While I grant that we generally play teams of characters, rangers are designed to actually be solo adventurists. Hence the action economy, spell economy, etc. I ALWAYS remind myself that the rangers I play are basically mountain men taking a job for the wagon train/army patrol/lost settlers they run across. They don’t need the party, the party needs them and their abilities. They are the guides and advisors if you are outdoors or underground (and how many campaigns are exclusively inside buildings?). i like the forgotten realms because it has so much lore, Elminster goes for an extended time against the Maulygrim who does he take with him? Not a big party with paladins, fighters, barbarians, rogues, clerics and a backup mage or three? No - he takes 3 high level rangers and the 4 of them stymy the badguys time and again. He could have pretty much anyone - tells you something doesn’t it?
The fact that Primeval Awareness doesn't even give you a vague direction or distance of the enemies it makes you aware of makes the 6 mile 'improved' version in your favored terrain less useful than the 1 mile version.
It also isn't specific as to whether you know specifically which type of creature is in the area, only if one of the types of creatures listed is. It doesn't also tell you if there are more than one type of creature pinged by the ability nearby. I don't care if it's not an Uber ability but it's so vague in my opinion as to be virtually useless outside of a novelty. Ymmv.
I definitely like having speak with animals and plants, and eventually the potential of locate creature, and commune with nature instead. Having speak with animals automatically makes taking spells like animal friendship more appealing to me.
The fact that Primeval Awareness doesn't even give you a vague direction or distance of the enemies it makes you aware of makes the 6 mile 'improved' version in your favored terrain less useful than the 1 mile version.
It also isn't specific as to whether you know specifically which type of creature is in the area, only if one of the types of creatures listed is. It doesn't also tell you if there are more than one type of creature pinged by the ability nearby. I don't care if it's not an Uber ability but it's so vague in my opinion as to be virtually useless outside of a novelty. Ymmv.
I definitely like having speak with animals and plants, and eventually the potential of locate creature, and commune with nature instead. Having speak with animals automatically makes taking spells like animal friendship more appealing to me.
If you are using a 6 mile area of effect (I contend that the ability in your favored terrain gives you the option/choice of “up to” 6 miles, so anywhere between 1 and 6 miles), then that means you are in one of your favored terrains so all of your other natural explorer features are on, including a powerful upgrade to tracking which includes numbers, direction, and time elapsed since the passed by. Otherwise it’s just 1 mile, and that isn’t that big an area at all.
Your second paragraph is incorrect. The ability gives you multiple “yes or no” responses for each creature type.
Beginning at 3rd level, you can use your action and expend one ranger spell slot to focus your awareness on the region around you. For 1 minute per level of the spell slot you expend, you can sense whether the following types of creatures are present within 1 mile of you (or within up to 6 miles if you are in your favored terrain): aberrations, celestials, dragons, elementals, fey, fiends, and undead. This feature doesn’t reveal the creatures’ location or number.
it doesn’t actually say either way clearly so it’s very much open to DM interpretation whether it takes a minute and says yes there is something in the area or takes the types individually saying yes or no.. you Are both right (glass half full 😁)
The fact that Primeval Awareness doesn't even give you a vague direction or distance of the enemies it makes you aware of makes the 6 mile 'improved' version in your favored terrain less useful than the 1 mile version.
It also isn't specific as to whether you know specifically which type of creature is in the area, only if one of the types of creatures listed is. It doesn't also tell you if there are more than one type of creature pinged by the ability nearby. I don't care if it's not an Uber ability but it's so vague in my opinion as to be virtually useless outside of a novelty. Ymmv.
I definitely like having speak with animals and plants, and eventually the potential of locate creature, and commune with nature instead. Having speak with animals automatically makes taking spells like animal friendship more appealing to me.
If you are using a 6 mile area of effect (I contend that the ability in your favored terrain gives you the option/choice of “up to” 6 miles, so anywhere between 1 and 6 miles), then that means you are in one of your favored terrains so all of your other natural explorer features are on, including a powerful upgrade to tracking which includes numbers, direction, and time elapsed since the passed by. Otherwise it’s just 1 mile, and that isn’t that big an area at all.
Your second paragraph is incorrect. The ability gives you multiple “yes or no” responses for each creature type.
I never played under a DM where Primeval Awareness really helped tracking. With or without Primeval Awareness I still had to make multiple skills checks to find something that would track it
The fact that Primeval Awareness doesn't even give you a vague direction or distance of the enemies it makes you aware of makes the 6 mile 'improved' version in your favored terrain less useful than the 1 mile version.
It also isn't specific as to whether you know specifically which type of creature is in the area, only if one of the types of creatures listed is. It doesn't also tell you if there are more than one type of creature pinged by the ability nearby. I don't care if it's not an Uber ability but it's so vague in my opinion as to be virtually useless outside of a novelty. Ymmv.
I definitely like having speak with animals and plants, and eventually the potential of locate creature, and commune with nature instead. Having speak with animals automatically makes taking spells like animal friendship more appealing to me.
If you are using a 6 mile area of effect (I contend that the ability in your favored terrain gives you the option/choice of “up to” 6 miles, so anywhere between 1 and 6 miles), then that means you are in one of your favored terrains so all of your other natural explorer features are on, including a powerful upgrade to tracking which includes numbers, direction, and time elapsed since the passed by. Otherwise it’s just 1 mile, and that isn’t that big an area at all.
Your second paragraph is incorrect. The ability gives you multiple “yes or no” responses for each creature type.
I never played under a DM where Primeval Awareness really helped tracking. With or without Primeval Awareness I still had to make multiple skills checks to find something that would track it
It doesn't help with tracking. It's a sixth sense for creatures that are outside of the natural world.
"...you can sense whether the following types of creatures are present within 1 mile of you..."
The fact that Primeval Awareness doesn't even give you a vague direction or distance of the enemies it makes you aware of makes the 6 mile 'improved' version in your favored terrain less useful than the 1 mile version.
It also isn't specific as to whether you know specifically which type of creature is in the area, only if one of the types of creatures listed is. It doesn't also tell you if there are more than one type of creature pinged by the ability nearby. I don't care if it's not an Uber ability but it's so vague in my opinion as to be virtually useless outside of a novelty. Ymmv.
I definitely like having speak with animals and plants, and eventually the potential of locate creature, and commune with nature instead. Having speak with animals automatically makes taking spells like animal friendship more appealing to me.
If you are using a 6 mile area of effect (I contend that the ability in your favored terrain gives you the option/choice of “up to” 6 miles, so anywhere between 1 and 6 miles), then that means you are in one of your favored terrains so all of your other natural explorer features are on, including a powerful upgrade to tracking which includes numbers, direction, and time elapsed since the passed by. Otherwise it’s just 1 mile, and that isn’t that big an area at all.
Your second paragraph is incorrect. The ability gives you multiple “yes or no” responses for each creature type.
I never played under a DM where Primeval Awareness really helped tracking. With or without Primeval Awareness I still had to make multiple skills checks to find something that would track it
It doesn't help with tracking. It's a sixth sense for creatures that are outside of the natural world.
"...you can sense whether the following types of creatures are present within 1 mile of you..."
1.if a type is present the dm tells you it's present. so functionally yes or no for each of them.
2. Favored terrain portion says "up to 6 miles". the range is flexible between outer limit and 1 mile.
Anything else is bs gaslighting or faulty reading.
Very strongly disagree with you. I don't think there can be any serious question WOTC is bad at basic grammar or that they are even worse at using "plain English" terminology, meaning terms with no in-game definition, to convert RAI into RAW. I, in complete good faith - no gaslighting here - and with complete fluency in the English language (I was born and raised to the language, and have spent decades speaking and reading it) assert that the language is not clear. If you think it's clear, that just means you're more likely to be convinced your personal reading is "correct", which is not helpful for discussing the real impact of the rule at real tables.
It is entirely consistent with the basic rules of English - both the definitions of words and the nature of English grammar - for a DM to rule that Primeval Awareness says "yes" or "no", without any ability to specify to it which of the 7 types it can detect you meant to detect.
Again, this is without gaslighting and without faulty reading. I can get into the weeds of the English language if you want me to, but what I'm trying to emphasize is that it's not productive to claim that anyone disagreeing with you here is either lying or mistaken.
By the same token, "up to" in the context of the sentence and paragraph in question absolutely does not mean the Ranger can pick a distance. It could mean that, sure. It could mean multiple things. It could be completely synonymous with "within", which is a genuine, non-lying, non-mistaken way to interpret it, because that's what "up to" and "within" mean sometimes.
1.if a type is present the dm tells you it's present. so functionally yes or no for each of them.
2. Favored terrain portion says "up to 6 miles". the range is flexible between outer limit and 1 mile.
Anything else is bs gaslighting or faulty reading.
Very strongly disagree with you. I don't think there can be any serious question WOTC is bad at basic grammar or that they are even worse at using "plain English" terminology, meaning terms with no in-game definition, to convert RAI into RAW. I, in complete good faith - no gaslighting here - and with complete fluency in the English language (I was born and raised to the language, and have spent decades speaking and reading it) assert that the language is not clear. If you think it's clear, that just means you're more likely to be convinced your personal reading is "correct", which is not helpful for discussing the real impact of the rule at real tables.
It is entirely consistent with the basic rules of English - both the definitions of words and the nature of English grammar - for a DM to rule that Primeval Awareness says "yes" or "no", without any ability to specify to it which of the 7 types it can detect you meant to detect.
Again, this is without gaslighting and without faulty reading. I can get into the weeds of the English language if you want me to, but what I'm trying to emphasize is that it's not productive to claim that anyone disagreeing with you here is either lying or mistaken.
By the same token, "up to" in the context of the sentence and paragraph in question absolutely does not mean the Ranger can pick a distance. It could mean that, sure. It could mean multiple things. It could be completely synonymous with "within", which is a genuine, non-lying, non-mistaken way to interpret it, because that's what "up to" and "within" mean sometimes.
I'll chime in as another native English speaker who has been speaking it fluently for decades. In fact, I'll do you one better: I have a degree in English.
Languages, both composition and interpretation, is an art. You don't have to look any further than arguments over the Oxford comma to see that. Some people think its redundant, and the dominant style nowadays is to treat it accordingly. But I don't believe that's correct, and in fact I feel very strongly about it. I do think, for example, there are sentences within the PHB which could benefit from an Oxford comma. But that is neither here nor there, as it's not relevant to this immediate topic of discussion.
So let's talk about the "basic rules of English." English routinely throws out its own rules; especially grammar rules. So, let's look at the feature.
Primeval Awareness
Beginning at 3rd level, you can use your action and expend one ranger spell slot to focus your awareness on the region around you. For 1 minute per level of the spell slot you expend, you can sense whether the following types of creatures are present within 1 mile of you (or within up to 6 miles if you are in your favored terrain): aberrations, celestials, dragons, elementals, fey, fiends, and undead. This feature doesn’t reveal the creatures’ location or number.
If your position is that a DM can simply answer "Yes" or "No" and reveal no additional information, then I suggest you think about why you would take that position. Maybe you don't think a DM should be rooting for the players to succeed. Maybe you think they should be adversarial. Maybe you just hate the ranger as a class. Whatever the reason, that is an unfavorable, bad-faith interpretation of the text in front of us all. It's not "Yes/No" for the seven creature types as a whole. It's "Yes/No" for each creature type. If nothing else, that's just reasonable.
As for the range limit for being in a favored terrain, the ranger can choose how large a radius. Normally, it's "within 1 mile" of the ranger's location. But "within up to 6 miles" is totally different. If the ranger cannot determine how large a radius they want, then you're stripping them of agency. You may as well be penalizing them.
You're using the illusion of consistent, hard and fast rules to impose a strict interpretation that could very easily be seen as capricious. And if this is how you've treated your ranger players in the past, especially after they've made a case for a more favorable and perfectly reasonable interpretation, then you have been gaslighting them.
primeval awareness specifies "You Can" this signifies the ranger as the creator/controller of the "sense". So that is not the dm's choice. . The word "can" makes everything optional. This means The distance extension and individual types are all in players preview not the dms.
The word "Types" is a plural noun distinctly keeping the list as separate entities.
If i get a list of names at a party and ask a servant "weather or not these individuals are present?" and and some of them are present and some are missing. Yes is a incorrect answer and so is no. the only options are variations on "some" or an exact list. some is not a complete answer and does not fulfil the whole condition of [sensing] whether the following types of creatures are present. Especially since each type is optional per ranger choice not the dm.
note : the duration is before can so its not optional but it means if there is a change during the duration the ranger would sense it.
quin I agree with your statement about bias. I tried to look critically at it and find those two facts to be easily missed and highly important. I don't think its insulting to say reading the phrase wrong is what happens. It might happen alot or a little. It probably should have been written better but the wording is more technical than it first appears and leads to specific conclusions. I don't like bad faith arguments or assuming any opinion is wrong until provable. Throwing credentials out isn't good for any one. Bad arguments aren't good for any one. but in this one ability there is only one interpretation that takes the whole phrase into account and it also matches what I personally believe a functional use of the ability. You can disagree on that usefulness because there are some weaknesses but I stated the two conclusions the texts indicate.
Folks, please take a couple of steps back and a few deep breaths here - the very fact that your arguing over this so intensely is the proof that the statement is vague enough to be read differently by different people and that it nactually needs to be referred back to WOtC for a deeper and more complete explanation/description. None of you are going to convince the other side that your right and they are wrong so it’s time for a truce and moving on.
I think favored terrain and favored enemy are finely worded. I think awareness is not - and depends on the most generous reading by the DM of some vague and unhelpful text of any ability in the PHB. And even then I find it restrictive.
If I'm going to have to do that many mental backflips over making the ability work, I'd just let the ranger get these clues via favored enemy and favored terrain - or even a decent survival or perception check, and save them from wasting a spell slot.
So quite the opposite of being a jerky DM to a ranger character. 😉
There is one thing would like to point out. Quin and I participate in a ranger group and, from my perspective, I think we have been getting along quite well.
disagreements aren't bad.
Post that add nothing or have faulty claims are bad. Posters using fallacy arguments is hurtful. Especially since they are so common when trying to troll players showing uses for underused abilities. I don't think people should be shamed for bad grammar or even missing critical information. we all do it but errors should be corrected. the goal is to better understand the game.
For gaslighting in particular, the main tactic is to manipulate wording and redefining terms towards a specific pre-chosen bias. Which is why it was brought up. I don't think Quin was gaslighting that title goes to another poster.
I even understand the wording problems with many ranger abilities. Many spots are vague and or open to interpretation. (sometimes to benefit and some times to a fault ).In this instance I have stated a case and encourage anyone to try and see if it rings true. I find my position defensible and have included direct game mechanic wording references.
To move away from awareness, since it was requested.
Quin and I have been discussing poisons lately, and how useful they are to a ranger kit. it is one of the better introduced collectable rules to the game and only ranger or rouge can come close to taking advantage of it. A read of the dmg section on poisons and disease is a must for any dm running a ranger.
While I grant that we generally play teams of characters, rangers are designed to actually be solo adventurists. Hence the action economy, spell economy, etc. I ALWAYS remind myself that the rangers I play are basically mountain men taking a job for the wagon train/army patrol/lost settlers they run across. They don’t need the party, the party needs them and their abilities. They are the guides and advisors if you are outdoors or underground (and how many campaigns are exclusively inside buildings?). i like the forgotten realms because it has so much lore, Elminster goes for an extended time against the Maulygrim who does he take with him? Not a big party with paladins, fighters, barbarians, rogues, clerics and a backup mage or three? No - he takes 3 high level rangers and the 4 of them stymy the badguys time and again. He could have pretty much anyone - tells you something doesn’t it?
I have said I could solo some published modules with a ranger build but Rangers tend to work best and use all their skills when helping the group. They are almost always the pass without a trace carrier. they tend to be the food problem solver. They get the information to allow the druid or paladin to prep certain situational spells. they are good at switching roles mid combat to fill in gaps in the party due to encounter changes. many ranger builds are the guarantee watch person for the risky hours of the night.
One way is to play the lone ranger but they can just as easily play as a group well as long as the group doesn't treat them like a redheaded stepchild.
There was this one memorable session in a DnD campaign I'm involved with where the party arrived to a new city to learn more about the McGuffin and what the BBEG might want with it. When we got into town, we also learned that a bunch of people had gone missing.
Anyway, the rest of the party spent the entire session doing odd jobs for a shopkeeper while I, the Horizon Walker, literally did all the legwork. I found information about the McGuffin and even hired some scientists to dig into it deeper, tracked down the missing citizens to the corrupt church, took down the BBEG's right hand man, and then tracked the BBEG to her hideout.
All this to say, yes. I agree. Ranger is a class that can do *very* well on its own. In fact, I'd say it should be one of the foremost choices for 1- or 2-person parties.
To move away from awareness, since it was requested.
Quin and I have been discussing poisons lately, and how useful they are to a ranger kit. it is one of the better introduced collectable rules to the game and only ranger or rouge can come close to taking advantage of it. A read of the dmg section on poisons and disease is a must for any dm running a ranger.
Feel free to discuss or introduce a new topic.
I always felt rangers should know how to treat at least some poisons. I had rangers use poisons on rare occasion but I was always worried on it would affect my reputation if it became common knowledge if I used poison
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
While I grant that we generally play teams of characters, rangers are designed to actually be solo adventurists. Hence the action economy, spell economy, etc. I ALWAYS remind myself that the rangers I play are basically mountain men taking a job for the wagon train/army patrol/lost settlers they run across. They don’t need the party, the party needs them and their abilities. They are the guides and advisors if you are outdoors or underground (and how many campaigns are exclusively inside buildings?).
i like the forgotten realms because it has so much lore, Elminster goes for an extended time against the Maulygrim who does he take with him? Not a big party with paladins, fighters, barbarians, rogues, clerics and a backup mage or three? No - he takes 3 high level rangers and the 4 of them stymy the badguys time and again. He could have pretty much anyone - tells you something doesn’t it?
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The fact that Primeval Awareness doesn't even give you a vague direction or distance of the enemies it makes you aware of makes the 6 mile 'improved' version in your favored terrain less useful than the 1 mile version.
It also isn't specific as to whether you know specifically which type of creature is in the area, only if one of the types of creatures listed is. It doesn't also tell you if there are more than one type of creature pinged by the ability nearby. I don't care if it's not an Uber ability but it's so vague in my opinion as to be virtually useless outside of a novelty. Ymmv.
I definitely like having speak with animals and plants, and eventually the potential of locate creature, and commune with nature instead. Having speak with animals automatically makes taking spells like animal friendship more appealing to me.
If you are using a 6 mile area of effect (I contend that the ability in your favored terrain gives you the option/choice of “up to” 6 miles, so anywhere between 1 and 6 miles), then that means you are in one of your favored terrains so all of your other natural explorer features are on, including a powerful upgrade to tracking which includes numbers, direction, and time elapsed since the passed by. Otherwise it’s just 1 mile, and that isn’t that big an area at all.
Your second paragraph is incorrect. The ability gives you multiple “yes or no” responses for each creature type.
Here is from the PHB:
Beginning at 3rd level, you can use your action and expend one ranger spell slot to focus your awareness on the region around you. For 1 minute per level of the spell slot you expend, you can sense whether the following types of creatures are present within 1 mile of you (or within up to 6 miles if you are in your favored terrain): aberrations, celestials, dragons, elementals, fey, fiends, and undead. This feature doesn’t reveal the creatures’ location or number.
it doesn’t actually say either way clearly so it’s very much open to DM interpretation whether it takes a minute and says yes there is something in the area or takes the types individually saying yes or no.. you Are both right (glass half full 😁)
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I never played under a DM where Primeval Awareness really helped tracking. With or without Primeval Awareness I still had to make multiple skills checks to find something that would track it
It really isn't.
Ha! Ok. Probably depends on the type of game being played.
It doesn't help with tracking. It's a sixth sense for creatures that are outside of the natural world.
"...you can sense whether the following types of creatures are present within 1 mile of you..."
I misread what you posted my bad
The language is clear
1.if a type is present the dm tells you it's present. so functionally yes or no for each of them.
2. Favored terrain portion says "up to 6 miles". the range is flexible between outer limit and 1 mile.
Anything else is bs gaslighting or faulty reading.
Very strongly disagree with you. I don't think there can be any serious question WOTC is bad at basic grammar or that they are even worse at using "plain English" terminology, meaning terms with no in-game definition, to convert RAI into RAW. I, in complete good faith - no gaslighting here - and with complete fluency in the English language (I was born and raised to the language, and have spent decades speaking and reading it) assert that the language is not clear. If you think it's clear, that just means you're more likely to be convinced your personal reading is "correct", which is not helpful for discussing the real impact of the rule at real tables.
I'll chime in as another native English speaker who has been speaking it fluently for decades. In fact, I'll do you one better: I have a degree in English.
Languages, both composition and interpretation, is an art. You don't have to look any further than arguments over the Oxford comma to see that. Some people think its redundant, and the dominant style nowadays is to treat it accordingly. But I don't believe that's correct, and in fact I feel very strongly about it. I do think, for example, there are sentences within the PHB which could benefit from an Oxford comma. But that is neither here nor there, as it's not relevant to this immediate topic of discussion.
So let's talk about the "basic rules of English." English routinely throws out its own rules; especially grammar rules. So, let's look at the feature.
If your position is that a DM can simply answer "Yes" or "No" and reveal no additional information, then I suggest you think about why you would take that position. Maybe you don't think a DM should be rooting for the players to succeed. Maybe you think they should be adversarial. Maybe you just hate the ranger as a class. Whatever the reason, that is an unfavorable, bad-faith interpretation of the text in front of us all. It's not "Yes/No" for the seven creature types as a whole. It's "Yes/No" for each creature type. If nothing else, that's just reasonable.
As for the range limit for being in a favored terrain, the ranger can choose how large a radius. Normally, it's "within 1 mile" of the ranger's location. But "within up to 6 miles" is totally different. If the ranger cannot determine how large a radius they want, then you're stripping them of agency. You may as well be penalizing them.
You're using the illusion of consistent, hard and fast rules to impose a strict interpretation that could very easily be seen as capricious. And if this is how you've treated your ranger players in the past, especially after they've made a case for a more favorable and perfectly reasonable interpretation, then you have been gaslighting them.
primeval awareness specifies "You Can" this signifies the ranger as the creator/controller of the "sense". So that is not the dm's choice. . The word "can" makes everything optional. This means The distance extension and individual types are all in players preview not the dms.
The word "Types" is a plural noun distinctly keeping the list as separate entities.
If i get a list of names at a party and ask a servant "weather or not these individuals are present?" and and some of them are present and some are missing. Yes is a incorrect answer and so is no. the only options are variations on "some" or an exact list. some is not a complete answer and does not fulfil the whole condition of [sensing] whether the following types of creatures are present. Especially since each type is optional per ranger choice not the dm.
note : the duration is before can so its not optional but it means if there is a change during the duration the ranger would sense it.
quin I agree with your statement about bias. I tried to look critically at it and find those two facts to be easily missed and highly important. I don't think its insulting to say reading the phrase wrong is what happens. It might happen alot or a little. It probably should have been written better but the wording is more technical than it first appears and leads to specific conclusions. I don't like bad faith arguments or assuming any opinion is wrong until provable. Throwing credentials out isn't good for any one. Bad arguments aren't good for any one. but in this one ability there is only one interpretation that takes the whole phrase into account and it also matches what I personally believe a functional use of the ability. You can disagree on that usefulness because there are some weaknesses but I stated the two conclusions the texts indicate.
Folks, please take a couple of steps back and a few deep breaths here - the very fact that your arguing over this so intensely is the proof that the statement is vague enough to be read differently by different people and that it nactually needs to be referred back to WOtC for a deeper and more complete explanation/description. None of you are going to convince the other side that your right and they are wrong so it’s time for a truce and moving on.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
No need for knicker-twisting about it.
I think favored terrain and favored enemy are finely worded. I think awareness is not - and depends on the most generous reading by the DM of some vague and unhelpful text of any ability in the PHB. And even then I find it restrictive.
If I'm going to have to do that many mental backflips over making the ability work, I'd just let the ranger get these clues via favored enemy and favored terrain - or even a decent survival or perception check, and save them from wasting a spell slot.
So quite the opposite of being a jerky DM to a ranger character. 😉
There is one thing would like to point out. Quin and I participate in a ranger group and, from my perspective, I think we have been getting along quite well.
disagreements aren't bad.
Post that add nothing or have faulty claims are bad. Posters using fallacy arguments is hurtful. Especially since they are so common when trying to troll players showing uses for underused abilities. I don't think people should be shamed for bad grammar or even missing critical information. we all do it but errors should be corrected. the goal is to better understand the game.
For gaslighting in particular, the main tactic is to manipulate wording and redefining terms towards a specific pre-chosen bias. Which is why it was brought up. I don't think Quin was gaslighting that title goes to another poster.
I even understand the wording problems with many ranger abilities. Many spots are vague and or open to interpretation. (sometimes to benefit and some times to a fault ).In this instance I have stated a case and encourage anyone to try and see if it rings true. I find my position defensible and have included direct game mechanic wording references.
To move away from awareness, since it was requested.
Quin and I have been discussing poisons lately, and how useful they are to a ranger kit. it is one of the better introduced collectable rules to the game and only ranger or rouge can come close to taking advantage of it. A read of the dmg section on poisons and disease is a must for any dm running a ranger.
Feel free to discuss or introduce a new topic.
While I grant that we generally play teams of characters, rangers are designed to actually be solo adventurists. Hence the action economy, spell economy, etc. I ALWAYS remind myself that the rangers I play are basically mountain men taking a job for the wagon train/army patrol/lost settlers they run across. They don’t need the party, the party needs them and their abilities. They are the guides and advisors if you are outdoors or underground (and how many campaigns are exclusively inside buildings?).
i like the forgotten realms because it has so much lore, Elminster goes for an extended time against the Maulygrim who does he take with him? Not a big party with paladins, fighters, barbarians, rogues, clerics and a backup mage or three? No - he takes 3 high level rangers and the 4 of them stymy the badguys time and again. He could have pretty much anyone - tells you something doesn’t it?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I have said I could solo some published modules with a ranger build but Rangers tend to work best and use all their skills when helping the group. They are almost always the pass without a trace carrier. they tend to be the food problem solver. They get the information to allow the druid or paladin to prep certain situational spells. they are good at switching roles mid combat to fill in gaps in the party due to encounter changes. many ranger builds are the guarantee watch person for the risky hours of the night.
One way is to play the lone ranger but they can just as easily play as a group well as long as the group doesn't treat them like a redheaded stepchild.
There was this one memorable session in a DnD campaign I'm involved with where the party arrived to a new city to learn more about the McGuffin and what the BBEG might want with it. When we got into town, we also learned that a bunch of people had gone missing.
Anyway, the rest of the party spent the entire session doing odd jobs for a shopkeeper while I, the Horizon Walker, literally did all the legwork. I found information about the McGuffin and even hired some scientists to dig into it deeper, tracked down the missing citizens to the corrupt church, took down the BBEG's right hand man, and then tracked the BBEG to her hideout.
All this to say, yes. I agree. Ranger is a class that can do *very* well on its own. In fact, I'd say it should be one of the foremost choices for 1- or 2-person parties.
I always felt rangers should know how to treat at least some poisons. I had rangers use poisons on rare occasion but I was always worried on it would affect my reputation if it became common knowledge if I used poison