You're right. I forgot the versatility of Foe Slayer being able to be used on the attack roll, rather than the damage roll. That offsets one use of Sharpshooter, which, with Favored Foe's d8 damage, ultimately amounts to a 1d8 + 10. Or a +5 increase from using Foe Slayer on the damage.
Still not the best capstone in the world, but it absolutely has its uses.
You're right. I forgot the versatility of Foe Slayer being able to be used on the attack roll, rather than the damage roll. That offsets one use of Sharpshooter, which, with Favored Foe's d8 damage, ultimately amounts to a 1d8 + 10. Or a +5 increase from using Foe Slayer on the damage.
Still not the best capstone in the world, but it absolutely has its uses.
A slight bit better than that because it allows you to add the +5 at any point after the roll which means you’ll see quite a big increase in damage over regular attacks, and even moreso with things like Swift Quiver.
Usually averages about 30-50% more damage per round.
Dude, seriously respect the fact that you really get into it when it comes to finding out the stats for certain builds. Love it.
A couple caveats here haha…
1) I totally get that these are just white room examples. They may not apply at your table (for example, who plays level 20 rangers anyways??) at all
2) It’s just a fascination with trying to understand whether something is “bad” because it looks bad on the surface, or whether the underpinnings are actually bad. It’s easy to jump on a bandwagon and agree with something without having the evidence behind it.
I am always looking for data to crunch, so if there’s a comparison you have always wondered about, let me know!
Dude, seriously respect the fact that you really get into it when it comes to finding out the stats for certain builds. Love it.
A couple caveats here haha…
1) I totally get that these are just white room examples. They may not apply at your table (for example, who plays level 20 rangers anyways??) at all
2) It’s just a fascination with trying to understand whether something is “bad” because it looks bad on the surface, or whether the underpinnings are actually bad. It’s easy to jump on a bandwagon and agree with something without having the evidence behind it.
I am always looking for data to crunch, so if there’s a comparison you have always wondered about, let me know!
The fact that white room situations are so specific is why I am infavor of separation of single target and multi target damage calculations. (and skills and more). You can never remove the bias so instead lean into it but aknowlege it as such. Then we can actually begin creating an overall preformance rating.
Yes. If we only looked at and valued things by single target damage, the martial classes would overshadow the damage casters and fireball would be a joke.
In terms of Natural Explorer vs Deft Explorer: No feature in the game can do what Natural Explorer does as well as natural explorer does it, not only is it free expertise in all int / wis related skills provided that they relate to one of your favoured terrains in some way, but it basically "solves" the exploration pillar of the game by letting you perform the roles of like 6 party members all at once, thus freeing up other party members to focus on keeping watch instead of having to forage for food, draw maps, navigate and other such nonsense. The problem with natural explorer is the fact that it is limited to certain terrain types, thus meaning that if the DM plans for you to stay in the same terrain type for the entire campaign, you will get a grand total of jack shit at 6th level and 10th level. It is also dependent on a pillar of the game that many groups tend to gloss over, so there's that
Deft Explorer on the other hand is kinda meh. Expertise is a nice thing, but it also really does mean that a scout rogue with expertise in survival is in fact going to be better at surviving than what you are, climbing and swimming speeds are nice but they are also minor. The one really good exploration feature that a Deft Explorer ranger is going to get is Tireless at 10th level, since it let's you go without sleep, food, water, etc for extended periods of time without issue. In a more combat-focused campaign, Deft Explorer is going to be better, and it does help for rangers who want to be all strong with Athletics instead of being more survival-y
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Would you choose Druidic Warrior over Archery as a fighting style?
Druidic Warrior and Archery do entirely different things and are useful in entirely different situations, if you expect that cantrips such as guidance and shillelagh to be more useful or if you plan to focus entirely on wisdom, yes, if you plan to focus more on dexterity and try to shoot things with your bow you pick archery
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
PHB ranger features are focused on separating the ranger from other martials by making them the kings of the travel and exploration leg of the game. Sadly (IMO) far too many tables skim over this leaving rangers somewhat out in the cold. As designed rangers are are much more of a striker than a tank and are effectively a multiclass as a class so they aren’t really a straight up martial. This gives some players fits. Tasha’s options smooth over a lot of the rough spots offering both more martial oriented features and enhanced spell casting so both sides of the multiclass are enhanced. As Envoy and others have said many of the PHB features have high skill ceilings to see their real power while the Tasha equivalents have far less of a learning curve. Hide in plain sight is a prime example - it reads almost like you have to take the set up time right at the start of the combat making it nearly useless. If you read it carefully you realize that isn’t required - you can camo up at the end of a long rest and then use the camo and ability anytime you need to. Then after touching up/altering it it’s ready to use again the next time etc. great for scouting, ambushes, hiding, observation posts etc. I like both, I play both, I just choose the ones that particular player needs for the specific build.
Hide in plain sight is a prime example - it reads almost like you have to take the set up time right at the start of the combat making it nearly useless. If you read it carefully you realize that isn’t required - you can camo up at the end of a long rest and then use the camo and ability anytime you need to. Then after touching up/altering it it’s ready to use again the next time etc. great for scouting, ambushes, hiding, observation posts etc. I like both, I play both, I just choose the ones that particular player needs for the specific build.
Also, I made this spreadsheet if you want to see the effects of Natural Explorer and Rangers on travel rules. Just an FYI: I did average out the impact of dice rolls, chances to get lost and consolidated some of the terrain features (Desert is always very hot, for example), but rule wise this encapsulates all of the travel rules.
Notice that Favored Terrain and just having a Ranger in the party *drastically* improves the speed and general abilities of a party.
Also, I made this spreadsheet if you want to see the effects of Natural Explorer and Rangers on travel rules. Just an FYI: I did average out the impact of dice rolls, chances to get lost and consolidated some of the terrain features (Desert is always very hot, for example), but rule wise this encapsulates all of the travel rules.
Notice that Favored Terrain and just having a Ranger in the party *drastically* improves the speed and general abilities of a party.
I do want to point something out in this regard, actually.
Of course we all know the usual criticism of Natural Explorer: that it doesn't come up often enough to be consistently useful. I think at this stage, we've all debated that point to hell and back.
However, the usual follow-up complaint about the feature, I haven't seen discussed quite as much. Specifically, the complaint is "NE doesn't come up often often enough to be useful, and when it does, it negates exploration rather than engage with exploration. This means that even when the feature is active, it still "feels bad" because it's not fun. So it's bad if it's active and bad if it's not.
Now, I have my own set of counterarguments to this train of thought. But I am curious how you guys respond to the above critique.
I think everyone has something to do durring exploration. even a ranger outside his favored terrain. The problems a ranger (in their terrain) " auto solves" still means there are meaningfull and intresting choices to make. Every one should pick a job and do it. The dm should provide intreasting consiquenses for the things skipped or rewards for playing it smart. Even if its a random roll, just knowing there was possibilities is enough to keep it fun. Equating travel and exploration as the same thing is why so many tables have no fun with the exploration pillar of the game. Also, having the awesome moments where a ranger shines out weighs any travel where they are a "normal" pc. They still have all the cool reguar ranger tools and abilities and so you can now use those too. being out of your comfort zone is keeping a playing ranger fresh. That is kind of why I dont think rangers "need" every terrain. a balanced mix is enough for me.
Brewsky - I’m not getting anything I recognize as useful in your table, not sure why.
As for making exploration so easy it’s no fun thanks to the ranger’s abilities that typically means the DCs the DM is setting are too low or they are playing the wilderness too easy. No wilderness is actually empty and the humanoid denizens are going to be skilled in nature, survival, stealth as well including some number of scout rogues and low level rangers as well as scouting barbarians that your going to be up against as well. That is assuming your not having to deal other groups trying to track you with their own rangers, that the animals are not scouting you for some Druid’s circle or other group or a(n) (un)friendly dragon or other high CR entity that at the very least wants to know what your doing in “it’s” territory. DMs should be keeping in mind that, in addition to the humanoids, there are a lot of beasts and a fair number of monstrosities out in the off-road areas and the ranger is trying to steer a path between all of them with the least fuss possible. They shouldn’t be missing them all and spells like pass w/o trace that make the party “undetectable” also mean those things out there aren’t going to know your coming and leave before you get there so you are actually MORE likely to hit them as wondering monsters not less in some cases. If you’ve never been out in the wilds and quiet for an extended time it’s surprising just how noisy the wilderness is. A 30’ radius zone of shadow and silence (Pw/oT) sifting through can be as disturbing to the locals as a party in badly fitting plate clanking along.
Brewsky - I’m not getting anything I recognize as useful in your table, not sure why.
As for making exploration so easy it’s no fun thanks to the ranger’s abilities that typically means the DCs the DM is setting are too low or they are playing the wilderness too easy. No wilderness is actually empty and the humanoid denizens are going to be skilled in nature, survival, stealth as well including some number of scout rogues and low level rangers as well as scouting barbarians that your going to be up against as well. That is assuming your not having to deal other groups trying to track you with their own rangers, that the animals are not scouting you for some Druid’s circle or other group or a(n) (un)friendly dragon or other high CR entity that at the very least wants to know what your doing in “it’s” territory. DMs should be keeping in mind that, in addition to the humanoids, there are a lot of beasts and a fair number of monstrosities out in the off-road areas and the ranger is trying to steer a path between all of them with the least fuss possible. They shouldn’t be missing them all and spells like pass w/o trace that make the party “undetectable” also mean those things out there aren’t going to know your coming and leave before you get there so you are actually MORE likely to hit them as wondering monsters not less in some cases. If you’ve never been out in the wilds and quiet for an extended time it’s surprising just how noisy the wilderness is. A 30’ radius zone of shadow and silence (Pw/oT) sifting through can be as disturbing to the locals as a party in badly fitting plate clanking along.
Hmm, not sure what you mean? Are you seeing the travel results part on the second worksheet tab? Compare results from putting your characters into the respective travel activity slots, but also please read the comments, they do explain a lot. (I’ll also throw in a sample party for you to see)
It’s not just about speed - the ranger *can* travel faster, but they also track better, find food better, assist with travel activities better, watch out for threats better… almost *everything* is improved with a Ranger in the group.
Also, I made this spreadsheet if you want to see the effects of Natural Explorer and Rangers on travel rules. Just an FYI: I did average out the impact of dice rolls, chances to get lost and consolidated some of the terrain features (Desert is always very hot, for example), but rule wise this encapsulates all of the travel rules.
Notice that Favored Terrain and just having a Ranger in the party *drastically* improves the speed and general abilities of a party.
I do want to point something out in this regard, actually.
Of course we all know the usual criticism of Natural Explorer: that it doesn't come up often enough to be consistently useful. I think at this stage, we've all debated that point to hell and back.
However, the usual follow-up complaint about the feature, I haven't seen discussed quite as much. Specifically, the complaint is "NE doesn't come up often often enough to be useful, and when it does, it negates exploration rather than engage with exploration. This means that even when the feature is active, it still "feels bad" because it's not fun. So it's bad if it's active and bad if it's not.
Now, I have my own set of counterarguments to this train of thought. But I am curious how you guys respond to the above critique.
For me specifically, it’s really about how the DM is treating travel. A Ranger in your party *should* almost outright negate getting ambushed, missing out on cool points of interest, losing your way, losing the tracks of your prey, running out of food (in most cases makes more food than you burn even) in their Natural Explorer terrain. In other terrains they have fewer benefits.
If the DM treats travel as a fast-path then yeah… go for Tasha’s Options.
But if your DM makes travel difficult, dangerous, and something really rich with lots of potential adventure… then go OG PHB. Avoid ambushes and maybe get a sneak attack on some Orcs, avoid a really tough encounter with a Dragon entirely, find a cave that you would’ve missed, avoid the beaten path to lose some pursuers, or track down a murderer.
I do want to point something out in this regard, actually.
Of course we all know the usual criticism of Natural Explorer: that it doesn't come up often enough to be consistently useful. I think at this stage, we've all debated that point to hell and back.
However, the usual follow-up complaint about the feature, I haven't seen discussed quite as much. Specifically, the complaint is "NE doesn't come up often often enough to be useful, and when it does, it negates exploration rather than engage with exploration. This means that even when the feature is active, it still "feels bad" because it's not fun. So it's bad if it's active and bad if it's not.
Now, I have my own set of counterarguments to this train of thought. But I am curious how you guys respond to the above critique.
Assuming this is true…it isn’t…this happens all of the time with other classes in other situations. Rogues in dungeons with traps, secret doors, and locked doors while the rest of the party follows 60 feet back. Paladin and fighters when fighting a single enemy. Wizards when there is an otherwise impossible situation to be overcome by anything else except high level magic. Sorcerers when there are a legion of enemies. Bards during a difficult and vital social negotiation. All kinds of situations arise where a single PC has the spotlight for a moment. The idea that the rest need to sit on their thumbs when these are happening is false.
When we start to read about the travel rules, which I would put money down that less people have read the rules than even try to use them, we see that much of the game is different during travel than it is in combat, just like the difference between social situations and combats. A ranger doesn’t auto win anything. A ranger can take care of the entire group by moving faster and being an expert in their favored terrain. But not being lost requires knowing where you are going to begin with. The DC for navigation is low in all but the most terrible conditions, and even then, nothing above 20. Just moving slower can get the navigator a bonus.
What a ranger gives the party in their favored terrain is the ability of the other travelers to participate MORE during the travel time. The ranger can avoid getting lost, keep watch, AND do a third task when traveling, like stealthing, foraging, or tracking. A entire group with a ranger can move stealthily faster and safer then a group without a ranger moving fast. This allows the other party members to do other things. A beast master can keep watch in front and behind the marching order!
Traveling is a maximum of 8 hours a day. Leaving 8 hours for resting and 8 hours for downtime. Travel is a wonderful time for downtime activities like copying spells, harvesting poison, scribing scrolls, making potions, training, and casting ritual spells. Travel is a great time and place for the DM and party to escape the cycle of the dungeon crawl standard adventuring day of 6-8 medium to hard combat encounters by allowing for larger, more dangerous, single encounters. Travel is a chance to flood the PCs with world immersion by introducing NPCs, fantastic creatures, and small side quest adventures. Finding magic items, spells, or information while traveling can be its own adventure(s).
When travel is played on a hex grid, as the DMG states and as it has been done for literal decades, a ranger is in their favored terrains more than they aren’t, and when they aren’t they are most likely to be in terrain such as grasslands or hills or even open roads, where if you even need a navigation or survival check the DC is so low the wizard’s familiar could pass it. On a hex grid the ranger’s favored terrain gives the party tactical options for travel. Not only woils traveling over the mountains be faster than going around them, it will be twice as fast with a ranger while not getting lost while move at stealth and safer to boot.
A scout rogue can do 1 thing while traveling. Keeping watch, navigating, moving at stealth, foraging, etc. Only 1 thing. If a scout want to move stealthily they have to move at a slow pace. A scout rogue doesn’t move themself or the entire party normally through difficult terrain.
So moving stealthily while not on an established road a scout rogue moves 9 miles a day and is not able to navigate and use their perception at the same time. A ranger and the entire party not on a road can move stealthily at an 18 miles a day pace while not able to be lost (circumventing navigation or “auto navigation”) and while keeping watch.
If and when time is of the essence a ranger can save the day. This could be because they need to get somewhere fast, get somewhere safely (less time in the wilderness means less deadly encounters), or getting away from someplace fast. All of the the time freeing up the other party members to do more things, not less things.
You're right. I forgot the versatility of Foe Slayer being able to be used on the attack roll, rather than the damage roll. That offsets one use of Sharpshooter, which, with Favored Foe's d8 damage, ultimately amounts to a 1d8 + 10. Or a +5 increase from using Foe Slayer on the damage.
Still not the best capstone in the world, but it absolutely has its uses.
Would you choose Druidic Warrior over Archery as a fighting style?
Ren
Depending on what I'm trying to do with the build, yes. Absolutely.
A slight bit better than that because it allows you to add the +5 at any point after the roll which means you’ll see quite a big increase in damage over regular attacks, and even moreso with things like Swift Quiver.
Usually averages about 30-50% more damage per round.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rGG3NrOCUEQmQs1_03_iFdL-K0nOfekqvooyclGvxVg/edit
Dude, seriously respect the fact that you really get into it when it comes to finding out the stats for certain builds. Love it.
Ren
A couple caveats here haha…
1) I totally get that these are just white room examples. They may not apply at your table (for example, who plays level 20 rangers anyways??) at all
2) It’s just a fascination with trying to understand whether something is “bad” because it looks bad on the surface, or whether the underpinnings are actually bad. It’s easy to jump on a bandwagon and agree with something without having the evidence behind it.
I am always looking for data to crunch, so if there’s a comparison you have always wondered about, let me know!
The fact that white room situations are so specific is why I am infavor of separation of single target and multi target damage calculations. (and skills and more). You can never remove the bias so instead lean into it but aknowlege it as such. Then we can actually begin creating an overall preformance rating.
Yes. If we only looked at and valued things by single target damage, the martial classes would overshadow the damage casters and fireball would be a joke.
In terms of Natural Explorer vs Deft Explorer:
No feature in the game can do what Natural Explorer does as well as natural explorer does it, not only is it free expertise in all int / wis related skills provided that they relate to one of your favoured terrains in some way, but it basically "solves" the exploration pillar of the game by letting you perform the roles of like 6 party members all at once, thus freeing up other party members to focus on keeping watch instead of having to forage for food, draw maps, navigate and other such nonsense. The problem with natural explorer is the fact that it is limited to certain terrain types, thus meaning that if the DM plans for you to stay in the same terrain type for the entire campaign, you will get a grand total of jack shit at 6th level and 10th level. It is also dependent on a pillar of the game that many groups tend to gloss over, so there's that
Deft Explorer on the other hand is kinda meh. Expertise is a nice thing, but it also really does mean that a scout rogue with expertise in survival is in fact going to be better at surviving than what you are, climbing and swimming speeds are nice but they are also minor. The one really good exploration feature that a Deft Explorer ranger is going to get is Tireless at 10th level, since it let's you go without sleep, food, water, etc for extended periods of time without issue. In a more combat-focused campaign, Deft Explorer is going to be better, and it does help for rangers who want to be all strong with Athletics instead of being more survival-y
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Druidic Warrior and Archery do entirely different things and are useful in entirely different situations, if you expect that cantrips such as guidance and shillelagh to be more useful or if you plan to focus entirely on wisdom, yes, if you plan to focus more on dexterity and try to shoot things with your bow you pick archery
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
PHB ranger features are focused on separating the ranger from other martials by making them the kings of the travel and exploration leg of the game. Sadly (IMO) far too many tables skim over this leaving rangers somewhat out in the cold. As designed rangers are are much more of a striker than a tank and are effectively a multiclass as a class so they aren’t really a straight up martial. This gives some players fits. Tasha’s options smooth over a lot of the rough spots offering both more martial oriented features and enhanced spell casting so both sides of the multiclass are enhanced. As Envoy and others have said many of the PHB features have high skill ceilings to see their real power while the Tasha equivalents have far less of a learning curve. Hide in plain sight is a prime example - it reads almost like you have to take the set up time right at the start of the combat making it nearly useless. If you read it carefully you realize that isn’t required - you can camo up at the end of a long rest and then use the camo and ability anytime you need to. Then after touching up/altering it it’s ready to use again the next time etc. great for scouting, ambushes, hiding, observation posts etc. I like both, I play both, I just choose the ones that particular player needs for the specific build.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
100%
Also, I made this spreadsheet if you want to see the effects of Natural Explorer and Rangers on travel rules. Just an FYI: I did average out the impact of dice rolls, chances to get lost and consolidated some of the terrain features (Desert is always very hot, for example), but rule wise this encapsulates all of the travel rules.
Notice that Favored Terrain and just having a Ranger in the party *drastically* improves the speed and general abilities of a party.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xpDqVNOWhnLSCqqpfTegGGRJ-DyNLTy_xC3SFthRSMA/edit
I do want to point something out in this regard, actually.
Of course we all know the usual criticism of Natural Explorer: that it doesn't come up often enough to be consistently useful. I think at this stage, we've all debated that point to hell and back.
However, the usual follow-up complaint about the feature, I haven't seen discussed quite as much. Specifically, the complaint is "NE doesn't come up often often enough to be useful, and when it does, it negates exploration rather than engage with exploration. This means that even when the feature is active, it still "feels bad" because it's not fun. So it's bad if it's active and bad if it's not.
Now, I have my own set of counterarguments to this train of thought. But I am curious how you guys respond to the above critique.
I think everyone has something to do durring exploration. even a ranger outside his favored terrain. The problems a ranger (in their terrain) " auto solves" still means there are meaningfull and intresting choices to make. Every one should pick a job and do it. The dm should provide intreasting consiquenses for the things skipped or rewards for playing it smart. Even if its a random roll, just knowing there was possibilities is enough to keep it fun. Equating travel and exploration as the same thing is why so many tables have no fun with the exploration pillar of the game. Also, having the awesome moments where a ranger shines out weighs any travel where they are a "normal" pc. They still have all the cool reguar ranger tools and abilities and so you can now use those too. being out of your comfort zone is keeping a playing ranger fresh. That is kind of why I dont think rangers "need" every terrain. a balanced mix is enough for me.
Brewsky - I’m not getting anything I recognize as useful in your table, not sure why.
As for making exploration so easy it’s no fun thanks to the ranger’s abilities that typically means the DCs the DM is setting are too low or they are playing the wilderness too easy. No wilderness is actually empty and the humanoid denizens are going to be skilled in nature, survival, stealth as well including some number of scout rogues and low level rangers as well as scouting barbarians that your going to be up against as well. That is assuming your not having to deal other groups trying to track you with their own rangers, that the animals are not scouting you for some Druid’s circle or other group or a(n) (un)friendly dragon or other high CR entity that at the very least wants to know what your doing in “it’s” territory. DMs should be keeping in mind that, in addition to the humanoids, there are a lot of beasts and a fair number of monstrosities out in the off-road areas and the ranger is trying to steer a path between all of them with the least fuss possible. They shouldn’t be missing them all and spells like pass w/o trace that make the party “undetectable” also mean those things out there aren’t going to know your coming and leave before you get there so you are actually MORE likely to hit them as wondering monsters not less in some cases. If you’ve never been out in the wilds and quiet for an extended time it’s surprising just how noisy the wilderness is. A 30’ radius zone of shadow and silence (Pw/oT) sifting through can be as disturbing to the locals as a party in badly fitting plate clanking along.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Hmm, not sure what you mean? Are you seeing the travel results part on the second worksheet tab? Compare results from putting your characters into the respective travel activity slots, but also please read the comments, they do explain a lot. (I’ll also throw in a sample party for you to see)
It’s not just about speed - the ranger *can* travel faster, but they also track better, find food better, assist with travel activities better, watch out for threats better… almost *everything* is improved with a Ranger in the group.
For me specifically, it’s really about how the DM is treating travel. A Ranger in your party *should* almost outright negate getting ambushed, missing out on cool points of interest, losing your way, losing the tracks of your prey, running out of food (in most cases makes more food than you burn even) in their Natural Explorer terrain. In other terrains they have fewer benefits.
If the DM treats travel as a fast-path then yeah… go for Tasha’s Options.
But if your DM makes travel difficult, dangerous, and something really rich with lots of potential adventure… then go OG PHB. Avoid ambushes and maybe get a sneak attack on some Orcs, avoid a really tough encounter with a Dragon entirely, find a cave that you would’ve missed, avoid the beaten path to lose some pursuers, or track down a murderer.
Assuming this is true…it isn’t…this happens all of the time with other classes in other situations. Rogues in dungeons with traps, secret doors, and locked doors while the rest of the party follows 60 feet back. Paladin and fighters when fighting a single enemy. Wizards when there is an otherwise impossible situation to be overcome by anything else except high level magic. Sorcerers when there are a legion of enemies. Bards during a difficult and vital social negotiation. All kinds of situations arise where a single PC has the spotlight for a moment. The idea that the rest need to sit on their thumbs when these are happening is false.
When we start to read about the travel rules, which I would put money down that less people have read the rules than even try to use them, we see that much of the game is different during travel than it is in combat, just like the difference between social situations and combats. A ranger doesn’t auto win anything. A ranger can take care of the entire group by moving faster and being an expert in their favored terrain. But not being lost requires knowing where you are going to begin with. The DC for navigation is low in all but the most terrible conditions, and even then, nothing above 20. Just moving slower can get the navigator a bonus.
What a ranger gives the party in their favored terrain is the ability of the other travelers to participate MORE during the travel time. The ranger can avoid getting lost, keep watch, AND do a third task when traveling, like stealthing, foraging, or tracking. A entire group with a ranger can move stealthily faster and safer then a group without a ranger moving fast. This allows the other party members to do other things. A beast master can keep watch in front and behind the marching order!
Traveling is a maximum of 8 hours a day. Leaving 8 hours for resting and 8 hours for downtime. Travel is a wonderful time for downtime activities like copying spells, harvesting poison, scribing scrolls, making potions, training, and casting ritual spells. Travel is a great time and place for the DM and party to escape the cycle of the dungeon crawl standard adventuring day of 6-8 medium to hard combat encounters by allowing for larger, more dangerous, single encounters. Travel is a chance to flood the PCs with world immersion by introducing NPCs, fantastic creatures, and small side quest adventures. Finding magic items, spells, or information while traveling can be its own adventure(s).
When travel is played on a hex grid, as the DMG states and as it has been done for literal decades, a ranger is in their favored terrains more than they aren’t, and when they aren’t they are most likely to be in terrain such as grasslands or hills or even open roads, where if you even need a navigation or survival check the DC is so low the wizard’s familiar could pass it. On a hex grid the ranger’s favored terrain gives the party tactical options for travel. Not only woils traveling over the mountains be faster than going around them, it will be twice as fast with a ranger while not getting lost while move at stealth and safer to boot.
A scout rogue can do 1 thing while traveling. Keeping watch, navigating, moving at stealth, foraging, etc. Only 1 thing. If a scout want to move stealthily they have to move at a slow pace. A scout rogue doesn’t move themself or the entire party normally through difficult terrain.
So moving stealthily while not on an established road a scout rogue moves 9 miles a day and is not able to navigate and use their perception at the same time. A ranger and the entire party not on a road can move stealthily at an 18 miles a day pace while not able to be lost (circumventing navigation or “auto navigation”) and while keeping watch.
If and when time is of the essence a ranger can save the day. This could be because they need to get somewhere fast, get somewhere safely (less time in the wilderness means less deadly encounters), or getting away from someplace fast. All of the the time freeing up the other party members to do more things, not less things.