Alternate Ranger Subclass Method

[Xihirli]

Okay, this might sound a little weird.

The warlock kinda has two subclasses. Their pact, and their patron. Obviously the patron is MORE of a subclass, where their pact is more of a specialization.

Now the Ranger, as I see it, has mainly a problem of identity: The two big things that define rangers in D&D, Favored Terrain and Favored Enemy, are trash. Such mechanical trash that they're straight up not in the 5.5 UA, when they were the first abilities a Ranger got before, the abilities that defined a Ranger as different from a Paladin in medium armor. And the subclasses straight up don't feel like Rangers. Like, they used up their "things that feel like a ranger" ideas in the player's handbook and only had two. Then we get
* Gloom Stalker
* Horizon Walker
* Monster Slayer
* Primeval Guardian

Conceptually to me, Monster Slayer is just Hunter again but for some reason more targeted at spellcasters. And the rest just don't feel like rangers.
I feel that there is an elegant solution to both the problem of Favored Terrain/Foe not doing enough to define a Ranger, and the lack of thematic subclasses for a Ranger.

Favored Terrain as your Pact-Style specialization, and Favored Enemy as your Patron-style subclass. This also solves the problem of Rangers, Rogues, and Fighters all calling their subclasses "archetypes" while everyone else gets something cool and thematic.

The way I'm picturing the progression is that every Subclass level, you get two features. One specific to fighting your favored enemy, and one that you always have access to. Like, "because you fight Giants, you learn how to Trip opponents, even if they are more than two sizes larger than you" and then rules for how to do that. This way, your favored enemy defines how your ranger plays differently from other rangers, and it makes room in the base class to get the Hunter features and be less subclass-dependent.

And if you still want a "pet class" you can have Favored Enemy: Beast have a beast companion to both stress how the ranger doesn't have to have an adversarial relationship with their Favored Enemy and fill in this niche.

[Psyren]

The problem with picking a dedicated Favored Enemy or Terrain ahead of time is that it tends to cause ill-will on both sides of the table.

For the player, it often means they're the only class begging the DM to let them know which terrains and monster types they're likely to encounter or not encounter in the campaign during session zero. Every other class can adapt their character to the game organically, while the Ranger either needs a cheatsheet ahead of time or else they potentially end up with vestigial if not outright useless features dangling off their sheet. Even a Cleric's turn undead can be used in other ways if no undead ever show up, and Destroy Undead is practically a ribbon given how weak enemies have to be relative to the party for it to apply.

For the DM meanwhile, agreeing on the type of monsters and terrains that are likely to be in the campaign becomes an implicit contract or straitjacket. If they change it later, even if doing so would make sense for the story or be more fun for the other players, they are going to feel as though they're hosing the ranger that is locked into these choices. And even when the player can pick additional ones later in their career or even change them, doing so likely only occurs at set intervals, which can mean multiple sessions of feeling more useless than their peers. Whereas if they can simply change it at will, on top of once again not being fair to the other players who also might want to swap features out, it begs the question of what exactly makes it favored if the Ranger can be so mutable about it.

And worst of all - Favored Terrain begs the question of what exactly that ability should get you that Proficiency or Expertise in Survival doesn't. Things like being good at foraging, finding shelter, and not getting lost should just be uses of the skill. If they're not, the more you gate behind the ability then the more parties are going to feel like they need a Ranger or they're hosed. But if you don't gate anything behind it that can't be achieved with a skill check then the ability is just a waste of build resources. There's no win there.

I understand the desire to be able to say "my Urban Ranger plays differently than your Forest Ranger" but frankly, that distinction isn't (or shouldn't be) important enough to justify hosing one or the other for an entire campaign if that campaign changes locations.