I will specify that it is natural explorer and a spell it two that make ranger king. A scout only has expertise in to skills. And anyone that has read, understands, and uses the RAW of travel and wilderness exploration knows that expertise in two skills isn’t enough.
They also know that expertise in all int skills when you dump int usually is less effective then non-dumped int with proficiency.
Since natural explorer is the hill you are choosing to die on here.
1. Does nothing if you are outside your terrain
2. The faster travel is usually irrelevant. If it takes you 4 hours or 8 hours to get to town people care about as much as theives can't solving city exploration problems.
3. Cant be lost, hi cartography tools, also if the adventure is being lost. Why would you destroy a fun adventure? you monster.
6. Advantage to track, enhance ability says hi. Any group spell caster, and no I don't think it will be frequent enough that it will drain all your resources. That would be a lot of sessions built around just tracking.
Things this doesnt cover impassable terrain, teleportation and flight says hi and then laughs at ranger.
And finally, this has nothing to do with high level ranger. This is still not an argument to take ranger past 5. This is an argument to take natural explorer over deft explorer.
I will specify that it is natural explorer and a spell it two that make ranger king. A scout only has expertise in to skills. And anyone that has read, understands, and uses the RAW of travel and wilderness exploration knows that expertise in two skills isn’t enough.
They also know that expertise in all int skills when you dump int usually is less effective then non-dumped int with proficiency.
Since natural explorer is the hill you are choosing to die on here.
1. Does nothing if you are outside your terrain
2. The faster travel is usually irrelevant. If it takes you 4 hours or 8 hours to get to town people care about as much as theives can't solving city exploration problems.
3. Cant be lost, hi cartography tools, also if the adventure is being lost. Why would you destroy a fun adventure? you monster.
6. Advantage to track, enhance ability says hi. Any group spell caster, and no I don't think it will be frequent enough that it will drain all your resources. That would be a lot of sessions built around just tracking.
Things this doesnt cover impassable terrain, teleportation and flight says hi and then laughs at ranger.
And finally, this has nothing to do with high level ranger. This is still not an argument to take ranger past 5. This is an argument to take natural explorer over deft explorer.
You’ve just told me it takes a party of four with a specific background and subclass to recreate what a ranger does.
I will specify that it is natural explorer and a spell it two that make ranger king. A scout only has expertise in to skills. And anyone that has read, understands, and uses the RAW of travel and wilderness exploration knows that expertise in two skills isn’t enough.
A scout has expertise in 4 skills at level 3, in 6 skills at level 6 and 6 class/subclass proficiencies plus 2-4 more through background and race. At level 11 he has reliable talent and is rolling a minimum of 10 on rolls with any of those 8-10 skills. This will be a minimum of an 18+ intelligence/wisdom on survival and nature rolls.
The Ranger's advantage in natural terrain comes from his ability to do multiple things and to autmatically suceed at things. These override any skill scores, but from a skill point of view a scout is better positioned than a Ranger.
And as I pointed out those automatic things are covered by alert feat and outlander background.
I will specify that it is natural explorer and a spell it two that make ranger king. A scout only has expertise in to skills. And anyone that has read, understands, and uses the RAW of travel and wilderness exploration knows that expertise in two skills isn’t enough.
They also know that expertise in all int skills when you dump int usually is less effective then non-dumped int with proficiency.
Since natural explorer is the hill you are choosing to die on here.
1. Does nothing if you are outside your terrain
2. The faster travel is usually irrelevant. If it takes you 4 hours or 8 hours to get to town people care about as much as theives can't solving city exploration problems.
3. Cant be lost, hi cartography tools, also if the adventure is being lost. Why would you destroy a fun adventure? you monster.
6. Advantage to track, enhance ability says hi. Any group spell caster, and no I don't think it will be frequent enough that it will drain all your resources. That would be a lot of sessions built around just tracking.
Things this doesnt cover impassable terrain, teleportation and flight says hi and then laughs at ranger.
And finally, this has nothing to do with high level ranger. This is still not an argument to take ranger past 5. This is an argument to take natural explorer over deft explorer.
You’ve just told me it takes a party of four with a specific background and subclass to recreate what a ranger does.
No party of 2. The feat and background is on the same character. Because if the concept is ranger, but better at combat. Your probably taking the outlander background and alert is a good feat anyway. And I a glad you ignored the final point again. Because it once again shows you missed the point entirely.
Just as we don’t need optimized builds for damage to succeed at combat, need a super powered “face of the party” to succeed at social situations, or magic to accomplish anything, everything in the game is tailored to the party at hand.
If the rules of the game are actually used natural explorer is unbeatable. People using the “Free Parking” approach to D&D exhaust me.
Party of two with a specific feat, background, and subclass, along with magic. All to do what you think is of no value. I’ll bet I can come up with to builds that combined can do what a fighter or paladin can do too.
Party of two with a specific feat, background, and subclass, along with magic. All to do what you think is of no value. I’ll bet I can come up with to builds that combined can do what a fighter or paladin can do too.
Never naed a subclass, just a background and feat. You can drop the feat and be fine, and the magic is a common spell on every prepared caster.
Edit: still missing final point. Why should I take it past 5? I get natural explorer at 1
Party of two with a specific feat, background, and subclass, along with magic. All to do what you think is of no value. I’ll bet I can come up with to builds that combined can do what a fighter or paladin can do too.
Never naed a subclass, just a background and feat. You can drop the feat and be fine, and the magic is a common spell on every prepared caster.
Right. You’re unconvinced. It’s all in the basic rules when you decide to look them up.
Why are you so focused on good damage and bad damage if the game, in your opinion, can be successfully played and “won” with any substitution?
Party of two with a specific feat, background, and subclass, along with magic. All to do what you think is of no value. I’ll bet I can come up with to builds that combined can do what a fighter or paladin can do too.
Never naed a subclass, just a background and feat. You can drop the feat and be fine, and the magic is a common spell on every prepared caster.
Right. You’re unconvinced. It’s all in the basic rules when you decide to look them up.
Why are you so focused on good damage and bad damage if the game, in your opinion, can be successfully played and “won” with any substitution?
It is about keeping up with and contributing to the part at higher levels. And you know what leads to character death most of the time? Combat. Ribbon features are flavor made ribbon features. Glad that apparently, according to you, I can get everything I need from ranger with a 1 level dip. And criticizing a class for not being mechanically very strong by comparison to the strength and flexibility of other classes is somehow a bad thing and not a way to point out system issues and break points.
You still dodge the why past 5, with a feature that you get at 1. That does nothing if you aren't in your terrain, and can be mimiced by good skills and a background in ANY terrain.
The exploration pillar exists for a reason. Those of you that ignore it or know nothing about it are loosing out.
Talk all day about damage if you like. You’re going to end up playing the same 3 or 4 “builds” because of it.
And I can play the exploration pillar just as well if not better without playing a ranger. The ranger doesnt really add anything that you couldn't get from a feat or a background or through interesting dialog and rolls and play.
This is generally my experience as well... And what the modules offer as well.
Overall the experience is mostly covered with the right feat or just expertise in survival.
Homebrew games can offer it i'm sure but it does seem to be in the minority based on my experiences, available modules/adventures, and any real plays I've listened to...
Granted I'm not at every table but that's just what I've seen in most examples of the hobby.
I will discuss this with you all day. Want to start a new thread for it? You and I? You, and many, don’t even use the parts of the rules to have any reason to need something like NE.
Natural explorer functions so well because it is designed to work with the adventuring rules of the game. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/adventuring If your don’t use these rules at your game you won’t understand or value NE. Want to talk about it more? Let’s start a new thread.
PCs die in combats. But they die because of dice rolls not because your build does 30 DPR instead of 35 DPR. That is an optimization fallacy. The mindset that a “suboptimal build” will lead to PC deaths is ridiculous.
The exploration pillar exists for a reason. Those of you that ignore it or know nothing about it are loosing out.
Talk all day about damage if you like. You’re going to end up playing the same 3 or 4 “builds” because of it.
And I can play the exploration pillar just as well if not better without playing a ranger. The ranger doesnt really add anything that you couldn't get from a feat or a background or through interesting dialog and rolls and play.
This is generally my experience as well... And what the modules offer as well.
Overall the experience is mostly covered with the right feat or just expertise in survival.
Homebrew games can offer it i'm sure but it does seem to be in the minority based on my experiences, available modules/adventures, and any real plays I've listened to...
Granted I'm not at every table but that's just what I've seen in most examples of the hobby.
And these examples shape our understanding of the game. Optimus and I play at very different tables. Playing very different games based on the same rules. Again I call this Free Parking D&D.
I will discuss this with you all day. Want to start a new thread for it? You and I? You, and many, don’t even use the parts of the rules to have any reason to need something like NE.
Natural explorer functions so well because it is designed to work with the adventuring rules of the game. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/adventuring If your don’t use these rules at your game you won’t understand or value NE. Want to talk about it more? Let’s start a new thread.
PCs die in combats. But they die because of dice rolls not because your build does 30 DPR instead of 35 DPR. That is an optimization fallacy. The mindset that a “suboptimal build” will lead to PC deaths is ridiculous.
I don't think it's not because people don't know they exist it's that the experience with them is..... whelming.
And it's important to discuss these things with whirlwind strike as if you're saying that the other ranger features are supposed to make up for the lack of damage... And they don't really offer much at most tables then it's a sign that the features may need a tweak.
I will discuss this with you all day. Want to start a new thread for it? You and I? You, and many, don’t even use the parts of the rules to have any reason to need something like NE.
Natural explorer functions so well because it is designed to work with the adventuring rules of the game. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/adventuring If your don’t use these rules at your game you won’t understand or value NE. Want to talk about it more? Let’s start a new thread.
PCs die in combats. But they die because of dice rolls not because your build does 30 DPR instead of 35 DPR. That is an optimization fallacy. The mindset that a “suboptimal build” will lead to PC deaths is ridiculous.
I don't think it's not because people don't know they exist it's that the experience with them is..... whelming.
And it's important to discuss these things with whirlwind strike as if you're saying that the other ranger features are supposed to make up for the lack of damage... And they don't really offer much at most tables then it's a sign that the features may need a tweak.
Thankfully Tashas came out and did just that.
We all know you and I disagree on these topics. Tasha’s has done much to give an alternative version of what a ranger does. The complete package of a ranger is where it’s at. A team player at its finest. Control, damage dealing, exploration, buffs, terms of engagement, healing, defense, all of it. Is a hunter level 11 absolute worse compared to a fighter? That depends. I argue a fighter (or paladin) dealers need that consist bump at 11 to keep up with the ranger. Unoptimized, the ranger wins. Optimized, a fighter (or paladin) can deal slightly more damage than a ranger, some/most of the time. To disregard whirlwind attack because it isn’t as player facing as improved divine smite it a third attack is short sighted and not looking at an entire package.
I will discuss this with you all day. Want to start a new thread for it? You and I? You, and many, don’t even use the parts of the rules to have any reason to need something like NE.
Natural explorer functions so well because it is designed to work with the adventuring rules of the game. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/adventuring If your don’t use these rules at your game you won’t understand or value NE. Want to talk about it more? Let’s start a new thread.
PCs die in combats. But they die because of dice rolls not because your build does 30 DPR instead of 35 DPR. That is an optimization fallacy. The mindset that a “suboptimal build” will lead to PC deaths is ridiculous.
I don't think it's not because people don't know they exist it's that the experience with them is..... whelming.
And it's important to discuss these things with whirlwind strike as if you're saying that the other ranger features are supposed to make up for the lack of damage... And they don't really offer much at most tables then it's a sign that the features may need a tweak.
Thankfully Tashas came out and did just that.
We all know you and I disagree on these topics. Tasha’s has done much to give an alternative version of what a ranger does. The complete package of a ranger is where it’s at. A team player at its finest. Control, damage dealing, exploration, buffs, terms of engagement, healing, defense, all of it. Is a hunter level 11 absolute worse compared to a fighter? That depends. I argue a fighter (or paladin) dealers need that consist bump at 11 to keep up with the ranger. Unoptimized, the ranger wins. Optimized, a fighter (or paladin) can deal slightly more damage than a ranger, some/most of the time. To disregard whirlwind attack because it isn’t as player facing as improved divine smite it a third attack is short sighted and not looking at an entire package.
Thinking any class is just damage and dont contribute to other aspects of the game is equally short sighted. Fighter can do everything you listed for ranger except heal and paladin can do all of it except terms of engagement. And I can do all of that with 3 level ranger dip and a better combat class.
Likewise. Read the exploration rules and let’s have a conversation about travel and exploration. Meanwhile, rangers are doing 75%-85% the same damage as classes and builds that specialize in damage.
I will specify that it is natural explorer and a spell it two that make ranger king. A scout only has expertise in to skills. And anyone that has read, understands, and uses the RAW of travel and wilderness exploration knows that expertise in two skills isn’t enough.
A scout has expertise in 4 skills at level 3, in 6 skills at level 6 and 6 class/subclass proficiencies plus 2-4 more through background and race. At level 11 he has reliable talent and is rolling a minimum of 10 on rolls with any of those 8-10 skills. This will be a minimum of an 18+ intelligence/wisdom on survival and nature rolls.
The Ranger's advantage in natural terrain comes from his ability to do multiple things and to autmatically suceed at things. These override any skill scores, but from a skill point of view a scout is better positioned than a Ranger.
Proficiency or even Reliable talent doesn't guarantee a task can be completed. Matt Colville and several other dms are "known for asking how do you Know this?" or "saying that is that part of your training?" Before the player is allowed to roll. The only way to mechanically justify unconditional tracking/knowlege skills is to play a ranger with Favored enemy or Terrain.
AND at the very least a scout rogue still needs some way to avoid difficult terrain. The phb actually states most terrain is difficult terrain.
Combat rarely takes place in bare rooms or on featureless plains. Boulder-strewn caverns, briar-choked forests, treacherous staircases--the setting of a typical fight contains difficult terrain.
But adventurers often face dense forests, deep swamps, rubble-filled ruins, steep mountains, and ice-covered ground--all considered difficult terrain.
thirdly only some of the ranger boons are terrain dependent. But the skill boon only has to be related this directly contradicts the "YoU HAvE TO BE IN YouuR FAvOrED TERRAIN" argument. even IF being "restricted" to your favored terrain looking at the frequency of these situational abilities.... it is downplayed to prove a point. Who would believe some one who says a thing is weak but then uses the most restrictive and inconsistent {with other game standards} interpretations.
Sure a scout rogue is a good option for certain fantasy play but it is not a ranger and can't do many of its valuable features.
At level 11, doing 75% as much damage output, not doing an optional build for a ranger, as a fighter
I would point out three things:
1. The Ranger in this example is using inferior weapons. A stereotyipcal Ranger weapon perhaps but a weapon none the less chosen knowing that damage will not be optimal.
2. This does not consider Nature's Veil and the advantage on the attack rolls that comes with it on the turns you use it.
3. As you alluded to earlier it does not consider the better mobility and less time spent moving around the battlefield and not swinging your glaive .... err Rapier.
At level 11, doing 75% as much damage output, not doing an optional build for a ranger, as a fighter
I would point out three things:
1. The Ranger in this example is using inferior weapons. A stereotyipcal Ranger weapon perhaps but a weapon none the less chosen knowing that damage will not be optimal.
2. This does not consider Nature's Veil and the advantage on the attack rolls that comes with it on the turns you use it.
3. As you alluded to earlier it does not consider the better mobility and less time spent moving around the battlefield as opposed to swinging your glaive .... err Rapier.
Yes. This also keeps a Ranger using dexterity, which is optimal for that class. Someone should rerun the same situation, except start each combat encounter and 60, 90, and 120 feet away from the enemy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They also know that expertise in all int skills when you dump int usually is less effective then non-dumped int with proficiency.
Since natural explorer is the hill you are choosing to die on here.
1. Does nothing if you are outside your terrain
2. The faster travel is usually irrelevant. If it takes you 4 hours or 8 hours to get to town people care about as much as theives can't solving city exploration problems.
3. Cant be lost, hi cartography tools, also if the adventure is being lost. Why would you destroy a fun adventure? you monster.
4. Always alert, alert feat says hi.
5. Find double food, outlander background says hi.
6. Advantage to track, enhance ability says hi. Any group spell caster, and no I don't think it will be frequent enough that it will drain all your resources. That would be a lot of sessions built around just tracking.
Things this doesnt cover impassable terrain, teleportation and flight says hi and then laughs at ranger.
And finally, this has nothing to do with high level ranger. This is still not an argument to take ranger past 5. This is an argument to take natural explorer over deft explorer.
You’ve just told me it takes a party of four with a specific background and subclass to recreate what a ranger does.
And as I pointed out those automatic things are covered by alert feat and outlander background.
No party of 2. The feat and background is on the same character. Because if the concept is ranger, but better at combat. Your probably taking the outlander background and alert is a good feat anyway. And I a glad you ignored the final point again. Because it once again shows you missed the point entirely.
Just as we don’t need optimized builds for damage to succeed at combat, need a super powered “face of the party” to succeed at social situations, or magic to accomplish anything, everything in the game is tailored to the party at hand.
If the rules of the game are actually used natural explorer is unbeatable. People using the “Free Parking” approach to D&D exhaust me.
Party of two with a specific feat, background, and subclass, along with magic. All to do what you think is of no value. I’ll bet I can come up with to builds that combined can do what a fighter or paladin can do too.
Never naed a subclass, just a background and feat. You can drop the feat and be fine, and the magic is a common spell on every prepared caster.
Edit: still missing final point. Why should I take it past 5? I get natural explorer at 1
Right. You’re unconvinced. It’s all in the basic rules when you decide to look them up.
Why are you so focused on good damage and bad damage if the game, in your opinion, can be successfully played and “won” with any substitution?
It is about keeping up with and contributing to the part at higher levels. And you know what leads to character death most of the time? Combat. Ribbon features are flavor made ribbon features. Glad that apparently, according to you, I can get everything I need from ranger with a 1 level dip. And criticizing a class for not being mechanically very strong by comparison to the strength and flexibility of other classes is somehow a bad thing and not a way to point out system issues and break points.
You still dodge the why past 5, with a feature that you get at 1. That does nothing if you aren't in your terrain, and can be mimiced by good skills and a background in ANY terrain.
This is generally my experience as well... And what the modules offer as well.
Overall the experience is mostly covered with the right feat or just expertise in survival.
Homebrew games can offer it i'm sure but it does seem to be in the minority based on my experiences, available modules/adventures, and any real plays I've listened to...
Granted I'm not at every table but that's just what I've seen in most examples of the hobby.
I will discuss this with you all day. Want to start a new thread for it? You and I? You, and many, don’t even use the parts of the rules to have any reason to need something like NE.
Natural explorer functions so well because it is designed to work with the adventuring rules of the game. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/adventuring If your don’t use these rules at your game you won’t understand or value NE. Want to talk about it more? Let’s start a new thread.
PCs die in combats. But they die because of dice rolls not because your build does 30 DPR instead of 35 DPR. That is an optimization fallacy. The mindset that a “suboptimal build” will lead to PC deaths is ridiculous.
And these examples shape our understanding of the game. Optimus and I play at very different tables. Playing very different games based on the same rules. Again I call this Free Parking D&D.
I don't think it's not because people don't know they exist it's that the experience with them is..... whelming.
And it's important to discuss these things with whirlwind strike as if you're saying that the other ranger features are supposed to make up for the lack of damage... And they don't really offer much at most tables then it's a sign that the features may need a tweak.
Thankfully Tashas came out and did just that.
We all know you and I disagree on these topics. Tasha’s has done much to give an alternative version of what a ranger does. The complete package of a ranger is where it’s at. A team player at its finest. Control, damage dealing, exploration, buffs, terms of engagement, healing, defense, all of it. Is a hunter level 11 absolute worse compared to a fighter? That depends. I argue a fighter (or paladin) dealers need that consist bump at 11 to keep up with the ranger. Unoptimized, the ranger wins. Optimized, a fighter (or paladin) can deal slightly more damage than a ranger, some/most of the time. To disregard whirlwind attack because it isn’t as player facing as improved divine smite it a third attack is short sighted and not looking at an entire package.
Thinking any class is just damage and dont contribute to other aspects of the game is equally short sighted. Fighter can do everything you listed for ranger except heal and paladin can do all of it except terms of engagement. And I can do all of that with 3 level ranger dip and a better combat class.
It is like you ignore 95% of what I say.
Likewise. Read the exploration rules and let’s have a conversation about travel and exploration. Meanwhile, rangers are doing 75%-85% the same damage as classes and builds that specialize in damage.
Proficiency or even Reliable talent doesn't guarantee a task can be completed. Matt Colville and several other dms are "known for asking how do you Know this?" or "saying that is that part of your training?" Before the player is allowed to roll. The only way to mechanically justify unconditional tracking/knowlege skills is to play a ranger with Favored enemy or Terrain.
AND at the very least a scout rogue still needs some way to avoid difficult terrain. The phb actually states most terrain is difficult terrain.
thirdly only some of the ranger boons are terrain dependent. But the skill boon only has to be related this directly contradicts the "YoU HAvE TO BE IN YouuR FAvOrED TERRAIN" argument. even IF being "restricted" to your favored terrain looking at the frequency of these situational abilities.... it is downplayed to prove a point. Who would believe some one who says a thing is weak but then uses the most restrictive and inconsistent {with other game standards} interpretations.
Sure a scout rogue is a good option for certain fantasy play but it is not a ranger and can't do many of its valuable features.
Level 10 (over 9 rounds): Battle Master (with spear, dueling, and PAM, 1 action surge, all dice for damage) 332.5. Paladin (with spear, dueling, and PAM, 3 divine smites 1st level) 301.5. Hunter (rapier, hunter’s mark, and dueling, colossus slayer) 310.5.
Level 11 (over 9 rounds): Battle Master (with spear, dueling, and PAM, action surge, all dice for damage) 437.5. Paladin (with spear, dueling, and PAM, 3 divine smites 1st level) 423. Hunter (rapier, hunter’s mark, dueling, colossus slayer, whirlwind with 3 enemies 3 times) 334.5.
At level 11, doing 75% as much damage output, not doing an optional build for a ranger, as a fighter
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/class-forums/ranger/139106-natural-explorer
I would point out three things:
1. The Ranger in this example is using inferior weapons. A stereotyipcal Ranger weapon perhaps but a weapon none the less chosen knowing that damage will not be optimal.
2. This does not consider Nature's Veil and the advantage on the attack rolls that comes with it on the turns you use it.
3. As you alluded to earlier it does not consider the better mobility and less time spent moving around the battlefield and not swinging your glaive .... err Rapier.
Yes. This also keeps a Ranger using dexterity, which is optimal for that class. Someone should rerun the same situation, except start each combat encounter and 60, 90, and 120 feet away from the enemy.