To be honest I'm not too concerned with the rangers combat abilities. It makes sense to me that at higher levels fighters/paladins would pull ahead in terms of damage. I would like it if you weren't pushed so much towards ranged fighting and if more of the combat based spells didn't require concentration but they're not massive drawbacks to me.
My biggest gripe is the non-combat functionality. Rangers absolutely should be the party member to take the lead in travelling, tracking, hunting and other outdoors based activities, but as I mentioned in my, admittedly massive, post - the features to help with these activities are poorly designed. Most of them are so situational as to be irrelevant the majority of the time and Natural Explorer is so overpowered that it almost allows you to skip any journeying aspect of the game as long as it's in your favored terrain.
Some of this I think comes down to a lack of guidance for DM's in how to make travelling fun/relevant/challenging for the players. If there were more robust rules/mechanics for travelling and exploring more groups might incorporate them as as aspect of their game. This would also provide a basis for building better ranger features onto. That's my thoughts on it anyway. If anyone has any ideas for better travelling/exploring mechanics in the game, or alternative ranger features for such, I would be happy to hear them.
Some of this I think comes down to a lack of guidance for DM's in how to make travelling fun/relevant/challenging for the players. If there were more robust rules/mechanics for travelling and exploring more groups might incorporate them as as aspect of their game. This would also provide a basis for building better ranger features onto. That's my thoughts on it anyway. If anyone has any ideas for better travelling/exploring mechanics in the game, or alternative ranger features for such, I would be happy to hear them.
Oh, there is absolutely a lack of guidance for DMs in this edition. Not just with rangers, but with entire pillars of the game. The section on dungeon crawling in the DMG is only a few pages. There's nothing on random encounters, dungeon turns, how long something lasts, etc. Once upon a time, dungeon crawling used to be its own section of the game. Everything was broken down into turns, and the party would have to rest a bit every hour because it was such an exhausting process. Now, the "dungeon" in Dungeons & Dragons is so rules-light that a lot of it gets hand-waived.
The designers have been playing the game for so long that they've built up an institutional memory, but they forget to pass this information along to the new players and DMs every edition is supposed to attract.
Some of this I think comes down to a lack of guidance for DM's in how to make travelling fun/relevant/challenging for the players. If there were more robust rules/mechanics for travelling and exploring more groups might incorporate them as as aspect of their game. This would also provide a basis for building better ranger features onto. That's my thoughts on it anyway. If anyone has any ideas for better travelling/exploring mechanics in the game, or alternative ranger features for such, I would be happy to hear them.
Oh, there is absolutely a lack of guidance for DMs in this edition. Not just with rangers, but with entire pillars of the game. The section on dungeon crawling in the DMG is only a few pages. There's nothing on random encounters, dungeon turns, how long something lasts, etc. Once upon a time, dungeon crawling used to be its own section of the game. Everything was broken down into turns, and the party would have to rest a bit every hour because it was such an exhausting process. Now, the "dungeon" in Dungeons & Dragons is so rules-light that a lot of it gets hand-waived.
The designers have been playing the game for so long that they've built up an institutional memory, but they forget to pass this information along to the new players and DMs every edition is supposed to attract.
Exactly. I don't want so many rules that the game becomes bogged down with them but surely there could be a happy medium that gives DMs the confidence to incorporate traveling/exploring into their game. Once you have something like that in place it would be much easier to design features for the ranger or even non-combat features for other classes/backgrounds.
Some of this I think comes down to a lack of guidance for DM's in how to make travelling fun/relevant/challenging for the players. If there were more robust rules/mechanics for travelling and exploring more groups might incorporate them as as aspect of their game. This would also provide a basis for building better ranger features onto. That's my thoughts on it anyway. If anyone has any ideas for better travelling/exploring mechanics in the game, or alternative ranger features for such, I would be happy to hear them.
Oh, there is absolutely a lack of guidance for DMs in this edition. Not just with rangers, but with entire pillars of the game. The section on dungeon crawling in the DMG is only a few pages. There's nothing on random encounters, dungeon turns, how long something lasts, etc. Once upon a time, dungeon crawling used to be its own section of the game. Everything was broken down into turns, and the party would have to rest a bit every hour because it was such an exhausting process. Now, the "dungeon" in Dungeons & Dragons is so rules-light that a lot of it gets hand-waived.
The designers have been playing the game for so long that they've built up an institutional memory, but they forget to pass this information along to the new players and DMs every edition is supposed to attract.
Exactly. I don't want so many rules that the game becomes bogged down with them but surely there could be a happy medium that gives DMs the confidence to incorporate traveling/exploring into their game. Once you have something like that in place it would be much easier to design features for the ranger or even non-combat features for other classes/backgrounds.
Not disagreeing with the general point, but as I recall there's stuff in the DMG that's relevant for each of the aspects of Natural Explorer. The issue is more that as a DM you may have to go out of their way to make those meaningful in your game, and (with respect to the Ranger class) even if you do so it's not always all that interesting. Difficult terrain not slowing the group down isn't often going to come up, and when it does it just happens and the game moves on. Foraging is pointless unless you contrive a situation where the party has no access to supplies - that can be fun once or twice but shouldn't be a regular occurrence, and again it just happens and the game moves on. It's nice to point out the ranger's contribution the few times something like this comes up (even nicer if the other players do that spontaneously, which they will in good groups), but that doesn't make it something that stands out as regularly useful. And this doesn't really hinge on guidance for the DM. Third edition has entire supplements devoted to this kind of thing, but for your average party they are difficult to implement in a way that's fun for everyone and doesn't put potentially big roadblocks in the way of progress if the ranger fails to track. Alternatively, especially at mid to high levels just about any survival related challenge is better and more reliably overcome through magic (admittedly lots of things get superceded by magic as characters level up).
(Minor quibble with the RAW: in my games I omit the "while travelling for an hour or more" requirement from the favoured terrain advantages - it's just inane that it'd take an hour for your alertness to kick in while tracking, for instance, or to figure out how much of a head start your quarry has)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Natural Explorer has tons of support in the DMG. It's just that people don't like to use those rules. And, admittedly, they're not all that fun. They make sense, but I get it.
Natural Explorer has tons of support in the DMG. It's just that people don't like to use those rules. And, admittedly, they're not all that fun. They make sense, but I get it.
Natural Explorer has tons of support in the DMG. It's just that people don't like to use those rules. And, admittedly, they're not all that fun. They make sense, but I get it.
This is kind of what I mean though. This scenario assumes the party decided to travel north into a forest in winter without basic preparations (I hope they thought to bring warm clothing at least). Rations are 5 silver/day, and there are spells like Create Food and Water or Goodberry (why have your ranger forage when he can cast Goodberry right before taking a long rest?) if you have the right kind of spellcaster with you. Bringing a compass, having the Keen Mind feat or (if possible, admittedly) looking at a point of reference on the horizon or in the sky would prevent turning away from where north is and getting lost. Sure, the party could decide that since they have a ranger with them they don’t need any of that and freshly foraged tubers and maybe some small game taste better than some magic astronaut food, but that doesn’t really make Natural Explorer a particularly attractive quality for normal, sensible groups. The DM would have to contrive circumstances to make it relevant, and that’s arguably not something he should be doing on a regular basis.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Natural Explorer has tons of support in the DMG. It's just that people don't like to use those rules. And, admittedly, they're not all that fun. They make sense, but I get it.
This is kind of what I mean though. This scenario assumes the party decided to travel north into a forest in winter without basic preparations (I hope they thought to bring warm clothing at least). Rations are 5 silver/day, and there are spells like Create Food and Water or Goodberry (why have your ranger forage when he can cast Goodberry right before taking a long rest?) if you have the right kind of spellcaster with you. Bringing a compass, having the Keen Mind feat or (if possible, admittedly) looking at a point of reference on the horizon or in the sky would prevent turning away from where north is and getting lost. Sure, the party could decide that since they have a ranger with them they don’t need any of that and freshly foraged tubers and maybe some small game taste better than some magic astronaut food, but that doesn’t really make Natural Explorer a particularly attractive quality for normal, sensible groups. The DM would have to contrive circumstances to make it relevant, and that’s arguably not something he should be doing on a regular basis.
This was just one person's example based on a possible scenario. And no party composition is even given, so any party could conceivably face this scenario. They certainly could face something similar in Rime of the Frostmaiden. And, yes, spells can be used to overcome some of these challenges. But spells are also a variable and the fewer variables we consider the better. I also think you're skipping some important details here.
Rations are to be rationed. They may be cheap, but they also weigh 2 lb apiece. They're heavy, and that weight needs to be accounted for. Enough of them for 5 days worth is 1/3 of your pack. And if you can forage, then you can save the food for later. Some groups might elect to ignore encumbrance. But this is a house rule and we can't reasonably account for all of those.
Rangers don't prepare their spells, they have to decide which ones they'll know. So to reiterate a point from the first paragraph, there's no guarantee they'll know goodberry. And there's no guarantee another spellcaster in the party knows or has prepared create food and water. My previous group was a party of 3: a dragonborn paladin, a kalashtar ranger, and a minotaur monk. She was invaluable in the wilderness.
A compass isn't a piece of adventuring gear to be bought. Keen Mind can absolutely help when you can't see the sky or horizon. But the rules also account for that. And, again, that's a variable that should not be taken into account.
Dungeon Masters are responsible for contriving circumstances for every player character in the game to shine. If we were talking about a rogue, and the DM didn't contrive circumstances for them to use Thieves' Cant or their thieves' tools, I'd say the DM was doing a bad job.
Natural Explorer has tons of support in the DMG. It's just that people don't like to use those rules. And, admittedly, they're not all that fun. They make sense, but I get it.
This is kind of what I mean though. This scenario assumes the party decided to travel north into a forest in winter without basic preparations (I hope they thought to bring warm clothing at least). Rations are 5 silver/day, and there are spells like Create Food and Water or Goodberry (why have your ranger forage when he can cast Goodberry right before taking a long rest?) if you have the right kind of spellcaster with you. Bringing a compass, having the Keen Mind feat or (if possible, admittedly) looking at a point of reference on the horizon or in the sky would prevent turning away from where north is and getting lost. Sure, the party could decide that since they have a ranger with them they don’t need any of that and freshly foraged tubers and maybe some small game taste better than some magic astronaut food, but that doesn’t really make Natural Explorer a particularly attractive quality for normal, sensible groups. The DM would have to contrive circumstances to make it relevant, and that’s arguably not something he should be doing on a regular basis.
This was just one person's example based on a possible scenario. And no party composition is even given, so any party could conceivably face this scenario. They certainly could face something similar in Rime of the Frostmaiden. And, yes, spells can be used to overcome some of these challenges. But spells are also a variable and the fewer variables we consider the better. I also think you're skipping some important details here.
Rations are to be rationed. They may be cheap, but they also weigh 2 lb apiece. They're heavy, and that weight needs to be accounted for. Enough of them for 5 days worth is 1/3 of your pack. And if you can forage, then you can save the food for later. Some groups might elect to ignore encumbrance. But this is a house rule and we can't reasonably account for all of those.
Rangers don't prepare their spells, they have to decide which ones they'll know. So to reiterate a point from the first paragraph, there's no guarantee they'll know goodberry. And there's no guarantee another spellcaster in the party knows or has prepared create food and water. My previous group was a party of 3: a dragonborn paladin, a kalashtar ranger, and a minotaur monk. She was invaluable in the wilderness.
A compass isn't a piece of adventuring gear to be bought. Keen Mind can absolutely help when you can't see the sky or horizon. But the rules also account for that. And, again, that's a variable that should not be taken into account.
Dungeon Masters are responsible for contriving circumstances for every player character in the game to shine. If we were talking about a rogue, and the DM didn't contrive circumstances for them to use Thieves' Cant or their thieves' tools, I'd say the DM was doing a bad job.
Encumbrance is not much of an issue if we account for mounts, pack animals or magic containers. Foraging is taking a risk, so avoiding it is worth something. It’s true there’s no guarantee of magic being available, but the point is there are plenty of ways around the need to forage. A compass is not a piece of adventuring gear listed in the PHB, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be bought; I mean, there are plenty of items in tool sets, packs or the trinket list that aren’t listed separately with a price but obviously they can be procured in the game. As for contriving circumstances, it seems to me that getting around using thieves’ cant or thieves’ tools when cirumstances call for it is a lot harder to do than getting around the need to forage or determining true north. That’s the whole point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Encumbrance is not much of an issue if we account for mounts, pack animals or magic containers. Foraging is taking a risk, so avoiding it is worth something. It’s true there’s no guarantee of magic being available, but the point is there are plenty of ways around the need to forage. A compass is not a piece of adventuring gear listed in the PHB, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be bought; I mean, there are plenty of items in tool sets, packs or the trinket list that aren’t listed separately with a price but obviously they can be procured in the game. As for contriving circumstances, it seems to me that getting around using thieves’ cant or thieves’ tools when cirumstances call for it is a lot harder to do than getting around the need to forage or determining true north. That’s the whole point.
Do try to stop adding variables. A first-level party might have a mount (Knight background) or pack animal (Guild Merchant background), but there's no guarantee. And, depending on the environment, you might also have to buy feed for them as well. That's additional resources. We shouldn't be trying to needlessly complicate things by assuming when we're just trying to discuss the use of a baseline feature.
As for a compass, maybe you can acquire it on its own and maybe you can't. Either way, it does you no good if you don't know how to use it. Orienteering isn't common knowledge. You're better off investing in some navigator's tools and training up proficiency with them.
And if your entire argument is "magic is a shortcut, so this is bad" then you clearly have no interest in carrying on a conversation. Goodbye.
Encumbrance is not much of an issue if we account for mounts, pack animals or magic containers. Foraging is taking a risk, so avoiding it is worth something. It’s true there’s no guarantee of magic being available, but the point is there are plenty of ways around the need to forage. A compass is not a piece of adventuring gear listed in the PHB, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be bought; I mean, there are plenty of items in tool sets, packs or the trinket list that aren’t listed separately with a price but obviously they can be procured in the game. As for contriving circumstances, it seems to me that getting around using thieves’ cant or thieves’ tools when cirumstances call for it is a lot harder to do than getting around the need to forage or determining true north. That’s the whole point.
Do try to stop adding variables. A first-level party might have a mount (Knight background) or pack animal (Guild Merchant background), but there's no guarantee. And, depending on the environment, you might also have to buy feed for them as well. That's additional resources. We shouldn't be trying to needlessly complicate things by assuming when we're just trying to discuss the use of a baseline feature.
As for a compass, maybe you can acquire it on its own and maybe you can't. Either way, it does you no good if you don't know how to use it. Orienteering isn't common knowledge. You're better off investing in some navigator's tools and training up proficiency with them.
And if your entire argument is "magic is a shortcut, so this is bad" then you clearly have no interest in carrying on a conversation. Goodbye.
It's not making assumptions. It's listing all sorts of ways a party might conceivably go about eliminating the need for Natural Explorer in a somewhat convenient manner. What I'm saying is that there's tons more options for this than for getting through a locked door without someone who knows how to jimmy it. Never mind that foraging, ranger or not, isn't guaranteed to succeed. Especially in adverse circumstances, which it seems are suggested in order to make the ranger's exploration abilities stand out more. Packing a couple of extra sandwiches seems like a no-brainer to me, but what do I know? Foraging is a Wis (Survival) check DC 20, worst case scenario. Rangers are not automatically proficient in Survival (honestly, not adding this to Natural Explorer feels like a massive oversight) and unless you got some great rolled scores I don't expect them to have a massive Wis bonus. Assuming they did pick Survival as one of their 3 proficiencies (which is likely), we're probably looking at +5 or +6 until lvl 9? Not very reliable in that winter scenario - even a DC 15 is likely a 50-50 proposition, and if successful there's still the matter of foraging enough for the entire party (about 5-6 people's meals worth on average, assuming decent Wis, but dice are dice). Going with a 50% chance of success and an average of 6 people's meals per foraging attempt, we get an expected 3 meals per shot. Enough for your 3-man party but not for a more typical 4, let alone more. And averages being average, half the time you get less. I really, really advise packing some rations if you know things are going to get tough.
The sum total knowledge needed to use a compass is that it always points north. Which, unless the seller wants to pull a prank on you, they should be able to explain when you buy one without already being aware of it. No, that's indeed not the same as orienteering. However yes, it's enough to manage not to veer away from a northward trajectory in the example used. Avoiding getting lost is a DC 15 at most, with a bonus of +5 if you're willing to go slow, and advantage if you're prepared. Kinda doable for a non-ranger with decent Wis and no proficiency in Survival. It'll suck if you fail, sure, but at least you won't starve. Unless you didn't bring sandwiches and the foraging above goes badly.
Magic *is* a shortcut. That doesn't necessarily make the things it's a shortcut for bad, but it does put them in a certain perspective. More to the point however, magic is far from the only shortcut.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
While it's true that nothing in the game exists in a vacuum, constantly trying to invent ways of making a class feature seem inconsequential is, well, unhelpful; to say the least. At its worst, it could be viewed as mean-spirited or hateful. These constant attempts to dunk on rangers aren't productive. If you're trying to convince me, it won't happen. If you're trying to convince others, then I have to ask why. Natural Explorer does a half-dozen things. Early on in an adventuring career, it can be a godsend. Even later on it can be helpful. And there is no amount of magic or equipment which can totally make up for that fact.
And, speaking from experience, just knowing that a compass points magnetic north is not enough. I've had to adjust my maps to account for magnetic declination before. In my opinion, your overly-simplistic view comes across, well, like the following exchange from 1998's The Mask of Zorro.
"Do you know how to use that thing?" -Don Diego de la Vega (gesturing to the sword in his pupil's hand) "Yes. The pointy end goes into the other man." -Alejandro Murrieta
Great movie, but we don't want to be that Alejandro.
While it's true that nothing in the game exists in a vacuum, constantly trying to invent ways of making a class feature seem inconsequential is, well, unhelpful; to say the least.
I'm going to disagree on the simple basis that every party without a ranger I ever was a part of or DMed for in any edition made a point of making their exploration class features as inconsequential as possible, and that was pretty darn inconsequential, so they wouldn't miss having one around. Sure, I can go out of my way to make them relevant if there is a ranger PC in the party. That's cool and all, but it's still throwing the ranger a bone for the sake of throwing him a bone.
I'm not trying to be mean-spirited or hateful. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything either. I'm just explaining, in this thread about whether rangers are underpowered, why I think players who feel Favoured Enemy and particularly Natural Explorer are underwhelming have a point. It's not like your posts to the contrary are any less constant, or seem to have more a purpose to them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The problem I have with that line of reasoning (lack of exploration makes Rangers bad) is that it really doesn't; they're still a perfectly good martial class with good damage output and access to some really useful spells, and lots of good sub-classes.
As for "throwing the ranger a bone" by having exploration/favoured enemies in a campaign; that's what a good DM should be doing, making sure every player gets a chance to make the most of their character. Obviously that's easier for fighters and barbarians where you just throw them into combat over and over and again, but if anything that's a point against those classes for being comparatively simplistic and one-dimensional. A DM should also challenge characters by taking them out of their comfort zone; putting them in situations that can't be solved through non-stop violence, or actually pushing exploration and survival elements where the party will really begin to wish they didn't ignore that stuff.
I'm currently playing in a Rime of the Frostmaiden campaign and I expect our party is going to feel the lack of any properly survival oriented characters, and is going to have to go out of our way to overcome that by other means (i.e- take extra precautions against potentially being stuck in the wilderness for longer than we have rations etc.).
Getting chances to shine and being challenged to overcome your party's weaknesses are both fun, and should feature in every campaign. It feels like a lot of people in threads like these only play campaigns that are 100% combat 100% of the time (except for the occasional shopping break), and it really makes me feel sad that these people only appear to be playing half (if that) of the game.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The ranger would be good if every other class wasn't better. Give me a class that is worse in a GENERAL scenario, not a ranger tailored game(Not a subclass, but a class in general), and we can talk.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
You can go back and check if you want. I never said the Ranger class is bad, just that the first level abilities (which go up with class level) aren’t up to snuff. That doesn’t tank the class as a whole, but I think players being unhappy about them have a point and should be allowed to voice that opinion.
The DM making sure the players’ characters all have a chance to shine isn’t really the point. The point is that it’s somewhat meaningless to do so. The rogue failing to detect a trap or open a lock is a meaningful setback. So is the wizard’s arcane knowledge coming up short, or the bard not managing to convince the guard that yes, all of the PCs are invited to the local mayor’s party. The ranger failing to forage enough sustenance just means you get the wrapped sandwiches from your backpack and chow down anyway.
Moreover, the DCs set in the DMG make it hard for a ranger to reliably forage until high levels, and make it relatively easy for any non ranger with a bit of Wis to avoid getting lost. In terms of exploration you either don’t need a ranger’s specific abilities to make do, or they’re not reliable enough to leave it up to the dice anyway. And that’s purely the DCs, not taking into account spells (Create Food and Water), feats (Keen Mind) or backgrounds (Outlander).
Having or not having the Ranger’s 1st level abilities is just too inconsequential. The mechanics involved mainly aren’t interesting or fun and they don’t make enough of a difference. Not having a ranger for survival isn’t as much of a weakness as not having some of the other classes for their specialty is. That isn’t just the Ranger’s class fault either, it’s a bit of a problem with exploration in general - but that doesn’t make those abilities any less lackluster in practice.
I’ve played plenty of rangers across a bunch of editions, including 5E. I’ve really, really enjoyed the concept of the Ranger class once we moved past AD&D’s “you get to dual wield if you roll good enough stats” crap, and still do. I’m not crazy about the “more Fightery Ranger” Hunter but all the other archetypes embody some flavour of what might set a ranger apart from other classes. It’s definitely not a bad class. But Natural Explorer and Favoured Enemy are lacking. That’s my opinion, and I’ll stand by it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The ranger would be good if every other class wasn't better. Give me a class that is worse in a GENERAL scenario, not a ranger tailored game(Not a subclass, but a class in general), and we can talk.
They don’t suck either, but I’ll take a ranger over a monk in terms of general usefulness if we discount any campaign specifics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The ranger would be good if every other class wasn't better. Give me a class that is worse in a GENERAL scenario, not a ranger tailored game(Not a subclass, but a class in general), and we can talk.
The ranger would be good if every other class wasn't better. Give me a class that is worse in a GENERAL scenario, not a ranger tailored game(Not a subclass, but a class in general), and we can talk.
Fighter.
Incorrect. What makes the fighter worse? Is it being better at a diversity of weapons and fighting types? Is it the heavy armor? How about action surge or second wind? Fighters are way better than rangers at general scenarios.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
To be honest I'm not too concerned with the rangers combat abilities. It makes sense to me that at higher levels fighters/paladins would pull ahead in terms of damage. I would like it if you weren't pushed so much towards ranged fighting and if more of the combat based spells didn't require concentration but they're not massive drawbacks to me.
My biggest gripe is the non-combat functionality. Rangers absolutely should be the party member to take the lead in travelling, tracking, hunting and other outdoors based activities, but as I mentioned in my, admittedly massive, post - the features to help with these activities are poorly designed. Most of them are so situational as to be irrelevant the majority of the time and Natural Explorer is so overpowered that it almost allows you to skip any journeying aspect of the game as long as it's in your favored terrain.
Some of this I think comes down to a lack of guidance for DM's in how to make travelling fun/relevant/challenging for the players. If there were more robust rules/mechanics for travelling and exploring more groups might incorporate them as as aspect of their game. This would also provide a basis for building better ranger features onto. That's my thoughts on it anyway. If anyone has any ideas for better travelling/exploring mechanics in the game, or alternative ranger features for such, I would be happy to hear them.
Oh, there is absolutely a lack of guidance for DMs in this edition. Not just with rangers, but with entire pillars of the game. The section on dungeon crawling in the DMG is only a few pages. There's nothing on random encounters, dungeon turns, how long something lasts, etc. Once upon a time, dungeon crawling used to be its own section of the game. Everything was broken down into turns, and the party would have to rest a bit every hour because it was such an exhausting process. Now, the "dungeon" in Dungeons & Dragons is so rules-light that a lot of it gets hand-waived.
The designers have been playing the game for so long that they've built up an institutional memory, but they forget to pass this information along to the new players and DMs every edition is supposed to attract.
Exactly. I don't want so many rules that the game becomes bogged down with them but surely there could be a happy medium that gives DMs the confidence to incorporate traveling/exploring into their game. Once you have something like that in place it would be much easier to design features for the ranger or even non-combat features for other classes/backgrounds.
Not disagreeing with the general point, but as I recall there's stuff in the DMG that's relevant for each of the aspects of Natural Explorer. The issue is more that as a DM you may have to go out of their way to make those meaningful in your game, and (with respect to the Ranger class) even if you do so it's not always all that interesting. Difficult terrain not slowing the group down isn't often going to come up, and when it does it just happens and the game moves on. Foraging is pointless unless you contrive a situation where the party has no access to supplies - that can be fun once or twice but shouldn't be a regular occurrence, and again it just happens and the game moves on. It's nice to point out the ranger's contribution the few times something like this comes up (even nicer if the other players do that spontaneously, which they will in good groups), but that doesn't make it something that stands out as regularly useful. And this doesn't really hinge on guidance for the DM. Third edition has entire supplements devoted to this kind of thing, but for your average party they are difficult to implement in a way that's fun for everyone and doesn't put potentially big roadblocks in the way of progress if the ranger fails to track. Alternatively, especially at mid to high levels just about any survival related challenge is better and more reliably overcome through magic (admittedly lots of things get superceded by magic as characters level up).
(Minor quibble with the RAW: in my games I omit the "while travelling for an hour or more" requirement from the favoured terrain advantages - it's just inane that it'd take an hour for your alertness to kick in while tracking, for instance, or to figure out how much of a head start your quarry has)
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Natural Explorer has tons of support in the DMG. It's just that people don't like to use those rules. And, admittedly, they're not all that fun. They make sense, but I get it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/hu8r42/a_completely_raw_day_of_exploration_in_5e/
That’s a great post. Thanks!
This is kind of what I mean though. This scenario assumes the party decided to travel north into a forest in winter without basic preparations (I hope they thought to bring warm clothing at least). Rations are 5 silver/day, and there are spells like Create Food and Water or Goodberry (why have your ranger forage when he can cast Goodberry right before taking a long rest?) if you have the right kind of spellcaster with you. Bringing a compass, having the Keen Mind feat or (if possible, admittedly) looking at a point of reference on the horizon or in the sky would prevent turning away from where north is and getting lost. Sure, the party could decide that since they have a ranger with them they don’t need any of that and freshly foraged tubers and maybe some small game taste better than some magic astronaut food, but that doesn’t really make Natural Explorer a particularly attractive quality for normal, sensible groups. The DM would have to contrive circumstances to make it relevant, and that’s arguably not something he should be doing on a regular basis.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
This was just one person's example based on a possible scenario. And no party composition is even given, so any party could conceivably face this scenario. They certainly could face something similar in Rime of the Frostmaiden. And, yes, spells can be used to overcome some of these challenges. But spells are also a variable and the fewer variables we consider the better. I also think you're skipping some important details here.
Encumbrance is not much of an issue if we account for mounts, pack animals or magic containers. Foraging is taking a risk, so avoiding it is worth something. It’s true there’s no guarantee of magic being available, but the point is there are plenty of ways around the need to forage. A compass is not a piece of adventuring gear listed in the PHB, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be bought; I mean, there are plenty of items in tool sets, packs or the trinket list that aren’t listed separately with a price but obviously they can be procured in the game. As for contriving circumstances, it seems to me that getting around using thieves’ cant or thieves’ tools when cirumstances call for it is a lot harder to do than getting around the need to forage or determining true north. That’s the whole point.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Do try to stop adding variables. A first-level party might have a mount (Knight background) or pack animal (Guild Merchant background), but there's no guarantee. And, depending on the environment, you might also have to buy feed for them as well. That's additional resources. We shouldn't be trying to needlessly complicate things by assuming when we're just trying to discuss the use of a baseline feature.
As for a compass, maybe you can acquire it on its own and maybe you can't. Either way, it does you no good if you don't know how to use it. Orienteering isn't common knowledge. You're better off investing in some navigator's tools and training up proficiency with them.
And if your entire argument is "magic is a shortcut, so this is bad" then you clearly have no interest in carrying on a conversation. Goodbye.
Yes.
Also, yes.
It's not making assumptions. It's listing all sorts of ways a party might conceivably go about eliminating the need for Natural Explorer in a somewhat convenient manner. What I'm saying is that there's tons more options for this than for getting through a locked door without someone who knows how to jimmy it. Never mind that foraging, ranger or not, isn't guaranteed to succeed. Especially in adverse circumstances, which it seems are suggested in order to make the ranger's exploration abilities stand out more. Packing a couple of extra sandwiches seems like a no-brainer to me, but what do I know? Foraging is a Wis (Survival) check DC 20, worst case scenario. Rangers are not automatically proficient in Survival (honestly, not adding this to Natural Explorer feels like a massive oversight) and unless you got some great rolled scores I don't expect them to have a massive Wis bonus. Assuming they did pick Survival as one of their 3 proficiencies (which is likely), we're probably looking at +5 or +6 until lvl 9? Not very reliable in that winter scenario - even a DC 15 is likely a 50-50 proposition, and if successful there's still the matter of foraging enough for the entire party (about 5-6 people's meals worth on average, assuming decent Wis, but dice are dice). Going with a 50% chance of success and an average of 6 people's meals per foraging attempt, we get an expected 3 meals per shot. Enough for your 3-man party but not for a more typical 4, let alone more. And averages being average, half the time you get less. I really, really advise packing some rations if you know things are going to get tough.
The sum total knowledge needed to use a compass is that it always points north. Which, unless the seller wants to pull a prank on you, they should be able to explain when you buy one without already being aware of it. No, that's indeed not the same as orienteering. However yes, it's enough to manage not to veer away from a northward trajectory in the example used. Avoiding getting lost is a DC 15 at most, with a bonus of +5 if you're willing to go slow, and advantage if you're prepared. Kinda doable for a non-ranger with decent Wis and no proficiency in Survival. It'll suck if you fail, sure, but at least you won't starve. Unless you didn't bring sandwiches and the foraging above goes badly.
Magic *is* a shortcut. That doesn't necessarily make the things it's a shortcut for bad, but it does put them in a certain perspective. More to the point however, magic is far from the only shortcut.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
While it's true that nothing in the game exists in a vacuum, constantly trying to invent ways of making a class feature seem inconsequential is, well, unhelpful; to say the least. At its worst, it could be viewed as mean-spirited or hateful. These constant attempts to dunk on rangers aren't productive. If you're trying to convince me, it won't happen. If you're trying to convince others, then I have to ask why. Natural Explorer does a half-dozen things. Early on in an adventuring career, it can be a godsend. Even later on it can be helpful. And there is no amount of magic or equipment which can totally make up for that fact.
And, speaking from experience, just knowing that a compass points magnetic north is not enough. I've had to adjust my maps to account for magnetic declination before. In my opinion, your overly-simplistic view comes across, well, like the following exchange from 1998's The Mask of Zorro.
"Do you know how to use that thing?" -Don Diego de la Vega (gesturing to the sword in his pupil's hand)
"Yes. The pointy end goes into the other man." -Alejandro Murrieta
Great movie, but we don't want to be that Alejandro.
I'm going to disagree on the simple basis that every party without a ranger I ever was a part of or DMed for in any edition made a point of making their exploration class features as inconsequential as possible, and that was pretty darn inconsequential, so they wouldn't miss having one around. Sure, I can go out of my way to make them relevant if there is a ranger PC in the party. That's cool and all, but it's still throwing the ranger a bone for the sake of throwing him a bone.
I'm not trying to be mean-spirited or hateful. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything either. I'm just explaining, in this thread about whether rangers are underpowered, why I think players who feel Favoured Enemy and particularly Natural Explorer are underwhelming have a point. It's not like your posts to the contrary are any less constant, or seem to have more a purpose to them.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The problem I have with that line of reasoning (lack of exploration makes Rangers bad) is that it really doesn't; they're still a perfectly good martial class with good damage output and access to some really useful spells, and lots of good sub-classes.
As for "throwing the ranger a bone" by having exploration/favoured enemies in a campaign; that's what a good DM should be doing, making sure every player gets a chance to make the most of their character. Obviously that's easier for fighters and barbarians where you just throw them into combat over and over and again, but if anything that's a point against those classes for being comparatively simplistic and one-dimensional. A DM should also challenge characters by taking them out of their comfort zone; putting them in situations that can't be solved through non-stop violence, or actually pushing exploration and survival elements where the party will really begin to wish they didn't ignore that stuff.
I'm currently playing in a Rime of the Frostmaiden campaign and I expect our party is going to feel the lack of any properly survival oriented characters, and is going to have to go out of our way to overcome that by other means (i.e- take extra precautions against potentially being stuck in the wilderness for longer than we have rations etc.).
Getting chances to shine and being challenged to overcome your party's weaknesses are both fun, and should feature in every campaign. It feels like a lot of people in threads like these only play campaigns that are 100% combat 100% of the time (except for the occasional shopping break), and it really makes me feel sad that these people only appear to be playing half (if that) of the game.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The ranger would be good if every other class wasn't better. Give me a class that is worse in a GENERAL scenario, not a ranger tailored game(Not a subclass, but a class in general), and we can talk.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
You can go back and check if you want. I never said the Ranger class is bad, just that the first level abilities (which go up with class level) aren’t up to snuff. That doesn’t tank the class as a whole, but I think players being unhappy about them have a point and should be allowed to voice that opinion.
The DM making sure the players’ characters all have a chance to shine isn’t really the point. The point is that it’s somewhat meaningless to do so. The rogue failing to detect a trap or open a lock is a meaningful setback. So is the wizard’s arcane knowledge coming up short, or the bard not managing to convince the guard that yes, all of the PCs are invited to the local mayor’s party. The ranger failing to forage enough sustenance just means you get the wrapped sandwiches from your backpack and chow down anyway.
Moreover, the DCs set in the DMG make it hard for a ranger to reliably forage until high levels, and make it relatively easy for any non ranger with a bit of Wis to avoid getting lost. In terms of exploration you either don’t need a ranger’s specific abilities to make do, or they’re not reliable enough to leave it up to the dice anyway. And that’s purely the DCs, not taking into account spells (Create Food and Water), feats (Keen Mind) or backgrounds (Outlander).
Having or not having the Ranger’s 1st level abilities is just too inconsequential. The mechanics involved mainly aren’t interesting or fun and they don’t make enough of a difference. Not having a ranger for survival isn’t as much of a weakness as not having some of the other classes for their specialty is. That isn’t just the Ranger’s class fault either, it’s a bit of a problem with exploration in general - but that doesn’t make those abilities any less lackluster in practice.
I’ve played plenty of rangers across a bunch of editions, including 5E. I’ve really, really enjoyed the concept of the Ranger class once we moved past AD&D’s “you get to dual wield if you roll good enough stats” crap, and still do. I’m not crazy about the “more Fightery Ranger” Hunter but all the other archetypes embody some flavour of what might set a ranger apart from other classes. It’s definitely not a bad class. But Natural Explorer and Favoured Enemy are lacking. That’s my opinion, and I’ll stand by it.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
They don’t suck either, but I’ll take a ranger over a monk in terms of general usefulness if we discount any campaign specifics.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Fighter.
Incorrect. What makes the fighter worse? Is it being better at a diversity of weapons and fighting types? Is it the heavy armor? How about action surge or second wind? Fighters are way better than rangers at general scenarios.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms