Eh, there were things that worked very much like subclasses (e.g. first edition thief-acrobat), but in any case, druids and rangers have been distinct classes as long as they have both existed in the game.
Rangers and Druids function pretty differently in 5e. They're both nature-flavored, but druids are full casters, can turn into animals, and can cast ritual spells. Rangers are half-casters, can't cast ritual spells without taking a feat, and after level 5 can do 2 attacks per attack action. A lot of people think rangers are underpowered, even compared to other half casters, but many other people think just one or two particular subclasses are weak (including, unfortunately, the one you get for free in the Basic Rules).
I would view druids as one with nature and rangers as proficient at utilizing nature.
Druids have access to higher level spells, know more spells and can cast spells more frequently. If you're interested in playing a spellcaster I'd recommend playing a druid. Depending on the druid subclass, you have a variety of play style options (dps, tank, healing, support, mix of several) that can be a great asset to any adventuring team.
Rangers are great for tracking and survival skills, making them a blessing on adventures that take you into the unknown. You are limited to a dps/support role in terms of combat with physical damage supported by magical abilities.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I like my belly and intend to keep it, thank you. I may even add some more to it!"
The AD&D 1st Edition Player's Handbook actually starts the description of the Druid class with: "The druid is a sub-class of clerics." In fairness, the class/subclass happening there is closer to inheritance in object oriented programming than it is to 5e subclasses, but it was listed as a subclass of Cleric, and required the same minimum stats/requirements as a Cleric character.
Well sure, and Ranger and Paladin were both technically “fighter subclasses” and Bards and Thieves were the two “rogue subclasses” but there really wasn’t and class/subclass system even remotely recognizable as such.
Well sure, and Ranger and Paladin were both technically “fighter subclasses” and Bards and Thieves were the two “rogue subclasses” but there really wasn’t and class/subclass system even remotely recognizable as such.
In AD&D PHB, the Bard was in the appendix and a mishmash of fighter and thief before actually becoming a bard, as far as I remember. Ranger and Paladin were indeed “subclasses” of Fighter, although the term has a different meaning in 5E. Assassin was a subclass of Thief. I don’t recall if the Unearthed Arcana Cavalier and Barbarian were under Fighter as well or their own classes, but Thief Acrobat was closer to 5E subclass than the others, I believe.
Paladin became a subclass of Cavalier in 1e Unearthed Arcana. Druids were a cleric subclass in 1e, and both clerics and druids were priest subclasses in 2e. 5e subclasses are not the same and druids were not a subclass of rangers.
Regardless, 5e created classes that fostered multiple archetypes within those classes. The ranger is more of a warrior with magical abilities associated with nature while druids are spell-casters instead of warriors.
Sorry if I got the parent class wrong. And did not mean to start big debate. My thing was it's been a long time since I played and was wondering what the differences were, and how they played different. Thanks to those who answered.
I've been playing 5th edition for several years now. Basically, Druids are nature worshiping shape-shifters, blending some of the best features of Wizards and Clerics while adding the outdoor-ready element of Rangers. Rangers in 5th edition are more like terrain-based bounty hunters with a few nature-based spells to bolster their arsenal.
I don't know how this differs from their pre-version 5 formats, but they are now two very different-though both wonderful-classes.
Okay last time I played (gen 2) Druids were a subclass of ranger. So what makes them different, now that Druids are their own class?
P.S. Sorry if wrong section was unsure where to put it.
Sorry if the thread got sidetracked. For me, Druids are more support full casters, except Moon circle which tends more toward melee. Not saying that other druids cannot melee, but limited armor makes them a little more squishy. They have a good selection of spells for control, healing, and direct damage. As well as buffs.
Rangers are a martial class with limited spell casting they have the same nature theme as druids but are better in melee combat and ranged combat.
Okay last time I played (gen 2) Druids were a subclass of ranger. So what makes them different, now that Druids are their own class?
P.S. Sorry if wrong section was unsure where to put it.
Druids have been their own class as long as I'm aware- definitely since 2nd Edition and probably 1st Edition.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
There have never been any subclasses before 5e.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Eh, there were things that worked very much like subclasses (e.g. first edition thief-acrobat), but in any case, druids and rangers have been distinct classes as long as they have both existed in the game.
Rangers and Druids function pretty differently in 5e. They're both nature-flavored, but druids are full casters, can turn into animals, and can cast ritual spells. Rangers are half-casters, can't cast ritual spells without taking a feat, and after level 5 can do 2 attacks per attack action. A lot of people think rangers are underpowered, even compared to other half casters, but many other people think just one or two particular subclasses are weak (including, unfortunately, the one you get for free in the Basic Rules).
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
I would view druids as one with nature and rangers as proficient at utilizing nature.
Druids have access to higher level spells, know more spells and can cast spells more frequently. If you're interested in playing a spellcaster I'd recommend playing a druid. Depending on the druid subclass, you have a variety of play style options (dps, tank, healing, support, mix of several) that can be a great asset to any adventuring team.
Rangers are great for tracking and survival skills, making them a blessing on adventures that take you into the unknown. You are limited to a dps/support role in terms of combat with physical damage supported by magical abilities.
"I like my belly and intend to keep it, thank you. I may even add some more to it!"
-Rumblebelly
The AD&D 1st Edition Player's Handbook actually starts the description of the Druid class with: "The druid is a sub-class of clerics."
In fairness, the class/subclass happening there is closer to inheritance in object oriented programming than it is to 5e subclasses, but it was listed as a subclass of Cleric, and required the same minimum stats/requirements as a Cleric character.
Well sure, and Ranger and Paladin were both technically “fighter subclasses” and Bards and Thieves were the two “rogue subclasses” but there really wasn’t and class/subclass system even remotely recognizable as such.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Second edition's class kits were the ancestors of 5E's subclasses.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Thank you this is the kind of info I was looking for.
Thank you. This helped a lot.
Pocketmouse and Rollei thank you for understanding the question and helping to get a better understanding myself.
In AD&D PHB, the Bard was in the appendix and a mishmash of fighter and thief before actually becoming a bard, as far as I remember.
Ranger and Paladin were indeed “subclasses” of Fighter, although the term has a different meaning in 5E. Assassin was a subclass of Thief. I don’t recall if the Unearthed Arcana Cavalier and Barbarian were under Fighter as well or their own classes, but Thief Acrobat was closer to 5E subclass than the others, I believe.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Paladin became a subclass of Cavalier in 1e Unearthed Arcana. Druids were a cleric subclass in 1e, and both clerics and druids were priest subclasses in 2e. 5e subclasses are not the same and druids were not a subclass of rangers.
Regardless, 5e created classes that fostered multiple archetypes within those classes. The ranger is more of a warrior with magical abilities associated with nature while druids are spell-casters instead of warriors.
druids weren't in ad&d
druids can wildshape
Yes they were, page 51 of the PHB.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Sorry if I got the parent class wrong. And did not mean to start big debate. My thing was it's been a long time since I played and was wondering what the differences were, and how they played different. Thanks to those who answered.
I've been playing 5th edition for several years now. Basically, Druids are nature worshiping shape-shifters, blending some of the best features of Wizards and Clerics while adding the outdoor-ready element of Rangers. Rangers in 5th edition are more like terrain-based bounty hunters with a few nature-based spells to bolster their arsenal.
I don't know how this differs from their pre-version 5 formats, but they are now two very different-though both wonderful-classes.
💙🤍~*Ravenclaw*~ 🔮
Sorry if the thread got sidetracked. For me, Druids are more support full casters, except Moon circle which tends more toward melee. Not saying that other druids cannot melee, but limited armor makes them a little more squishy. They have a good selection of spells for control, healing, and direct damage. As well as buffs.
Rangers are a martial class with limited spell casting they have the same nature theme as druids but are better in melee combat and ranged combat.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?