I am going to give a real world example. I had a sea faring campaign. Thought to myself, "oh perfect, I can pick coastal for NE and have this ability active a lot". Talked to my GM and asked "hey since we are at sea is it considered 'coastal' he said no." Little weird sure, but ok. So I asked about the islands is each island going to be considered coastal. He said yes and no, that each island would have a coastal and non coastal area. Each island would be a different terrain on the inner side to explore.
I was role-playing a well traveled navigator and cartographer and I wanted to be the group's expert in this. Looking at the benefits of NE, I realized if I picked coastal 6/7ths of the feature would not come into effect. And if picked something else then my effectiveness would swing up and down from adventure to adventure. I wanted to be reliably good. So I asked about Deft Explorer.
He said sure I took nature expertise and prodigy for human for survival expertise. With cartographer tools and a custom explorer background i got 2 languages from my background 2 from deft explorer and 1 from race and primordial from favored foe for elementals. So my character spoke the native language of every sea faring race and coastal town in addition to the language of our early primary adversary. So while I had low charisma I could act as the groups translator in social encounters. But I was still the groups navigator and explorer. We got lost a couple times, but they turned to my character and we worked together to get unlost as we explored, and effectively plundered island and lost civilization after island and lost civilization. Running from wildlife meant climbing and swim speeds were integral to survival.
NE would have been better on 2 of the islands (at level 6), but the adventure was designed with the intent that we would visit and see lots of different types of terrains and adventures.
Edit: I edited out a bit that I was getting frustrated and I can do better. And I know that.
Oh also I think everyone needs a small re-read of natural explorer, specifically the related to feature
Natural Explorer
You are particularly familiar with one type of natural environment and are adept at traveling and surviving in such regions. Choose one type of favored terrain: arctic, coast, desert, forest, grassland, mountain, swamp, or the Underdark. When you make an Intelligence or Wisdom check related to your favored terrain, your proficiency bonus is doubled if you are using a skill that you’re proficient in.
So no you do not get double proficiency on everything int and wisdom for your terrain. You only get it for SKILLS and you have to be PROFICIENT in it first and it has to be related to your terrain at the time. You do not get it for tools.
Edit: this actually could mean that it is thankfully slightly less vague AND you can do things to maximize this. By taking the skilled feat rather than skill expert or any race that gives you free extra skills you can build to maximize this feature.
wow..... your right I made a huge mistake..... that changes everything......... we will have to build from the ground up. Nothing I have said could be remotely valid.
because tools definitely cannot be used with skill checks. Like having a poisoners kit and Making a DC 20 nature check to harvest free damage. Or using a Navigators tools instead of a survival check. or using an herbalism kit to make a medicine check.
Note: you actually haven't said much of anything in this thread other than to attack me, who is actually trying to have a conversation about pros and cons of one of the dominant features of the ranger class.
I mean, just look at the post you responded to. I am actively giving tips on ways to maximize this feature by taking things to give you the most amount of skills to make it trigger more often and you are still being a jerk about it.
Yeah i noticed that as well. Really tiresome.
On topic: It's a great feature but requires the DM as well as the player to get more involved than with other features. Simple expertise is a lot more reliable and thus preferred by many. Personally I only ever took Deft Explorer on characters where I wasn't particularly interested in the usual Ranger fantasy so I valued the additional mobility more. Most of the time it's Natural Explorer for me though.
While I believe I gave accurate input and was fully within the bounds of the forum rules, it is no excuse for stooping to meet that level. I will refrain from Nit-picks, hyperbole and Inconsistency validifying.
I will say only 6 of the 7 Natural explorer benefits actually require the ranger to be in said terrain. The 6 that do Are only "situational" based on being in the terrain, otherwise Deft explorer needs to be measured the exact same "situational" way.
Now NE does require some form work from the ranger player. However, just because people use it wrong or take advantage of its features doesn't make it Poorly designed. Even games that only care about combat encounters can still take advantage of natural explorer. The fact that a ranger can start a traveling combat encounter hidden{bullet point 4. Traveling alone but at the same speed as the group 30' away is perfectly valid.}, with more resources/liquidatable assets alone effect combat performance. {Bullet points 3 and 5}
Now I did want to talk about that bullet point 4. Because I had noticed you talk about it with the other person thankfully, but didn't want to get into it, if it was just going to be the back and forth it has been, but I am hoping things are a little more calmed down. Again this is a little GM dependent because, as a GM, if you are travelling alone, you are specifically not travelling with the group. Which means if they get in combat, you are not in combat with them. Also you need to be travelling with the group for the group to benefit from bullet point 2 and 3. Which means they can now get lost and they are hindered by difficult terrain. And since you need to travel in your terrain for 1 hour for this to take effect, if you were travelling alone, stealthy at normal pace not hindered by terrain and the rest of the party is hindered by terrain then at minimum, even if you have sending stones for them to contact you to come back and help, you are 30 minutes out. Also if they get lost, it is a good thing you have bullet 7 because now you have to track them down. This is why I do not put much stock in bullet point 4 because, in most situation, you are going to be travelling with the group, not travelling alone. Maybe if you are an elf where you can take a full rest in 4 hours and want to use the extra 4 hours of time the rest of the party is resting for to "scout ahead" there could be a benefit here, but definitely none of the GM's I play with or myself would define travelling alone as travelling with the group just off to the side.
This is where that first video/second video I was talking about with nonat1 really comes into play. vagueness of a feature can be great for experienced DM's and players, but sometimes things can be written TOO simply. and more specificity and consistency helps.
That is the tiny issue with your example earlier with the stress test with your group. It works, For your group. Your group rules the abilities specific ways and sets up their combat encounters a specific way. In a different group that is less kind to NE and sets up combat encounters where climbing and swimming is more common place or encounters that are more plentiful or harder for the group to be taking more unavoidable damage you are going to get different results.
Maybe you wanted to play ranger, but the GM has said this is mostly a city campaign. Some of the skills might matter, but it may not matter as much as having expertise in stealth, or slight of hand, or persuasion, or deception. Deft explorer is a way to get expertise with non-int and wisdom skills as well. And of course Languages are going to help in a seedy underworld of a city.
Anyway this has been a small rant. I hope it can remain more civil in the future.
Edit: maybe if they are traveling along a road, thus no difficult terrain and you are traveling like 600 feet out through your favored terrain. That would be in long bow range. It is a stretch, but I would probably allow it. Would feel more confident if 1000, sharpshooter would help with that though.
Why do you assume a ranger traveling alone will not start the combat with the party? You can travel at the same pace so why wouldn't you only be 30'-60'ft away. That's still yelling distance for warning or course correction but also enough to still remain hidden.
The game does not allow the dm to quantify the state of the ranger{beyond fiat}. if I take the doge action the dm cant say no you don't. a ranger defines their "with the party" or "without the party" state. They also define their location not the DM. The incompatibility of all these features is theoretical and requires "Lawyering" by the dm not the player. Its lawyering to the point of complexity beyond the set standards of the game. at that point active choices are being made to shutdown specific class features.
Anecdotes prove possibility but have no reflection on probability {frequency} or causality. I say there are several indicators the Gm was actively denying class features of your seafaring example. You were pushed to a choice by denial of service. whether intentional or accidental the gm was being unfair the problem or cause Lies there. nowhere else.
I am going to give a real world example. I had a sea faring campaign. Thought to myself, "oh perfect, I can pick coastal for NE and have this ability active a lot". Talked to my GM and asked "hey since we are at sea is it considered 'coastal' he said no." Little weird sure, but ok. So I asked about the islands is each island going to be considered coastal. He said yes and no, that each island would have a coastal and non coastal area. Each island would be a different terrain on the inner side to explore.
I was role-playing a well traveled navigator and cartographer and I wanted to be the group's expert in this. Looking at the benefits of NE, I realized if I picked coastal 6/7ths of the feature would not come into effect. And if picked something else then my effectiveness would swing up and down from adventure to adventure. I wanted to be reliably good. So I asked about Deft Explorer.
He said sure I took nature expertise and prodigy for human for survival expertise. With cartographer tools and a custom explorer background i got 2 languages from my background 2 from deft explorer and 1 from race and primordial from favored foe for elementals. So my character spoke the native language of every sea faring race and coastal town in addition to the language of our early primary adversary. So while I had low charisma I could act as the groups translator in social encounters. But I was still the groups navigator and explorer. We got lost a couple times, but they turned to my character and we worked together to get unlost as we explored, and effectively plundered island and lost civilization after island and lost civilization. Running from wildlife meant climbing and swim speeds were integral to survival.
NE would have been better on 2 of the islands (at level 6), but the adventure was designed with the intent that we would visit and see lots of different types of terrains and adventures.
Edit: I edited out a bit that I was getting frustrated and I can do better. And I know that.
How much exploring and traveling did you do in that campaign? NE, FE, illusion magic, social skills, tools, languages, adventuring gear, knowledge checks, and a lot of other parts in the game are open to the DM and their willingness/ability to engage the player in what they are trying to do. Why take anything that doesn't give a boost to combat if we only want something that works without the influence of the DM?
I'm sorry your NE got cutdown by the DM. Why do you suppose they did that? I played a sea faring campaign with a handbook ranger and had the opposite effect. It was that wonderful JVC Parry campaign. Lots of fun for everyone. Nothing was boring or handwaved. Nothing was broken.
Oh also I think everyone needs a small re-read of natural explorer, specifically the related to feature
Natural Explorer
You are particularly familiar with one type of natural environment and are adept at traveling and surviving in such regions. Choose one type of favored terrain: arctic, coast, desert, forest, grassland, mountain, swamp, or the Underdark. When you make an Intelligence or Wisdom check related to your favored terrain, your proficiency bonus is doubled if you are using a skill that you’re proficient in.
So no you do not get double proficiency on everything int and wisdom for your terrain. You only get it for SKILLS and you have to be PROFICIENT in it first and it has to be related to your terrain at the time. You do not get it for tools.
Edit: this actually could mean that it is thankfully slightly less vague AND you can do things to maximize this. By taking the skilled feat rather than skill expert or any race that gives you free extra skills you can build to maximize this feature.
wow..... your right I made a huge mistake..... that changes everything......... we will have to build from the ground up. Nothing I have said could be remotely valid.
because tools definitely cannot be used with skill checks. Like having a poisoners kit and Making a DC 20 nature check to harvest free damage. Or using a Navigators tools instead of a survival check. or using an herbalism kit to make a medicine check.
Note: you actually haven't said much of anything in this thread other than to attack me, who is actually trying to have a conversation about pros and cons of one of the dominant features of the ranger class.
I mean, just look at the post you responded to. I am actively giving tips on ways to maximize this feature by taking things to give you the most amount of skills to make it trigger more often and you are still being a jerk about it.
Yeah i noticed that as well. Really tiresome.
On topic: It's a great feature but requires the DM as well as the player to get more involved than with other features. Simple expertise is a lot more reliable and thus preferred by many. Personally I only ever took Deft Explorer on characters where I wasn't particularly interested in the usual Ranger fantasy so I valued the additional mobility more. Most of the time it's Natural Explorer for me though.
While I believe I gave accurate input and was fully within the bounds of the forum rules, it is no excuse for stooping to meet that level. I will refrain from Nit-picks, hyperbole and Inconsistency validifying.
I will say only 6 of the 7 Natural explorer benefits actually require the ranger to be in said terrain. The 6 that do Are only "situational" based on being in the terrain, otherwise Deft explorer needs to be measured the exact same "situational" way.
Now NE does require some form work from the ranger player. However, just because people use it wrong or take advantage of its features doesn't make it Poorly designed. Even games that only care about combat encounters can still take advantage of natural explorer. The fact that a ranger can start a traveling combat encounter hidden{bullet point 4. Traveling alone but at the same speed as the group 30' away is perfectly valid.}, with more resources/liquidatable assets alone effect combat performance. {Bullet points 3 and 5}
Now I did want to talk about that bullet point 4. Because I had noticed you talk about it with the other person thankfully, but didn't want to get into it, if it was just going to be the back and forth it has been, but I am hoping things are a little more calmed down. Again this is a little GM dependent because, as a GM, if you are travelling alone, you are specifically not travelling with the group. Which means if they get in combat, you are not in combat with them. Also you need to be travelling with the group for the group to benefit from bullet point 2 and 3. Which means they can now get lost and they are hindered by difficult terrain. And since you need to travel in your terrain for 1 hour for this to take effect, if you were travelling alone, stealthy at normal pace not hindered by terrain and the rest of the party is hindered by terrain then at minimum, even if you have sending stones for them to contact you to come back and help, you are 30 minutes out. Also if they get lost, it is a good thing you have bullet 7 because now you have to track them down. This is why I do not put much stock in bullet point 4 because, in most situation, you are going to be travelling with the group, not travelling alone. Maybe if you are an elf where you can take a full rest in 4 hours and want to use the extra 4 hours of time the rest of the party is resting for to "scout ahead" there could be a benefit here, but definitely none of the GM's I play with or myself would define travelling alone as travelling with the group just off to the side.
This is where that first video/second video I was talking about with nonat1 really comes into play. vagueness of a feature can be great for experienced DM's and players, but sometimes things can be written TOO simply. and more specificity and consistency helps.
That is the tiny issue with your example earlier with the stress test with your group. It works, For your group. Your group rules the abilities specific ways and sets up their combat encounters a specific way. In a different group that is less kind to NE and sets up combat encounters where climbing and swimming is more common place or encounters that are more plentiful or harder for the group to be taking more unavoidable damage you are going to get different results.
Maybe you wanted to play ranger, but the GM has said this is mostly a city campaign. Some of the skills might matter, but it may not matter as much as having expertise in stealth, or slight of hand, or persuasion, or deception. Deft explorer is a way to get expertise with non-int and wisdom skills as well. And of course Languages are going to help in a seedy underworld of a city.
Anyway this has been a small rant. I hope it can remain more civil in the future.
Edit: maybe if they are traveling along a road, thus no difficult terrain and you are traveling like 600 feet out through your favored terrain. That would be in long bow range. It is a stretch, but I would probably allow it. Would feel more confident if 1000, sharpshooter would help with that though.
Why do you assume a ranger traveling alone will not start the combat with the party? You can travel at the same pace so why wouldn't you only be 30'-60'ft away. That's still yelling distance for warning or course correction but also enough to still remain hidden.
The game does not allow the dm to quantify the state of the ranger{beyond fiat}. if I take the doge action the dm cant say no you don't. a ranger defines their "with the party" or "without the party" state. They also define their location not the DM. The incompatibility of all these features is theoretical and requires "Lawyering" by the dm not the player. Its lawyering to the point of complexity beyond the set standards of the game. at that point active choices are being made to shutdown specific class features.
Anecdotes prove possibility but have no reflection on probability {frequency} or causality. I say there are several indicators the Gm was actively denying class features of your seafaring example. You were pushed to a choice by denial of service. whether intentional or accidental the gm was being unfair the problem or cause Lies there. nowhere else.
To be fair, I agree with Aquilontune that staying in yelling distance to the group is technically still traveling with the group. Just in a loose formation. Traveling in a group doesn't mean that you are travelling in hugging distance, it means that you are staying close enough together to help each other out when necessary (for example when there's fighting to do).
I think we should all read the audible distances from the DM screen.
The Dungeon Master Screen(s) (as mentioned by Frank) have a small section on audible distances that, quite frankly, should be included in an actual book, and possibly expanded on. It's a great start, and very useful to know.
Basically, when a character is trying to be quiet, they can typically only be heard 2d6 x 5ft (35ft) away, when they're at a normal noise level it's 2d6 x 10ft (70ft), and being really loud is 2d6 x 50ft (350ft). You can use this as a base / starting point and then change it up based on the situation. Let's take sneaking up on a bandit camp as an example. Is it quiet in / around the camp? Are the bandits talking / fighting / partying, or are they keeping watch? These things affect ones ability to hear sounds. So, if we take 35ft as the base range for someone to be heard when they're trying to be quiet, anything outside that range would be difficult to hear. The bandits are making noise, and not keeping watch, so they probably won't notice much sounds beyond 25ft. But the Cleric wearing Chain Mail rolled poor on Stealth, so they're making noise at a normal level. The Cleric can probably be heard within 50ft (70ft as the average for the "normal" range, with a 20ft penalty for the Bandits as they're also making noise and not paying attention).
With that in mind, the stealthy Rogue can stay 25ft from the Bandits (Stealth beat their Passive Perception, and they're trying to be quiet while approaching loud enemies), and then the Cleric would need to be at least 25ft even further back (Stealth did not beat the Bandits Passive Perception, and while they're trying to be quiet, they're failing to do so).
If the Bandits were also quiet, the Rogue could only get within 35ft before they would at least need to make another Stealth check (maybe with disadvantage for being so close), and the Cleric could only get within 70ft. If the Bandits were quiet AND alerted to potential danger / keeping guard, then the Rogue would probably only get to within 45ft, while the Cleric would only get to within about 90ft.
So, use the "Audible Distance" table on the DM Screen as a starting reference, and allow successful Stealth to be "quiet" (35ft.) while unsuccessful Stealth be "normal" volume (70ft.), and then make the audible ranges longer or shorter depending on the circumstances.
When it comes to surprise, anyone who is outside of the audible range for their own Stealth vs the enemies Perception check (or Passive Perception), and who hasn't otherwise been spotted visually (i.e. hidden in the trees, not just out in the middle of a path), can have a surprise round. After all, an Cleric who stays far enough back can just as easily get a surprise Guiding Bolt off at the same time that the Rogue fires a sneak attack from a bow or throws a dagger. The enemy, if unaware of their presence, would be just as taken by surprise, and each turn is supposedly happening simultaneously anyway.
Nociting Other Creatures: While exploring, characters might encounter other creatures. An important question in such a situation is who notices whom. Indoors, whether the sides can see one another usually depends on the configuration of rooms and passageways. Vision might also be limited by light sources. Outdoor visibility can be hampered by terrain, weather, and time of day. Creatures can be more likely to hear one another before they see anything. If neither side is being stealthy, creatures automatically notice each other once they are within sight or hearing range of one another. Otherwise, compare the Dexterity (Stealth) check results of the creatures in the group that is hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the other group, as explained in the Player's Handbook.
This means there is direct mechanical justification for Being stealthy 60' away as traveling alone. one group is stealthy the other isn't. saying "they have to be the same party" has no game play justification except as active feature denial.
I am going to give a real world example. I had a sea faring campaign. Thought to myself, "oh perfect, I can pick coastal for NE and have this ability active a lot". Talked to my GM and asked "hey since we are at sea is it considered 'coastal' he said no." Little weird sure, but ok. So I asked about the islands is each island going to be considered coastal. He said yes and no, that each island would have a coastal and non coastal area. Each island would be a different terrain on the inner side to explore.
I was role-playing a well traveled navigator and cartographer and I wanted to be the group's expert in this. Looking at the benefits of NE, I realized if I picked coastal 6/7ths of the feature would not come into effect. And if picked something else then my effectiveness would swing up and down from adventure to adventure. I wanted to be reliably good. So I asked about Deft Explorer.
He said sure I took nature expertise and prodigy for human for survival expertise. With cartographer tools and a custom explorer background i got 2 languages from my background 2 from deft explorer and 1 from race and primordial from favored foe for elementals. So my character spoke the native language of every sea faring race and coastal town in addition to the language of our early primary adversary. So while I had low charisma I could act as the groups translator in social encounters. But I was still the groups navigator and explorer. We got lost a couple times, but they turned to my character and we worked together to get unlost as we explored, and effectively plundered island and lost civilization after island and lost civilization. Running from wildlife meant climbing and swim speeds were integral to survival.
NE would have been better on 2 of the islands (at level 6), but the adventure was designed with the intent that we would visit and see lots of different types of terrains and adventures.
Edit: I edited out a bit that I was getting frustrated and I can do better. And I know that.
How much exploring and traveling did you do in that campaign? NE, FE, illusion magic, social skills, tools, languages, adventuring gear, knowledge checks, and a lot of other parts in the game are open to the DM and their willingness/ability to engage the player in what they are trying to do. Why take anything that doesn't give a boost to combat if we only want something that works without the influence of the DM?
I'm sorry your NE got cutdown by the DM. Why do you suppose they did that? I played a sea faring campaign with a handbook ranger and had the opposite effect. It was that wonderful JVC Parry campaign. Lots of fun for everyone. Nothing was boring or handwaved. Nothing was broken.
It was constant exploration. Never ending. In fact, in that game, the environment was designed to be just as dangerous if not moe dangerous than some of the encounters. It was kind of star trek inspired if you will. A group of adventurers boldly going where no one had gone before. It was fantastic, and I am positive a different ruling in a different game would have been awesome with NE. NE is super good, in the right game, with the right dm. But my argument just because its not for that game or gm, does not mean that it is bad, the gm is bad or that the players are ignoring a pillar of the game.
Edit: for clarity this is also the case with FE (which again I took, rangers have so many spells I like to concentrate on I didn't feel I would find a use for FF). And with illusions and divination spells, 2 of my favorite types in the game. In some games they arw game breakingly good, in others they are worthless and in others they are just fun. I know to talk to my DM before choosing my favorite spells.
The Dungeon Master Screen(s) (as mentioned by Frank) have a small section on audible distances that, quite frankly, should be included in an actual book, and possibly expanded on. It's a great start, and very useful to know.
Basically, when a character is trying to be quiet, they can typically only be heard 2d6 x 5ft (35ft) away, when they're at a normal noise level it's 2d6 x 10ft (70ft), and being really loud is 2d6 x 50ft (350ft). You can use this as a base / starting point and then change it up based on the situation. Let's take sneaking up on a bandit camp as an example. Is it quiet in / around the camp? Are the bandits talking / fighting / partying, or are they keeping watch? These things affect ones ability to hear sounds. So, if we take 35ft as the base range for someone to be heard when they're trying to be quiet, anything outside that range would be difficult to hear. The bandits are making noise, and not keeping watch, so they probably won't notice much sounds beyond 25ft. But the Cleric wearing Chain Mail rolled poor on Stealth, so they're making noise at a normal level. The Cleric can probably be heard within 50ft (70ft as the average for the "normal" range, with a 20ft penalty for the Bandits as they're also making noise and not paying attention).
With that in mind, the stealthy Rogue can stay 25ft from the Bandits (Stealth beat their Passive Perception, and they're trying to be quiet while approaching loud enemies), and then the Cleric would need to be at least 25ft even further back (Stealth did not beat the Bandits Passive Perception, and while they're trying to be quiet, they're failing to do so).
If the Bandits were also quiet, the Rogue could only get within 35ft before they would at least need to make another Stealth check (maybe with disadvantage for being so close), and the Cleric could only get within 70ft. If the Bandits were quiet AND alerted to potential danger / keeping guard, then the Rogue would probably only get to within 45ft, while the Cleric would only get to within about 90ft.
So, use the "Audible Distance" table on the DM Screen as a starting reference, and allow successful Stealth to be "quiet" (35ft.) while unsuccessful Stealth be "normal" volume (70ft.), and then make the audible ranges longer or shorter depending on the circumstances.
When it comes to surprise, anyone who is outside of the audible range for their own Stealth vs the enemies Perception check (or Passive Perception), and who hasn't otherwise been spotted visually (i.e. hidden in the trees, not just out in the middle of a path), can have a surprise round. After all, an Cleric who stays far enough back can just as easily get a surprise Guiding Bolt off at the same time that the Rogue fires a sneak attack from a bow or throws a dagger. The enemy, if unaware of their presence, would be just as taken by surprise, and each turn is supposedly happening simultaneously anyway.
Nociting Other Creatures: While exploring, characters might encounter other creatures. An important question in such a situation is who notices whom. Indoors, whether the sides can see one another usually depends on the configuration of rooms and passageways. Vision might also be limited by light sources. Outdoor visibility can be hampered by terrain, weather, and time of day. Creatures can be more likely to hear one another before they see anything. If neither side is being stealthy, creatures automatically notice each other once they are within sight or hearing range of one another. Otherwise, compare the Dexterity (Stealth) check results of the creatures in the group that is hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the other group, as explained in the Player's Handbook.
This means there is direct mechanical justification for Being stealthy 60' away as traveling alone. one group is stealthy the other isn't. saying "they have to be the same party" has no game play justification except as active feature denial.
Edit: someone said it better. Up to your dm, if yours allows it more power to you. I have given my case where I would allow it. Party on a road around 600 feet away go for it. The party can yell loud to alert you.
Edit: if you are travelling alone you are travelling alone, if you are travelling with a party you are not travelling alone by definition of the word alone. Find me something in the dmg that defines travelling alone and I will grant it and change my ruling.
Regardless its only relevance to the debate is that other dms can rule it my way to and it is perfectly reasonable with how it is worded.
If it said "while travelling you can move stealthily at a normal pace alongside your party". Then sure, but it's not.
Another way a player can help maximize NE while taking advantage of some of the rangers other features.
1. The ranger has a d10 health while also being able to be highly effective from range with good dex. Since most classes only have a d8 and start and keep 14 con most of the way you can actually take a 12 in con and still have 1 more health than most of the party at all levels. With standard array this allows you to have a 16 or 17 in dex, 12 con, 14 int and 14 wis at level 1.
2. The rangers spell casting means you don't actually need proficiency in stealth to be good when you need it thanks to pass without trace. This means you can focus all your ranger skills on wis and int based skills.
Edit: and of course, as I have mentioned a way to maximize DE and FE is you can give yourself expertise in the int skill you use to recall info about your FE and FE will give you advantage. Since NE only gives you expertise related to your terrain and your fe is not always related to your terrain, this is a reliable way to get expertise and advantage for info against a particular type of enemy.
1. The ranger has a d10 health while also being able to be highly effective from range with good dex. Since most classes only have a d8 and start and keep 14 con most of the way you can actually take a 12 in con and still have 1 more health than most of the party at all levels. With standard array this allows you to have a 16 or 17 in dex, 12 con, 14 int and 14 wis at level 1.
I'd really advise against that. Rangers have too many concentration spells, low amount of spell slots and no inherent proficiency in CON saves to sacrifice your CON just because your hit dice doesn't already suck. You are just shooting yourself into the foot that way.
I would agree....
probably the biggest combat weakness of ranger as their best spells are concentration based. In fact I think its generally better to take resilient CON on 8th level rather than max out DEX
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am going to give a real world example. I had a sea faring campaign. Thought to myself, "oh perfect, I can pick coastal for NE and have this ability active a lot". Talked to my GM and asked "hey since we are at sea is it considered 'coastal' he said no." Little weird sure, but ok. So I asked about the islands is each island going to be considered coastal. He said yes and no, that each island would have a coastal and non coastal area. Each island would be a different terrain on the inner side to explore.
I was role-playing a well traveled navigator and cartographer and I wanted to be the group's expert in this. Looking at the benefits of NE, I realized if I picked coastal 6/7ths of the feature would not come into effect. And if picked something else then my effectiveness would swing up and down from adventure to adventure. I wanted to be reliably good. So I asked about Deft Explorer.
He said sure I took nature expertise and prodigy for human for survival expertise. With cartographer tools and a custom explorer background i got 2 languages from my background 2 from deft explorer and 1 from race and primordial from favored foe for elementals. So my character spoke the native language of every sea faring race and coastal town in addition to the language of our early primary adversary. So while I had low charisma I could act as the groups translator in social encounters. But I was still the groups navigator and explorer. We got lost a couple times, but they turned to my character and we worked together to get unlost as we explored, and effectively plundered island and lost civilization after island and lost civilization. Running from wildlife meant climbing and swim speeds were integral to survival.
NE would have been better on 2 of the islands (at level 6), but the adventure was designed with the intent that we would visit and see lots of different types of terrains and adventures.
Edit: I edited out a bit that I was getting frustrated and I can do better. And I know that.
Why do you assume a ranger traveling alone will not start the combat with the party? You can travel at the same pace so why wouldn't you only be 30'-60'ft away. That's still yelling distance for warning or course correction but also enough to still remain hidden.
The game does not allow the dm to quantify the state of the ranger{beyond fiat}. if I take the doge action the dm cant say no you don't. a ranger defines their "with the party" or "without the party" state. They also define their location not the DM. The incompatibility of all these features is theoretical and requires "Lawyering" by the dm not the player. Its lawyering to the point of complexity beyond the set standards of the game. at that point active choices are being made to shutdown specific class features.
Anecdotes prove possibility but have no reflection on probability {frequency} or causality. I say there are several indicators the Gm was actively denying class features of your seafaring example. You were pushed to a choice by denial of service. whether intentional or accidental the gm was being unfair the problem or cause Lies there. nowhere else.
How much exploring and traveling did you do in that campaign? NE, FE, illusion magic, social skills, tools, languages, adventuring gear, knowledge checks, and a lot of other parts in the game are open to the DM and their willingness/ability to engage the player in what they are trying to do. Why take anything that doesn't give a boost to combat if we only want something that works without the influence of the DM?
I'm sorry your NE got cutdown by the DM. Why do you suppose they did that? I played a sea faring campaign with a handbook ranger and had the opposite effect. It was that wonderful JVC Parry campaign. Lots of fun for everyone. Nothing was boring or handwaved. Nothing was broken.
I think we should all read the audible distances from the DM screen.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/dungeon-masters-only/55412-distance-and-sound-perception
This means there is direct mechanical justification for Being stealthy 60' away as traveling alone. one group is stealthy the other isn't. saying "they have to be the same party" has no game play justification except as active feature denial.
It was constant exploration. Never ending. In fact, in that game, the environment was designed to be just as dangerous if not moe dangerous than some of the encounters. It was kind of star trek inspired if you will. A group of adventurers boldly going where no one had gone before. It was fantastic, and I am positive a different ruling in a different game would have been awesome with NE. NE is super good, in the right game, with the right dm. But my argument just because its not for that game or gm, does not mean that it is bad, the gm is bad or that the players are ignoring a pillar of the game.
Edit: for clarity this is also the case with FE (which again I took, rangers have so many spells I like to concentrate on I didn't feel I would find a use for FF). And with illusions and divination spells, 2 of my favorite types in the game. In some games they arw game breakingly good, in others they are worthless and in others they are just fun. I know to talk to my DM before choosing my favorite spells.
Edit: someone said it better. Up to your dm, if yours allows it more power to you. I have given my case where I would allow it. Party on a road around 600 feet away go for it. The party can yell loud to alert you.
Edit: if you are travelling alone you are travelling alone, if you are travelling with a party you are not travelling alone by definition of the word alone. Find me something in the dmg that defines travelling alone and I will grant it and change my ruling.
Regardless its only relevance to the debate is that other dms can rule it my way to and it is perfectly reasonable with how it is worded.
If it said "while travelling you can move stealthily at a normal pace alongside your party". Then sure, but it's not.
Another way a player can help maximize NE while taking advantage of some of the rangers other features.
1. The ranger has a d10 health while also being able to be highly effective from range with good dex. Since most classes only have a d8 and start and keep 14 con most of the way you can actually take a 12 in con and still have 1 more health than most of the party at all levels. With standard array this allows you to have a 16 or 17 in dex, 12 con, 14 int and 14 wis at level 1.
2. The rangers spell casting means you don't actually need proficiency in stealth to be good when you need it thanks to pass without trace. This means you can focus all your ranger skills on wis and int based skills.
Edit: and of course, as I have mentioned a way to maximize DE and FE is you can give yourself expertise in the int skill you use to recall info about your FE and FE will give you advantage. Since NE only gives you expertise related to your terrain and your fe is not always related to your terrain, this is a reliable way to get expertise and advantage for info against a particular type of enemy.
To be fair it is only a sacrifice of +1, but you are still probably right. I was just thinking of ways to maximize this one feature.
I would agree....
probably the biggest combat weakness of ranger as their best spells are concentration based. In fact I think its generally better to take resilient CON on 8th level rather than max out DEX