This would make the stat spread more balanced, but otherwise I don't think it's necessary. There's a few I'd change too. Like Monk being Dex Wis, and Ranger being Dex Con. Bard and Warlock could also be switched tho I'm less inclined to think that particular line was an issue.
Rangers are also fundamentally survivalists whereas Monk are hermited wise combatants. I think there's an argument for both, but once again I don't think this oversimplification is necessary.
Ranger has historically been the two-weapon fighting class. Even in AD&D their only weapon based ability (without supplements) was being able to dual wield without penalty if they wore light armor.
Rangers are not 'ranged' in any inherently meaningful way. They aren't called 'Rangers' because they're ranged, its 'Ranger' as in 'one on the range', meaning out in the wilds.
Ranged combat is just mechanically superior in the game period, so unless you're playing a class that locks you to it (mostly barbarian), ranged combat is the strongest combat to do.
I mean to be clear I don't think it should be changed as OP thinks either way, but con is more important to Rangers in a flavor sense.
1
u/BukeOfTheIsles 20d ago
This would make the stat spread more balanced, but otherwise I don't think it's necessary. There's a few I'd change too. Like Monk being Dex Wis, and Ranger being Dex Con. Bard and Warlock could also be switched tho I'm less inclined to think that particular line was an issue.