I can’t criticize you for how you “feel” about something, but the numbers don’t lie, and the numbers point in great favor of the PHB ranger.
Choose a different angle.
What math?
There is no math to say you only benefit in the biome you pick.... It's just how it is.
You pick 1 of 8 possible and you are SOL in the other 7.
Where as the rogue gets their skills in all 8 all the time.
It's just the reality of how limited the feature is.
Now if you are in one biome the entire campaign (underdark/Out of the Abyss) it's a good deal and I would agree it's as good as the rogue since you get it all the time.
If you are in a campaign with 2 or more biomes I would dump it fast.
I can’t criticize you for how you “feel” about something, but the numbers don’t lie, and the numbers point in great favor of the PHB ranger.
Choose a different angle.
What math?
There is no math to say you only benefit in the biome you pick.... It's just how it is.
You pick 1 of 8 possible and you are SOL in the other 7.
Where as the rogue gets their skills in all 8 all the time.
It's just the reality of how limited the feature is.
Now if you are in one biome the entire campaign (underdark/Out of the Abyss) it's a good deal and I would agree it's as good as the rogue since you get it all the time.
If you are in a campaign with 2 or more biomes I would dump it fast.
Wrong on all accounts.
Realistically we are talking about four or maybe five reasonable choices at worst.
fighters fight, and rogues use skills. That’s what they do.
it’s not limited. It’s balanced. And it works well.
you get up to three during your career. That is more than enough.
I can’t criticize you for how you “feel” about something, but the numbers don’t lie, and the numbers point in great favor of the PHB ranger.
Choose a different angle.
What math?
There is no math to say you only benefit in the biome you pick.... It's just how it is.
You pick 1 of 8 possible and you are SOL in the other 7.
Where as the rogue gets their skills in all 8 all the time.
It's just the reality of how limited the feature is.
Now if you are in one biome the entire campaign (underdark/Out of the Abyss) it's a good deal and I would agree it's as good as the rogue since you get it all the time.
If you are in a campaign with 2 or more biomes I would dump it fast.
Wrong on all accounts.
Realistically we are talking about four or maybe five reasonable choices at worst.
fighters fight, and rogues use skills. That’s what they do.
it’s not limited. It’s balanced. And it works well.
you get up to three during your career. That is more than enough.
1 for the first 6 levels and when 90% of games end at level 10 that means you are playing more then half your game handcuffed
It's just a bad deal.... I'm glad they saw sense and added options to fix
A scout rogue gets 2 skills for their subclass. 2. That’s it. They had better be good at skills, as that’s what they do. They have zero magic to heal, harm, protect, explore, interact with the world, or anything else. They are not a martial class. They need situational setups or allies engaged in melee combat to help them not quite keep up in the damage department as a ranger. And that is just the expertise in the two skills. The Ranger abilities do way more than that when active, which is much or most of the time for almost all publish material. And a Ranger is only 10 or 15% “worse“ at those single two skills than a rogue only some of the time, maybe.
The math I am referring to is the expertise that the scout Rogue gets, some of the time, that becomes less and less frequent as the game progresses, amounts to 10 or 15% on a roll of a d20
this is just like the debate about an archer fighter versus a Ranger in terms of damage output. Fighter do a little bit more damage once it reaches level 11. Before that the Ranger is doing as much pure damage as a ranged fighter and possibly more, with the added benefits of many status effects through its magic and subclass.
so the Ranger is almost as good, 10 or 15% so, as doing what three other classes focus on doing almost entirely. And one of those classes requires a specific background and subclass to even be a contender.
I can’t criticize you for how you “feel” about something, but the numbers don’t lie, and the numbers point in great favor of the PHB ranger.
Choose a different angle.
What math?
There is no math to say you only benefit in the biome you pick.... It's just how it is.
You pick 1 of 8 possible and you are SOL in the other 7.
Where as the rogue gets their skills in all 8 all the time.
It's just the reality of how limited the feature is.
Now if you are in one biome the entire campaign (underdark/Out of the Abyss) it's a good deal and I would agree it's as good as the rogue since you get it all the time.
If you are in a campaign with 2 or more biomes I would dump it fast.
Wrong on all accounts.
Realistically we are talking about four or maybe five reasonable choices at worst.
fighters fight, and rogues use skills. That’s what they do.
it’s not limited. It’s balanced. And it works well.
you get up to three during your career. That is more than enough.
1 for the first 6 levels and when 90% of games end at level 10 that means you are playing more then half your game handcuffed
It's just a bad deal.... I'm glad they saw sense and added options to fix
Again, 10 or 15% some of the time, and that is only in regard to the use of those two specific skills. And investing your entire background and subclass to do so. THAT is a bad deal.
I can’t criticize you for how you “feel” about something, but the numbers don’t lie, and the numbers point in great favor of the PHB ranger.
Choose a different angle.
What math?
There is no math to say you only benefit in the biome you pick.... It's just how it is.
You pick 1 of 8 possible and you are SOL in the other 7.
Where as the rogue gets their skills in all 8 all the time.
It's just the reality of how limited the feature is.
Now if you are in one biome the entire campaign (underdark/Out of the Abyss) it's a good deal and I would agree it's as good as the rogue since you get it all the time.
If you are in a campaign with 2 or more biomes I would dump it fast.
Wrong on all accounts.
Realistically we are talking about four or maybe five reasonable choices at worst.
fighters fight, and rogues use skills. That’s what they do.
it’s not limited. It’s balanced. And it works well.
you get up to three during your career. That is more than enough.
1 for the first 6 levels and when 90% of games end at level 10 that means you are playing more then half your game handcuffed
It's just a bad deal.... I'm glad they saw sense and added options to fix
Again, 10 or 15% some of the time, and that is only in regard to the use of those two specific skills. And investing your entire background and subclass to do so. THAT is a bad deal.
You don't need a subclass is the thing...
Druid gets good berry, enhance ability, wildshape (which by the way can get a better passive perception then ranger), all as part of the base kit.
Tack on outlander which makes super thematic sense and ranger is out done as they can do all this in any biome... Not just 1 out of 8.
You don't even have to figure in subclass at all... Or background if you really don't want to.
As you get higher in levels it only gets worse as the caster has more spells to use and ones that can just outright make travel through dangerous territory mostly moot.
Clerics can make food and water (ranger can't even get their benefits for water RAW) and enhance ability as base clerics.... No subclass needed.
Rogues can pick survival for expertise.... No subclass needed.
Wizard can pick up tiny hut. No subclass needed.
All these things which mirror 90% of what the ranger does (honestly the other 10% isn't even that relevant anyway) all with no subclass/background needed.
You just listed 4 separate classes that, collectively, can do some of what a ranger can do. No contest.
A non scout rogue is investing even more of their build focus to have a single skill with a +2 bonus.
Those spells you listed have very limited time frames and and a caster would burn through most or all of their spell slots for food and water and making the several checks needed for wilderness travel to kind of do a little bit of what any ranger can do even outside their favored terrains with zero resources spent.
A wild shape druid perception is going to be good in many beast forms. But still less than a beast master’s companion.
Rangers can make food that also heals and saves lives and can be spread throughout the party, The typical DC for water is going to be 10 to 15, easy for anyone proficient in survival.
So again, can 3 or 4 classes combined do what a ranger can do in the wilderness, while NOT in their favored terrain? You bet. Can they do what a ranger can do while in their favored terrain? Nope. Not even close. The other benefits of natural explorer and primeval awareness are unmatched.
But they are.... They are really easily replicated
Except they're not; even your proposed replacement only partially overlaps, and comes at a cost (your choice of background feature). There's nothing easy about giving up something else just to get some of what you want; that's more like taking fighting initiate to gain a fighting style (rather than multi-classing into Fighter), but you have to give up an ability score improvement or feat choice to do that.
It's a perfectly fine choice if you want a Ranger-like character, and maybe it'll be enough for your group (especially if you also have a high WIS Cleric/Monk with Survival etc.), a ranged character and so-on, but what you won't have are any of the unique features or synergies of an actual Ranger. Just as you can potentially do without a Fighter if you have a Monk and Rogue, or without a full spellcaster if you have multiple half-casters and so-on; different is fine, but whether or not it is better varies considerably (and also depends on your DM and group).
That's the thing.... The other classes get the ability in any biome so actually the ranger is the one limited.
Limited to one at level 1, and only the powerful stuff is “limited”. The normal proficiencies apply just like everyone else. Worst case scenario the ranger gets the same as these others that specifically focused on doing what all rangers do baseline. When in their biome they are off the charts better than multiple other classes combined.
Only if the game is entirely played at level 1 is this a thing.
Most games will spend little time here and if you do happen to have a campaign that only stays in T1 then sure PHB ranger is fine.
And no in their biome they are on equal footing. Less so if the class actually devotes effort to survival.
Optimus your speaking as if the ranger can only do their thing in their terrain. The way to think of their abilities is as expertise for their terrain. They can do their thing in any terrain but they do it better in their specialized areas.
yes your brand new L5 wizard COULD use his 1 L3 slot for tiny hut so you can camp safely, but do you really want him to instead of taking Dispel Magic or fireball or something like that. To me that is a really specious argument. Same thing really for the scout rogue - can you make one and duplicate much of the ranger? Of course but WHY? What is the rogue giving up to do what the ranger does automatically?
yes the Druid can do much of what the ranger can do but again if they are focused on doing the ranger thing what are you giving up? It’s not really can they? , but why on earth should they if they can get a ranger and focus on what they are supposed to focus on?
yes you can find your way around not having a ranger and put together a team of several that can cover for the lack but you are giving up a lot in the process. Is the overall team as good as they would be if the ranger was present? Of course not, the ranger does a lot of things for the party out of combat as well as in combat. Could the ranger be improved? Sure but it’s a decent class as is.
when people complain about Being in your favored terrain.
they ignore tiers of play
Levels 1-4 Local heroes- 1 biome is expected
Levels 5-10 Masters of the realm. a realm will mostly be 2-5 biomes. meaning a ranger will still have terrain advantage 50-30% of the time.
the percent only gets better as levels go up and I haven't even tried to included out of terrain creative uses or favored enemies.
because favored enemies are a different category you can have one, or both the amount of times you can functionally use FT or FE goes up significantly.
when people complain about Being in your favored terrain.
they ignore tiers of play
Levels 1-4 Local heroes- 1 biome is expected
Levels 5-10 Masters of the realm. a realm will mostly be 2-5 biomes. meaning a ranger will still have terrain advantage 50-30% of the time.
the percent only gets better as levels go up and I haven't even tried to included out of terrain creative uses or favored enemies.
because favored enemies are a different category you can have one, or both the amount of times you can functionally use FT or FE goes up significantly.
You only get your second biome at 6th level so you are facing 3 more biomes you are less than many. By the time you hit 10th chances are you are winding down/done with the campaign.
So you spend most of your time only valuable 2/5 of the time while the rest of the classes are 5/5.
Optimus your speaking as if the ranger can only do their thing in their terrain. The way to think of their abilities is as expertise for their terrain. They can do their thing in any terrain but they do it better in their specialized areas.
yes your brand new L5 wizard COULD use his 1 L3 slot for tiny hut so you can camp safely, but do you really want him to instead of taking Dispel Magic or fireball or something like that. To me that is a really specious argument. Same thing really for the scout rogue - can you make one and duplicate much of the ranger? Of course but WHY? What is the rogue giving up to do what the ranger does automatically?
yes the Druid can do much of what the ranger can do but again if they are focused on doing the ranger thing what are you giving up? It’s not really can they? , but why on earth should they if they can get a ranger and focus on what they are supposed to focus on?
yes you can find your way around not having a ranger and put together a team of several that can cover for the lack but you are giving up a lot in the process. Is the overall team as good as they would be if the ranger was present? Of course not, the ranger does a lot of things for the party out of combat as well as in combat. Could the ranger be improved? Sure but it’s a decent class as is.
Wizard didn't need to use any slot as it's a ritual spell. Costs them literally nothing to cast.
Druids know a ton of spells per day.... Devoting one or two to survival while spending time extensively traveling only makes sense. Not really giving up anything.
Rogue would have the most investment to be better then ranger giving up a precious expertise.... But if you are doing a survival heavy campaign (one a ranger would be good at) then it makes sense to do survival.
Overall that's the real issue.... They are not giving up much of anything to be better.
Rangers get literally no benefits for the terrain outside of the terrain. It's not like you get ADV to recall info on a forest unless you are in one... Which just shows how poorly designed the ability is.
Like you step outside the forest and you instantly forget half of your knowledge.
[food and water comments] [advantage on skills] [outlander]
All these things which mirror 90% of what the ranger does (honestly the other 10% isn't even that relevant anyway) all with no subclass/background needed.
1. that isn't even remotely 90% of what a ranger does. combat(most ranger builds can range attack, tank and melee and switch them on the fly), tracking, investigations, healing, caretaking of animals and environments. field control is easy to achieve with a ranger. rangers are one of the best classes at saving stuff for later more effective use. (Good berry, poisons, Crafting potions from found supplies, ect.)
2. skills have way more potential than just limited one trick ponies. they are versatile. each of options or spells takes away from other features and has a cost. eventually casters run out of spells. spells are limited in reach skills are a unbrella of use.
3. outlander would stack with ranger making it even better.
when people complain about Being in your favored terrain.
they ignore tiers of play
Levels 1-4 Local heroes- 1 biome is expected
Levels 5-10 Masters of the realm. a realm will mostly be 2-5 biomes. meaning a ranger will still have terrain advantage 50-30% of the time.
the percent only gets better as levels go up and I haven't even tried to included out of terrain creative uses or favored enemies.
because favored enemies are a different category you can have one, or both the amount of times you can functionally use FT or FE goes up significantly.
You only get your second biome at 6th level so you are facing 3 more biomes you are less than many. By the time you hit 10th chances are you are winding down/done with the campaign.
So you spend most of your time only valuable 2/5 of the time while the rest of the classes are 5/5.
I'm sorry you are wrong or lying when you say "the rest of the classes are 5/5."
do paladins and clerics only fight undead? do bards ever use counter charm? Do wizards have every spell land an effect?
Come back when you want to talk 5e not whatever game your playing.
when people complain about Being in your favored terrain.
they ignore tiers of play
Levels 1-4 Local heroes- 1 biome is expected
Levels 5-10 Masters of the realm. a realm will mostly be 2-5 biomes. meaning a ranger will still have terrain advantage 50-30% of the time.
the percent only gets better as levels go up and I haven't even tried to included out of terrain creative uses or favored enemies.
because favored enemies are a different category you can have one, or both the amount of times you can functionally use FT or FE goes up significantly.
You only get your second biome at 6th level so you are facing 3 more biomes you are less than many. By the time you hit 10th chances are you are winding down/done with the campaign.
So you spend most of your time only valuable 2/5 of the time while the rest of the classes are 5/5.
I'm sorry you are wrong or lying when you say "the rest of the classes are 5/5."
do paladins and clerics only fight undead? do bards ever use counter charm? Do wizards have every spell land an effect?
Come back when you want to talk 5e not whatever game your playing.
It's 5/5 because Enhance Ability gives you ADV on the checks regardless of biome.
So yes it's application is literally anywhere where the ranger is limited.
The idea that all natural explorer provides is a benefit is expertise in two skills while physically standing in those terrains is...ludicrous.
Optimus, your idea of there being 4,563 or whatever different terrains is insane. Many campaigns are going to have 1 or 2 terrain types, and most campaigns run to levels 12 or 13.
These are features you are claiming can be replaced by anyone, but each time you list 3 or 4 different, completely different, classes as examples needed to do so. Do you not see how that is weakening your own argument?
In the same way a door in a dungeon can be opened by either a lock pick check, strength athletics check, or a knock spell, the game rarely if ever assumes you need a specific class built a specific way in order to succeed. Quite the opposite, actually. Others can heal. Others can tank. Others can use tools. Others can cast spells. Others can use skills. Saying a combination of other classes and abilities can replace some other class isn’t evidence of that class’s shortcomings. It’s how the game was designed. No one class...none...not wizard, rogue, paladin, or cleric, is “necessary” to play the game.
You really need to get on board with reality here.
What the core ranger abilities are and what they do is not what you think. How all of the skills used in this conversation are used are not how you think. How travel and wilderness exploration works is not how you think.
I laugh at all these threads when someone gets bogged down on a single aspect of a class and points out that other classes can sacrifice something to do that too, making the initial class meaningless. Look at it as a whole or don't bother. Anything less than the mile high view of a class or subclass gives that pinpoint view that is....pointless. Ties in pretty well with the Monk vs Fighter Unarmed debate, if it could be called that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
optimus, you did not answer the question. and you actively getting rules wrong. advantage and favored terrain do not compete with each other they stack.
Your math doesn’t hold up, Optimus.
I can’t criticize you for how you “feel” about something, but the numbers don’t lie, and the numbers point in great favor of the PHB ranger.
Choose a different angle.
What math?
There is no math to say you only benefit in the biome you pick.... It's just how it is.
You pick 1 of 8 possible and you are SOL in the other 7.
Where as the rogue gets their skills in all 8 all the time.
It's just the reality of how limited the feature is.
Now if you are in one biome the entire campaign (underdark/Out of the Abyss) it's a good deal and I would agree it's as good as the rogue since you get it all the time.
If you are in a campaign with 2 or more biomes I would dump it fast.
Wrong on all accounts.
Realistically we are talking about four or maybe five reasonable choices at worst.
fighters fight, and rogues use skills. That’s what they do.
it’s not limited. It’s balanced. And it works well.
you get up to three during your career. That is more than enough.
1 for the first 6 levels and when 90% of games end at level 10 that means you are playing more then half your game handcuffed
It's just a bad deal.... I'm glad they saw sense and added options to fix
A scout rogue gets 2 skills for their subclass. 2. That’s it. They had better be good at skills, as that’s what they do. They have zero magic to heal, harm, protect, explore, interact with the world, or anything else. They are not a martial class. They need situational setups or allies engaged in melee combat to help them not quite keep up in the damage department as a ranger. And that is just the expertise in the two skills. The Ranger abilities do way more than that when active, which is much or most of the time for almost all publish material. And a Ranger is only 10 or 15% “worse“ at those single two skills than a rogue only some of the time, maybe.
The math I am referring to is the expertise that the scout Rogue gets, some of the time, that becomes less and less frequent as the game progresses, amounts to 10 or 15% on a roll of a d20
this is just like the debate about an archer fighter versus a Ranger in terms of damage output. Fighter do a little bit more damage once it reaches level 11. Before that the Ranger is doing as much pure damage as a ranged fighter and possibly more, with the added benefits of many status effects through its magic and subclass.
so the Ranger is almost as good, 10 or 15% so, as doing what three other classes focus on doing almost entirely. And one of those classes requires a specific background and subclass to even be a contender.
Again, 10 or 15% some of the time, and that is only in regard to the use of those two specific skills. And investing your entire background and subclass to do so. THAT is a bad deal.
You don't need a subclass is the thing...
Druid gets good berry, enhance ability, wildshape (which by the way can get a better passive perception then ranger), all as part of the base kit.
Tack on outlander which makes super thematic sense and ranger is out done as they can do all this in any biome... Not just 1 out of 8.
You don't even have to figure in subclass at all... Or background if you really don't want to.
As you get higher in levels it only gets worse as the caster has more spells to use and ones that can just outright make travel through dangerous territory mostly moot.
Clerics can make food and water (ranger can't even get their benefits for water RAW) and enhance ability as base clerics.... No subclass needed.
Rogues can pick survival for expertise.... No subclass needed.
Wizard can pick up tiny hut. No subclass needed.
All these things which mirror 90% of what the ranger does (honestly the other 10% isn't even that relevant anyway) all with no subclass/background needed.
You just listed 4 separate classes that, collectively, can do some of what a ranger can do. No contest.
A non scout rogue is investing even more of their build focus to have a single skill with a +2 bonus.
Those spells you listed have very limited time frames and and a caster would burn through most or all of their spell slots for food and water and making the several checks needed for wilderness travel to kind of do a little bit of what any ranger can do even outside their favored terrains with zero resources spent.
A wild shape druid perception is going to be good in many beast forms. But still less than a beast master’s companion.
Rangers can make food that also heals and saves lives and can be spread throughout the party, The typical DC for water is going to be 10 to 15, easy for anyone proficient in survival.
So again, can 3 or 4 classes combined do what a ranger can do in the wilderness, while NOT in their favored terrain? You bet. Can they do what a ranger can do while in their favored terrain? Nope. Not even close. The other benefits of natural explorer and primeval awareness are unmatched.
Only if the game is entirely played at level 1 is this a thing.
Most games will spend little time here and if you do happen to have a campaign that only stays in T1 then sure PHB ranger is fine.
And no in their biome they are on equal footing. Less so if the class actually devotes effort to survival.
Optimus your speaking as if the ranger can only do their thing in their terrain. The way to think of their abilities is as expertise for their terrain. They can do their thing in any terrain but they do it better in their specialized areas.
yes your brand new L5 wizard COULD use his 1 L3 slot for tiny hut so you can camp safely, but do you really want him to instead of taking Dispel Magic or fireball or something like that. To me that is a really specious argument.
Same thing really for the scout rogue - can you make one and duplicate much of the ranger? Of course but WHY? What is the rogue giving up to do what the ranger does automatically?
yes the Druid can do much of what the ranger can do but again if they are focused on doing the ranger thing what are you giving up? It’s not really can they? , but why on earth should they if they can get a ranger and focus on what they are supposed to focus on?
yes you can find your way around not having a ranger and put together a team of several that can cover for the lack but you are giving up a lot in the process. Is the overall team as good as they would be if the ranger was present? Of course not, the ranger does a lot of things for the party out of combat as well as in combat. Could the ranger be improved? Sure but it’s a decent class as is.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
when people complain about Being in your favored terrain.
they ignore tiers of play
Levels 1-4 Local heroes- 1 biome is expected
Levels 5-10 Masters of the realm. a realm will mostly be 2-5 biomes. meaning a ranger will still have terrain advantage 50-30% of the time.
the percent only gets better as levels go up and I haven't even tried to included out of terrain creative uses or favored enemies.
because favored enemies are a different category you can have one, or both the amount of times you can functionally use FT or FE goes up significantly.
You only get your second biome at 6th level so you are facing 3 more biomes you are less than many. By the time you hit 10th chances are you are winding down/done with the campaign.
So you spend most of your time only valuable 2/5 of the time while the rest of the classes are 5/5.
Wizard didn't need to use any slot as it's a ritual spell. Costs them literally nothing to cast.
Druids know a ton of spells per day.... Devoting one or two to survival while spending time extensively traveling only makes sense. Not really giving up anything.
Rogue would have the most investment to be better then ranger giving up a precious expertise.... But if you are doing a survival heavy campaign (one a ranger would be good at) then it makes sense to do survival.
Overall that's the real issue.... They are not giving up much of anything to be better.
Rangers get literally no benefits for the terrain outside of the terrain. It's not like you get ADV to recall info on a forest unless you are in one... Which just shows how poorly designed the ability is.
Like you step outside the forest and you instantly forget half of your knowledge.
1. that isn't even remotely 90% of what a ranger does. combat(most ranger builds can range attack, tank and melee and switch them on the fly), tracking, investigations, healing, caretaking of animals and environments. field control is easy to achieve with a ranger. rangers are one of the best classes at saving stuff for later more effective use. (Good berry, poisons, Crafting potions from found supplies, ect.)
2. skills have way more potential than just limited one trick ponies. they are versatile. each of options or spells takes away from other features and has a cost. eventually casters run out of spells. spells are limited in reach skills are a unbrella of use.
3. outlander would stack with ranger making it even better.
I'm sorry you are wrong or lying when you say "the rest of the classes are 5/5."
do paladins and clerics only fight undead? do bards ever use counter charm? Do wizards have every spell land an effect?
Come back when you want to talk 5e not whatever game your playing.
It's 5/5 because Enhance Ability gives you ADV on the checks regardless of biome.
So yes it's application is literally anywhere where the ranger is limited.
The idea that all natural explorer provides is a benefit is expertise in two skills while physically standing in those terrains is...ludicrous.
Optimus, your idea of there being 4,563 or whatever different terrains is insane. Many campaigns are going to have 1 or 2 terrain types, and most campaigns run to levels 12 or 13.
These are features you are claiming can be replaced by anyone, but each time you list 3 or 4 different, completely different, classes as examples needed to do so. Do you not see how that is weakening your own argument?
In the same way a door in a dungeon can be opened by either a lock pick check, strength athletics check, or a knock spell, the game rarely if ever assumes you need a specific class built a specific way in order to succeed. Quite the opposite, actually. Others can heal. Others can tank. Others can use tools. Others can cast spells. Others can use skills. Saying a combination of other classes and abilities can replace some other class isn’t evidence of that class’s shortcomings. It’s how the game was designed. No one class...none...not wizard, rogue, paladin, or cleric, is “necessary” to play the game.
You really need to get on board with reality here.
What the core ranger abilities are and what they do is not what you think. How all of the skills used in this conversation are used are not how you think. How travel and wilderness exploration works is not how you think.
I laugh at all these threads when someone gets bogged down on a single aspect of a class and points out that other classes can sacrifice something to do that too, making the initial class meaningless. Look at it as a whole or don't bother. Anything less than the mile high view of a class or subclass gives that pinpoint view that is....pointless. Ties in pretty well with the Monk vs Fighter Unarmed debate, if it could be called that.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
optimus, you did not answer the question. and you actively getting rules wrong. advantage and favored terrain do not compete with each other they stack.