Ranger Subclass Design

Back in 1989 when second edition AD&D hit store shelves, the ranger was the coolest class around. In first edition AD&D, the class was a weird hodgepodge of abilities, cribbed from Aragorn’s suite of talents in Lord of the Rings. The 1e ranger wore heavy armor, fought with whatever weapons they wanted, could cast druid and magic-user spells, and could track creatures. They also had a hefty bonus against “giant class” creatures (which was basically anything on two legs). While they used a d8 for their hit dice, they had two at first level. A starting ranger could, if very lucky, have 20 hit points!

In second edition, the class became far more distinct. While a ranger could wear heavy armor, while wearing light armor they could fight with two weapons. In the days long before feats, that was a unique talent. They also gained some features previously reserved for the thief, such as hide in shadows and move silently. This ranger was, in my opinion, the peak of the class.

So, what went wrong? Why is the 5e ranger considered the worst class (by far!) in the game?

The ranger suffers from a conceptual shift in game design that has destroyed its role in the game. The class’s cool tricks – two-weapon fighting, sneaking around – have been absorbed by the core rules of the game.

The game used to set aside martial-style abilities for specific classes. Only the thief could hide. Only the ranger could track. From a design perspective, these abilities were at-will utility that only non-magical characters could use. Today, those features rest in the core game. Anyone can sneak or follow tracks.

Don’t get me wrong, that’s a great advancement for the game. It’s fun to make a dwarf paladin who is an expert on magical effects. I like that I can make an orc cleric who can sneak around. However, that change left several classes behind. Fighters at least get action surge. Rogues have sneak attack and cunning action. The ranger… well, we need to talk about the ranger.

Subclass as System Patch

The ranger is in a bad place, with mechanics that don’t emphasize its core fantasy or give it a unique role. While it would be nice to go into the core class and make changes, we don’t have that option. Luckily, though, we can create subclasses. That gives us an easy path forward. If the core class is weak, we have space in subclasses to fix it.

The ranger also suffers from the system’s lack of a clear definition for exploration. What is exploration? The unfortunate answer is that the game doesn’t know. It could be a hardcore simulation of tracking food and water while wandering through the woods. It could be searching for secret doors in a dungeon, 10-foot square by 10-foot square.

Exploration is a bigger problem for a later date. I need topics for when we’re done with classes, right? For now, let’s look at how we can use subclass design to bring the ranger into a good place.

Ranger Repair: Core Mechanic

3rd level is our first chance to provide some relief to the ranger. Under this scheme, we need a mix of limited use abilities to give the ranger some pop, along with some at-will utility to help the ranger step into their role.

So that leaves us with finding something fun and unique for the ranger. The good news is that it’s fun to design novel mechanics. The bad news is that nesting it inside the subclass means that building new things for the ranger is going to be tricky. However, that’s a problem for future us, so we’ll trust that we’ll continue to skill up as designers and can resolve that situation when we come to it.

Most classes offer some unique, fun piece that makes playing them feel special. The rogue has cunning action and sneak attack. The bard has bardic inspiration. Barbarians have rage. We need to consider what the ranger gets that makes it stand out.

The beast master subclass already does this, and I think a core problem of the ranger is that its trick is already hidden away in a subclass. The other subclasses need an option of similar magnitude to make the class work and allow them to compete as choices.

A few suggestions:

·         Find a way to make two-weapon fighting worth a bonus action. The core game suffers from forcing a popular archetype to compete with every attack boost or class feature meant to be used in addition to a weapon attack. Off-hand attacks also need to increase in number with level to keep up with other characters’ damage output.

·         Add a new resource pool that the ranger can tap into. Look at channel divinity as a model for such an effect. The nice thing about this approach is that you can use it in multiple subclasses.

·         Rangers are thought of as guides, leaders who can see a group through treacherous terrain. Consider effects that buff the party outside of combat, such as a benefit when making group checks. When the ranger makes a check, they might reduce the DC for others who make the same check.

·         A subclass could unlock a suite of ranged attack benefits unique to the ranger, perhaps giving them areas of effect, control effects, and similar features on an at-will basis.

Whatever path you take, a ranger subclass needs to offer as much robust utility as the beast master subclass.

System Expectations

The new core mechanic should provide the ranger with a steady at-will option that can spike up when the ranger spends a limited resource, such as a spell. The class’s core math makes a few assumptions about how the subclass buffs the ranger’s combat abilities.

The 3rd level feature is worth about +1d4 damage per round. You can increase this damage by limiting how often it applies. The Colossus Slayer option under the hunter subclass adds its bonus damage only if the target has already been injured, but in return it grants +1d8 damage.

The 7th and 11th level features should be defensive in nature, offer non-combat utility, or allow the ranger to deliver a single attack against many foes. The last option keeps the ranger’s damage in line by spreading it out across many enemies. At 11th level, even foes that appear in large numbers likely have enough hit points to take a single hit without dropping.

The 15th level subclass feature can provide a significant benefit, roughly equal to a single extra attack per round. The hunter can redirect a single attack or halve the damage of an incoming hit. The key to the abilities at this level is that they apply to almost every round of combat. That consistency is key to boosting the ranger’s damage or survivability each round.

When building a wholly new mechanic, consider the following pattern:

·         The 3rd level mechanic should offer the equivalent of the ranger’s at-will attacks with a little extra damage depending on how you model the ability. An at-will one should do +2 damage compared to the ranger’s normal attack. A feature with limited uses should offer about 2d6 damage for three uses regained with a long rest.

·         7th level should reflect the ranger’s specialization, augmenting the core mechanic in specific, flavorful situations, such as against a specific type of enemy.

·         The 11th-level feature should give the ranger flexibility in their tactics. The hunter becomes better at handling large numbers of creatures. Consider a similar situation that the subclass should thrive in and find a way to reflect that.

·         At 15th-level, the new mechanic should provide a benefit roughly equal to an extra attack each round.

Bonus Topic: Two-Weapon Fighting

I think we missed the mark with two-weapon fighting in 5e. The rules for it are fiddly. In my experience, players forget all the time that they cannot apply their ability modifier to their extra attack with it. It sits on top of bonus actions, a resource that many class features tap into. It scales poorly for characters who gain extra attacks, as they need their off-hand attacks to also increase in number to maintain their damage output.

The mechanic as presented works fine as the default option, a suboptimal way to get in an extra attack for characters who pick up a second weapon and swing away. For specialists, I think the game needs two things.

I’d create a specific Attack action that covers fighting with two weapons and scales up with the Extra Attack feature. This approach removes the bonus action tax and ensures that damage scales correctly.

I’d also create a weapon property designed to balance off-hand weapons. Just as Versatile increases a weapon’s damage die, the Off-Hand property would reduce it when a weapon is used with two-weapon fighting. This approach would create space to add a character’s ability modifier to both attacks. It could also add other benefits to weapons when they are used in the off hand, such as the main gauche granting +1 AC or the hand axe gaining an attack bonus when used as a ranged weapon.