My ballparks are as well informed as I can be with the information I have available. Feel free to make your own of you feel they are not accurate but I disagree that any opinion here is "weak" as that's a juvenile way of looking at it. I'm in no way being "sleazy" as I'm just expressing my opinion and have stated such many times.
We all have different experiences and to say yours is "stronger" is a fallacy as no such thing exists.
As for the exploration pillar.... It's hard to call it a pillar of the game if it's not a significant portion of the game for most and all I would like is additional content to bring it up a bit.
Combat and social encounters seem robust enough, albeit for different reasons, but the exploration pillar is lacking IMO.
This is why certain aspects of ranger suffer as the content is not there to make it shine for more than a brief moment.
Your ballparks might be well-informed, but we don't have the same information you do. Or, at least, we don't know if we do or not because you have a habit of leaving your statements unqualified. This, in turn, has led a number of your opinionated statements to be presented as if they were facts. We all know how facts and opinions can look and feel similar, but they are not the same. You need to qualify your statements. And if anything is based in something more concrete than your own, personal experiences, then please share with the rest of the class.
As for the exploration pillar, it's present everywhere. The pillars are not unto themselves disparate elements of the game. They interweave together to create a complete experience. If you're trekking across the wilderness, that's exploration. If you're dungeon-delving, say in The Sunless Citadel, that's exploration. If you're visiting Candlekeep to gather information from the library, that's exploration. If you're walking door-to-door, asking local residents about missing people, that's exploration. If an adult red dragon is using a Legendary Action in the middle of combat to perceive a hidden rogue, that's exploration. If a spellcaster is using their Reaction to attempt an Intelligence (Arcana) check to identify the spell being cast by an enemy spellcaster, that's exploration.
Compartmentalization, which if I'm reading this correctly is what you do, is a terrible way to look at the game.
I'll have to disagree with you on most of this as I definitely don't see those things as exploration at all but that's your definition and that's fine.
My ballparks are as well informed as I can be with the information I have available. Feel free to make your own of you feel they are not accurate but I disagree that any opinion here is "weak" as that's a juvenile way of looking at it. I'm in no way being "sleazy" as I'm just expressing my opinion and have stated such many times.
We all have different experiences and to say yours is "stronger" is a fallacy as no such thing exists.
As for the exploration pillar.... It's hard to call it a pillar of the game if it's not a significant portion of the game for most and all I would like is additional content to bring it up a bit.
Combat and social encounters seem robust enough, albeit for different reasons, but the exploration pillar is lacking IMO.
This is why certain aspects of ranger suffer as the content is not there to make it shine for more than a brief moment.
Your ballparks might be well-informed, but we don't have the same information you do. Or, at least, we don't know if we do or not because you have a habit of leaving your statements unqualified. This, in turn, has led a number of your opinionated statements to be presented as if they were facts. We all know how facts and opinions can look and feel similar, but they are not the same. You need to qualify your statements. And if anything is based in something more concrete than your own, personal experiences, then please share with the rest of the class.
As for the exploration pillar, it's present everywhere. The pillars are not unto themselves disparate elements of the game. They interweave together to create a complete experience. If you're trekking across the wilderness, that's exploration. If you're dungeon-delving, say in The Sunless Citadel, that's exploration. If you're visiting Candlekeep to gather information from the library, that's exploration. If you're walking door-to-door, asking local residents about missing people, that's exploration. If an adult red dragon is using a Legendary Action in the middle of combat to perceive a hidden rogue, that's exploration. If a spellcaster is using their Reaction to attempt an Intelligence (Arcana) check to identify the spell being cast by an enemy spellcaster, that's exploration.
Compartmentalization, which if I'm reading this correctly is what you do, is a terrible way to look at the game.
I'll have to disagree with you on most of this as I definitely don't see those things as exploration at all but that's your definition and that's fine.
The adult red dragon is pushing the bounds of exploration.
But most of the rest of what he named is part of the Exploration Pillar. It's Called Exploration because your looking aruond and discovering the various parts of the world that has been built for you. So it's heavily intertwined and interacted with in lots of ways that are not strictly combat or social interactions. But if those social interactions are part of say a moving combat where your learning new things about the environment while fighting or a social interaction that is also discovering more about the world then this means that it is not only combat or social interaction but also exploration. But when speaking you do often ignore the exploration aspects of things (even when using them as proof of things your promoting). Or you minimize their importance and impact as much as you can. usually with unfounded and unsupported arguments that everything is just a survival roll or it's not engaging because a ranger makes it easier for example. Even though many of these dice rolls that your claiming that something like a Scout Rogue can do better can be just as easily unengaging. Specially if they are so guaranteed to succeed as you tend to couch your opinions in, which ultimately if they are always going to succeed anyway because of something like expertise then it is just as unengaging because it makes the dice roll basically rote and redundant despite the fact that the realistic truth is that it's not as redundant Or necessarily superior as you often state things.
I will not reiterate the points on this but I feel that if anyone can get a decent survival and that check is that is required I feel it makes the aspects they included in NE to not even be utilized and therefore underwhelming.
Underwhelming translates to some (not myself but others) into "underpowered".
You have your opinions on it and I respect that but I see/feel that the value is lessened by this approach and therefore the feature does feel underwhelming.
I think it slipped by. I'm saying much more. The survival thing is a check anyone can make anyway. Just like all checks. NE and FE by themselves have great uses and perks, and a survival check is one small piece of one of them. They both offer much more than that alone, things a simple check can't do, and together with the other class and subclass abilities and spells, they form a dangerous combination. I'm saying few builds are going to even take survival and boost wisdom at the same time. Fewer still are going to invest in the way that scout rogue demands. The point is, by default, rangers are better at the whole travel and survival thing than almost all other classes, save for highly specialized builds.
I guess another example would be, what single class would be most effective at leading a medium group of commoners through any kind of terrain/landscape? I say ranger.
Maybe... Or a fighter that took skill expert and outlander background. They would be better in a forest then a ranger who took mountain in NE... If it's just a survival check to figure it out.
If they had more fleshed out challenges then yeah it's going to be ranger.
1. Again a build investing in doing something (background, at least one feat, pumping wisdom) that a ranger does naturally (pun intended). 2. Only by your severely devalued and underestimated example of what it would take to do something like that (which I don't think is actually what you think, just what you are saying to play the devil's advocate in these discussions). 3. No. A ranger not in their favored terrain would have a 10% less chance of making a survival role that this mythical fighter would make, but the rest is not even close. Just the spells alone...
It's not even this true. It's just comparing all these extra resources to the Fighter to make it do what the Ranger does, and supposedly better, But it's compared against a ranger that doesn't hasn't been given it's own enhancements. Now it's possible, and maybe even likely that the ranger Took a different ASI, took a Different Feat, and took a different Background. But the Truth is the ranger can take all these same things. Outlander is a solid background for any Ranger surprisingly enough. It fits not only their theme but it actually frees up one, if not two, proficiencies so that the Ranger can put them in other things. Whether that is knowledges, other physical skills such as stealth, or into their options such as Insight or Perception that are good on all characters. Plus the bonuses gained from the outlander's feature just enhances and adds to the Rangers natural skills instead of redundantly overlapping them.
If you choose to focus the Ranger into these skills to the same level you would this fighter (which is what? the 4th class used to try to compare?). The Ranger is still going to do it better. Because they are going to have Expertise in Survival. They are going to have a background feature that enhances certain aspects of Survival automatically, and then on top of that your going to have class features that further enhance and expand those skills as well as provide other ones. So sure you've solved the weapon and Armor issue that the Rogue had. But you still haven't fixed the issues but you introduce other ones like issues with Stealth as compared to the ranger, and you still haven't solved certain issues such as around getting lost and other details that the rogue had as well.
Not only that but Outlander Stacks with what the Ranger does. So the Ranger can potentially feed the party and a pack animals/mounts between the two. i don't remember how much allowance Tomb of annihilation for things like mounts or pack animals. It's been quite a while for me.
Also. Navigation rolls are not "do it at the start and then it's not doing anything anymore". It's a roll that represents the time that you spend doing it so your attention is occupied on making sure the group is going the right way. So Passive Perception does not help the navigator unless they have the ability to be perceptive while being active. So saying PP is passive and automatic after the initial roll is another misrepresentation of the workings of abilities (one that many people mistakenly make).
If you get a pack animal native to Chult it finds its own food and water so no rolls needed there but a good thought.
(I hate how this system does wierd things when you try deleting sometimes)
Anyway. I want to touch on this. Unless the Module specifically says that the specific animals you get will feed themselves. They do not feed themselves even in Chult. You have to feed them. however. That is just chult and is a specific circumstance. Any pack animals that you have with you in other environments and other campaigns will not do this and do not do this by default. They are domesticated creatures and you have to do this for them. Abuse and Neglect of Pack Animals and Mounts is actually one of the most common hidden "abuses" done in games that is never addressed. With large numbers of them left to die because they just get left behind and nothing is done to actually see to tend to them at all, even on an assumed level in some cases.
I am very comfortable conceding to the idea that a scout rogue, cleric or druid, and archer fighter would definitely surpass a Ranger in the travel/survival game.
I am very comfortable conceding to the idea that a scout rogue, cleric or druid, and archer fighter would definitely surpass a Ranger in the travel/survival game.
Assuming of course they collectively took the correct backgrounds, skill proficiencies, feats, and selected spells.
I am very comfortable conceding to the idea that a scout rogue, cleric or druid, and archer fighter would definitely surpass a Ranger in the travel/survival game.
Assuming of course they collectively took the correct backgrounds, skill proficiencies, feats, and selected spells.
And the ranger took none of them and is never in it's favored Terrain while still taking that feature.
Edit: And that's really the rub isn't it... all those asterisks tacked on.
You can create a ranger of sorts out of other classes but you have to give up much of what that class does and it’s better than a deoptimized ranger in the long run. When you actually compare it to a well optimized ranger under a DM that can actually do the exploration leg it is at best no better than the ranger at rangering and much poorer at what it should be focused on.
Why do people keep insisting on trying to contort other classes into off-brand Rangers?
Sure, you could try to make a Fighter with Survival and Outlander...but then you're giving up your ability to be a good Fighter for the sake of being a bad Ranger. Now you have the worst of both worlds. Congrats. Can a Swords Bard grab Swift Quiver at 10th-level and cosplay a Ranger? Maybe. But you're still not doing as much damage as a Ranger, you're actively giving up concentration for a spell that doesn't do much for Bards (and you can't pass out inspiration because of Action Economy,) and now you're a shitty Bard on top of that. Can a Scout Rogue with Outlander try to do some of the things a Ranger can? Maybe. But they don't get spellcasting, nor do their successful checks yield nearly as many results as a Ranger can.
Instead of trying to be a discount Ranger, focus on being a good Bard/Druid/Fighter/Rogue/whatever. Ultimately, you'll help yourself and your party a lot more that way. Leave the Rangering to the Rangers.
Why do people keep insisting on trying to contort other classes into off-brand Rangers?
Sure, you could try to make a Fighter with Survival and Outlander...but then you're giving up your ability to be a good Fighter for the sake of being a bad Ranger. Now you have the worst of both worlds. Congrats. Can a Swords Bard grab Swift Quiver at 10th-level and cosplay a Ranger? Maybe. But you're still not doing as much damage as a Ranger, you're actively giving up concentration for a spell that doesn't do much for Bards (and you can't pass out inspiration because of Action Economy,) and now you're a shitty Bard on top of that. Can a Scout Rogue with Outlander try to do some of the things a Ranger can? Maybe. But they don't get spellcasting, nor do their successful checks yield nearly as many results as a Ranger can.
Instead of trying to be a discount Ranger, focus on being a good Bard/Druid/Fighter/Rogue/whatever. Ultimately, you'll help yourself and your party a lot more that way. Leave the Rangering to the Rangers.
Taking survival and outlander have 0 impact on being a fighter though?
Nice cherry picking. Doesn't change the fact that you're still expending a resource you *could* be using on being a better Fighter to become a discount Ranger class that can --at best-- accomplish a tiny sliver of whatever a Ranger can do on their absolute worst day. And even then, you're just hyper-focused on Natural Explorer (and not even all of Natural Explorer either), all the while ignoring literally everything else about the class.
If you take 5 levels of fighter, 4 levels of druid, and 1 level of rogue (10 levels total), you can do most of what a level 5 ranger can do, not counting their subclass of course.
I mean, the level 5 ranger would have less hit points, so they would be underpowered in that sense.
Nice cherry picking. Doesn't change the fact that you're still expending a resource you *could* be using on being a better Fighter to become a discount Ranger class that can --at best-- accomplish a tiny sliver of whatever a Ranger can do on their absolute worst day. And even then, you're just hyper-focused on Natural Explorer (and not even all of Natural Explorer either), all the while ignoring literally everything else about the class.
I still don't understand how a background choice has impact on your fighter class?
If you take 5 levels of fighter, 4 levels of druid, and 1 level of rogue (10 levels total), you can do most of what a level 5 ranger can do, not counting their subclass of course.
I mean, the level 5 ranger would have less hit points, so they would be underpowered in that sense.
That actually sounds like a pretty fun MC....you get a lot of versatility out of the druid levels for sure.
If you take 5 levels of fighter, 4 levels of druid, and 1 level of rogue (10 levels total), you can do most of what a level 5 ranger can do, not counting their subclass of course.
I mean, the level 5 ranger would have less hit points, so they would be underpowered in that sense.
That actually sounds like a pretty fun MC....you get a lot of versatility out of the druid levels for sure.
Yeah!
Rangers multiclass so well with druid, rogue, cleric, monk, fighter, and if you’re a strength focus, barbarian. Depending on what element of their base class you’re trying to boost. On these forums, rogue seems to be popular, for sneak attack and stealth, typical single target combat optimization I guess. Fighter is popular with sharpshooter builds because of battle master and action surge. But druid, any druid, is an awesome multiclass for a nature/animal/spellcasting focus!
I see rangers as a mix of fighter, druid, and rogue. Probably somewhere n the realm of 50%, 30%, and 20%, respectively.
Nice cherry picking. Doesn't change the fact that you're still expending a resource you *could* be using on being a better Fighter to become a discount Ranger class that can --at best-- accomplish a tiny sliver of whatever a Ranger can do on their absolute worst day. And even then, you're just hyper-focused on Natural Explorer (and not even all of Natural Explorer either), all the while ignoring literally everything else about the class.
I still don't understand how a background choice has impact on your fighter class?
It’s the idea that everything has a cost. Each choice you get for a give. So background choice, feat choices, build focus, they all cost something. And most of the “suggested” ranger competition builds involve a little to a lot of sacrifice to achieve not even the equal results as just a baseline vanilla ranger.
Nice cherry picking. Doesn't change the fact that you're still expending a resource you *could* be using on being a better Fighter to become a discount Ranger class that can --at best-- accomplish a tiny sliver of whatever a Ranger can do on their absolute worst day. And even then, you're just hyper-focused on Natural Explorer (and not even all of Natural Explorer either), all the while ignoring literally everything else about the class.
I still don't understand how a background choice has impact on your fighter class?
It’s the idea that everything has a cost. Each choice you get for a give. So background choice, feat choices, build focus, they all cost something. And most of the “suggested” ranger competition builds involve a little to a lot of sacrifice to achieve not even the equal results as just a baseline vanilla ranger.
I guess I get that...but background has so little effect on most things in the game sans RP which I could see maybe you want to RP as a different kind of fighter.
Mechanically though there is 0 impact on your ability to be a fighter by picking it vs. soldier. The only differences would be flavor and RP opportunities.
Nice cherry picking. Doesn't change the fact that you're still expending a resource you *could* be using on being a better Fighter to become a discount Ranger class that can --at best-- accomplish a tiny sliver of whatever a Ranger can do on their absolute worst day. And even then, you're just hyper-focused on Natural Explorer (and not even all of Natural Explorer either), all the while ignoring literally everything else about the class.
I still don't understand how a background choice has impact on your fighter class?
It’s the idea that everything has a cost. Each choice you get for a give. So background choice, feat choices, build focus, they all cost something. And most of the “suggested” ranger competition builds involve a little to a lot of sacrifice to achieve not even the equal results as just a baseline vanilla ranger.
I guess I get that...but background has so little effect on most things in the game sans RP which I could see maybe you want to RP as a different kind of fighter.
Mechanically though there is 0 impact on your ability to be a fighter by picking it vs. soldier. The only differences would be flavor and RP opportunities.
Background feature (sure, many are strongly RP, but several have a helpful mechanical feature, like the outlander for example), proficiencies (skills and tools/languages, which are not just RP. When I DM, most creatures don’t speak common. Personal bias = I hate that there is a “common” language, and delete it from the world), so those are things you’re giving for getting. But that is what a background is for half of the time, supplementing your stereotype class features. Then there is the feat you mention. If using feats, fighters get the most, but at which point are you taking that feat? Level 4? Level 6? How is that effecting that character taking a “fighter feat”?
Nice cherry picking. Doesn't change the fact that you're still expending a resource you *could* be using on being a better Fighter to become a discount Ranger class that can --at best-- accomplish a tiny sliver of whatever a Ranger can do on their absolute worst day. And even then, you're just hyper-focused on Natural Explorer (and not even all of Natural Explorer either), all the while ignoring literally everything else about the class.
I still don't understand how a background choice has impact on your fighter class?
It’s the idea that everything has a cost. Each choice you get for a give. So background choice, feat choices, build focus, they all cost something. And most of the “suggested” ranger competition builds involve a little to a lot of sacrifice to achieve not even the equal results as just a baseline vanilla ranger.
I guess I get that...but background has so little effect on most things in the game sans RP which I could see maybe you want to RP as a different kind of fighter.
Mechanically though there is 0 impact on your ability to be a fighter by picking it vs. soldier. The only differences would be flavor and RP opportunities.
Background feature (sure, many are strongly RP, but several have a helpful mechanical feature, like the outlander for example), proficiencies (skills and tools/languages, which are not just RP. When I DM, most creatures don’t speak common. Personal bias = I hate that there is a “common” language, and delete it from the world), so those are things you’re giving for getting. But that is what a background is for half of the time, supplementing your stereotype class features. Then there is the feat you mention. If using feats, fighters get the most, but at which point are you taking that feat? Level 4? Level 6? How is that effecting that character taking a “fighter feat”?
Wow that common change is interesting....that would have an impact on language choice then for sure so I understand it from your tables perspective a bit better.
The feat would be Skill Expert and could be taken if desired. Honestly with a decent wisdom score and proficiency in Survival you wouldn't need it per say but would almost ensure you are at the top of the game for exploration.
I would likely take it ASAP in a survival heavy campaign (4th level unless I was V. Human then I would take it at 1st level) and likely at 8th level in "normal" campaigns.
I'll have to disagree with you on most of this as I definitely don't see those things as exploration at all but that's your definition and that's fine.
The adult red dragon is pushing the bounds of exploration.
But most of the rest of what he named is part of the Exploration Pillar. It's Called Exploration because your looking aruond and discovering the various parts of the world that has been built for you. So it's heavily intertwined and interacted with in lots of ways that are not strictly combat or social interactions. But if those social interactions are part of say a moving combat where your learning new things about the environment while fighting or a social interaction that is also discovering more about the world then this means that it is not only combat or social interaction but also exploration. But when speaking you do often ignore the exploration aspects of things (even when using them as proof of things your promoting). Or you minimize their importance and impact as much as you can. usually with unfounded and unsupported arguments that everything is just a survival roll or it's not engaging because a ranger makes it easier for example. Even though many of these dice rolls that your claiming that something like a Scout Rogue can do better can be just as easily unengaging. Specially if they are so guaranteed to succeed as you tend to couch your opinions in, which ultimately if they are always going to succeed anyway because of something like expertise then it is just as unengaging because it makes the dice roll basically rote and redundant despite the fact that the realistic truth is that it's not as redundant Or necessarily superior as you often state things.
It's not even this true. It's just comparing all these extra resources to the Fighter to make it do what the Ranger does, and supposedly better, But it's compared against a ranger that doesn't hasn't been given it's own enhancements. Now it's possible, and maybe even likely that the ranger Took a different ASI, took a Different Feat, and took a different Background. But the Truth is the ranger can take all these same things. Outlander is a solid background for any Ranger surprisingly enough. It fits not only their theme but it actually frees up one, if not two, proficiencies so that the Ranger can put them in other things. Whether that is knowledges, other physical skills such as stealth, or into their options such as Insight or Perception that are good on all characters. Plus the bonuses gained from the outlander's feature just enhances and adds to the Rangers natural skills instead of redundantly overlapping them.
If you choose to focus the Ranger into these skills to the same level you would this fighter (which is what? the 4th class used to try to compare?). The Ranger is still going to do it better. Because they are going to have Expertise in Survival. They are going to have a background feature that enhances certain aspects of Survival automatically, and then on top of that your going to have class features that further enhance and expand those skills as well as provide other ones. So sure you've solved the weapon and Armor issue that the Rogue had. But you still haven't fixed the issues but you introduce other ones like issues with Stealth as compared to the ranger, and you still haven't solved certain issues such as around getting lost and other details that the rogue had as well.
(I hate how this system does wierd things when you try deleting sometimes)
Anyway. I want to touch on this. Unless the Module specifically says that the specific animals you get will feed themselves. They do not feed themselves even in Chult. You have to feed them. however. That is just chult and is a specific circumstance. Any pack animals that you have with you in other environments and other campaigns will not do this and do not do this by default. They are domesticated creatures and you have to do this for them. Abuse and Neglect of Pack Animals and Mounts is actually one of the most common hidden "abuses" done in games that is never addressed. With large numbers of them left to die because they just get left behind and nothing is done to actually see to tend to them at all, even on an assumed level in some cases.
I am very comfortable conceding to the idea that a scout rogue, cleric or druid, and archer fighter would definitely surpass a Ranger in the travel/survival game.
Assuming of course they collectively took the correct backgrounds, skill proficiencies, feats, and selected spells.
And the ranger took none of them and is never in it's favored Terrain while still taking that feature.
Edit: And that's really the rub isn't it... all those asterisks tacked on.
Yes
You can create a ranger of sorts out of other classes but you have to give up much of what that class does and it’s better than a deoptimized ranger in the long run. When you actually compare it to a well optimized ranger under a DM that can actually do the exploration leg it is at best no better than the ranger at rangering and much poorer at what it should be focused on.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Why do people keep insisting on trying to contort other classes into off-brand Rangers?
Sure, you could try to make a Fighter with Survival and Outlander...but then you're giving up your ability to be a good Fighter for the sake of being a bad Ranger. Now you have the worst of both worlds. Congrats. Can a Swords Bard grab Swift Quiver at 10th-level and cosplay a Ranger? Maybe. But you're still not doing as much damage as a Ranger, you're actively giving up concentration for a spell that doesn't do much for Bards (and you can't pass out inspiration because of Action Economy,) and now you're a shitty Bard on top of that. Can a Scout Rogue with Outlander try to do some of the things a Ranger can? Maybe. But they don't get spellcasting, nor do their successful checks yield nearly as many results as a Ranger can.
Instead of trying to be a discount Ranger, focus on being a good Bard/Druid/Fighter/Rogue/whatever. Ultimately, you'll help yourself and your party a lot more that way. Leave the Rangering to the Rangers.
Taking survival and outlander have 0 impact on being a fighter though?
You would get both with a background.
Nice cherry picking. Doesn't change the fact that you're still expending a resource you *could* be using on being a better Fighter to become a discount Ranger class that can --at best-- accomplish a tiny sliver of whatever a Ranger can do on their absolute worst day. And even then, you're just hyper-focused on Natural Explorer (and not even all of Natural Explorer either), all the while ignoring literally everything else about the class.
If you take 5 levels of fighter, 4 levels of druid, and 1 level of rogue (10 levels total), you can do most of what a level 5 ranger can do, not counting their subclass of course.
I mean, the level 5 ranger would have less hit points, so they would be underpowered in that sense.
I still don't understand how a background choice has impact on your fighter class?
That actually sounds like a pretty fun MC....you get a lot of versatility out of the druid levels for sure.
Yeah!
Rangers multiclass so well with druid, rogue, cleric, monk, fighter, and if you’re a strength focus, barbarian. Depending on what element of their base class you’re trying to boost. On these forums, rogue seems to be popular, for sneak attack and stealth, typical single target combat optimization I guess. Fighter is popular with sharpshooter builds because of battle master and action surge. But druid, any druid, is an awesome multiclass for a nature/animal/spellcasting focus!
I see rangers as a mix of fighter, druid, and rogue. Probably somewhere n the realm of 50%, 30%, and 20%, respectively.
It’s the idea that everything has a cost. Each choice you get for a give. So background choice, feat choices, build focus, they all cost something. And most of the “suggested” ranger competition builds involve a little to a lot of sacrifice to achieve not even the equal results as just a baseline vanilla ranger.
I guess I get that...but background has so little effect on most things in the game sans RP which I could see maybe you want to RP as a different kind of fighter.
Mechanically though there is 0 impact on your ability to be a fighter by picking it vs. soldier. The only differences would be flavor and RP opportunities.
Background feature (sure, many are strongly RP, but several have a helpful mechanical feature, like the outlander for example), proficiencies (skills and tools/languages, which are not just RP. When I DM, most creatures don’t speak common. Personal bias = I hate that there is a “common” language, and delete it from the world), so those are things you’re giving for getting. But that is what a background is for half of the time, supplementing your stereotype class features. Then there is the feat you mention. If using feats, fighters get the most, but at which point are you taking that feat? Level 4? Level 6? How is that effecting that character taking a “fighter feat”?
Wow that common change is interesting....that would have an impact on language choice then for sure so I understand it from your tables perspective a bit better.
The feat would be Skill Expert and could be taken if desired. Honestly with a decent wisdom score and proficiency in Survival you wouldn't need it per say but would almost ensure you are at the top of the game for exploration.
I would likely take it ASAP in a survival heavy campaign (4th level unless I was V. Human then I would take it at 1st level) and likely at 8th level in "normal" campaigns.
Here is my Fighter build: https://ddb.ac/characters/54333509/a9yFTp
I could also see going into a different subclass but I love the new maneuver options like Ambush and Tactical Assessment.