I dunno what crazy person thought it was fine to have a mounted combatant whose mount keeps the same 19 HP all the way to level 20.
That's true, yes. But there are still 4 melee styles vs 1 ranged.
I understand your point of view that if we separate the fighting styles not into melee vs ranged, but by weapon type, what we have are 4 "groups". You mean that, right? But it can also be understood that there are more options for melee than ranged. In fact that is a reality.
Then the syllogisms that are derived from that fact can be considered true or false. Even half true. For example, I say "there are more options for melee fighters because it is assumed that most fighters are going to use melee weapons." Although that seems to me to be the logical conclusion, and it is also supported by the fighters seen in the actual game, I understand why someone would say: "that's because there are more melee weapons." Ok, that's true too.
A counterargument to what I'm saying could be "But the ranger is supposed to primarily go with ranged weapons, and has no other options for ranged weapons." And yes, that is something that has always surprised me. Although I suppose that argument is not being used because those of you who defend that the fighter is not designed to go mainly melee, also defend that the ranger is not designed to go mainly ranged. I've even read people arguing that the ranger -> ranged association is because of the name, which seems like an alien argument to me. The ranger is mainly associated with ranged weapons by tradition (except for the particular case of the two-weapon ranger, like Drizz, which is also very traditional), just as the fighter is mainly associated with melee weapons by tradition.
What I do want to clarify is that I am not saying that a ranged fighter cannot exist, or that it does not fit into the archetype, or that it is "a variant", or anything like that. The fighter provides that you can use ranged weapons. What I do say is that mainly the fighter is going to go melee, and that the ranged fighter is an "additional" option. I do not know if is understandable what I'm trying to say.
the ranger isnt really primarily ranged.
I think the thing is your mental rolodex on these tropes is pulling from a different pool. most of these tropes were referenced 30 years ago+ and heavily based on Tolkien.
the ranger of dnd isnt based on the concept of like ff and videogames, as primarily a ranged character, but on Aragorn, a survivalist and woodsman.Its a called a ranger because it ranges the lands.
The fighter isnt based on the concept of videogames which usually has a melee frontlines, but on soldiers, like legolas/boromir/gimli.
specifically, in 5e the ranger represents the tropes of scout, survivalist, and nature knowledge/magic, tracker, forest guide. it uses whatever weapon fits its needs
specifically in 5e fighter represents the tropes of soldiers, mercenaries, professional warriors, weapon master, it uses whatever weapon fits its needs.
you keep clashing because you are looking to fit these concepts into a framework they were never meant to represent. its not mele dps, melee tank, ranged dps.
in dnd terms what you think of as a ranger, and knight, are the same thing.
Ranger in 5e is based on its connection to the wilderness/land
yes ranged dps via weapon is a subset of fighter. But is also the literal best class at it, on purpose.
they aren't the melee guys who can use ranged attacks, they are the masters of using weapons.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with fighters per se, as it's true for every class.
The ranger is called ranger because he is, surprise, a ranger. There is no need to look for strange explanations.
if you know what a ranger means, why are you surprised they have no special affinity for ranged attacks?
there is no long standing tradition of them being associated primarily with ranged attacks.
I would not use the word "satisfied" here. I would use the word "placated." Still not a perfect word fit, but a much better fit than "satisfied."
IMO, the reason to choose "Ranger" when you want an "Arcane Archer" is not because the Ranger is a satisfying fit for all archer concepts ... it's because AA is so poorly implemented that you will be more frustrated by the poor AA mechanics than frustrated by the poor fit you get by picking Ranger. A better AA would probably capture a lot of existing Ranger builds, and fit the underlying concept better. Why should every sniper, trick-shot artist, or magical gunslinger, be a woodsman or eco-warrior? And keep in mind that the "Ranger" class is NOT "the ranged attacker class". Instead, it is the "park ranger/hunter/lord's game warden" class. The latter just happens to also be things that mesh well with being good at ranged attacking, but they don't overlap to the extent that it's appropriate to call the Venn Diagram for it "a perfect circle."
While Percy in Deus Ex Machina is not built as an Arcane Archer, he would be a better fit for Arcane Archer than being a Ranger. (and yeah, I'm aware of a niche class for gunslinger, but I prefer classes that aren't so niche ... and we need fewer core classes, not more). I'm not saying that Percy's best build is as a fixed-AA, I'm saying that model of ranged attacker is better as an AA than as a Ranger (Percy himself, when you get deeper into his specifics, is probably best as an un-written subclass of Artificer, maybe with some levels of Warlock).
Actually, that might be the best path for Arcane Archer ... they're device specific character concepts. Move Arcane Archer to the Artificer.
I meant: "Person whose job is to take care of a park, a forest or an area of countryside", which is why he is called ranger.
You two seem to be aggressively/confrontationally agreeing with each other about what Ranger means.
It’s because Irrelevant_guy made a false claim that Rangers are designed to be ranged combatants to try to prove that fighters are designed to be melee combatants. In truth he has already admitted that he isn’t a part of the 5e design team and I can’t figure out why he is still pushing these false narratives. The design of both Fighter and Ranger is to be able to use both melee and ranged combat equally effectively. Multiple people have already explained this to him, but he continues to push his assumptions as objective truth. I would be okay with it if he were pulling up new information from the books to support his claim and then others had to rebuttal, but so far he makes the unsupported claim and someone shoots it down. He semi agrees with them, but makes the claim again. Wash and repeat.
Well, technically speaking Cavalier is more equestrian-specific than Knight, because the former comes from the word for horse or horseman in French, while the latter comes from a word that originally meant young man in Old English. Now, both words have certainly altered in meaning over the years (since, for example, Knave comes from the same word as Knight), and their original connotations may (arguably) have changed significantly, but if we are talking technicalities, then Cavalier (or Chevalier as you have suggested) are both specifically related to horses.