Well even in Faerun you can run into several different biomes. Chult is a great example as you are a relatively small space and randomness when it comes to what hex you start on and work your way into areas you might not expect...and maybe the DM doesn't want to spoil?
The biomes shouldn't occur equally; if you use the actual map of chult then the vast majority of the landmass is covered by (rain)forest, and the party can choose to avoid going over mountains or through the wastes if you don't have that covered at your current level (or go through anyway, knowing you won't have the advantages you would have when sticking to the forest).
If you go fully random then again that's something you should discuss with the DM, as that's a mechanic that's going to penalise one of your class features, just as taking extra points of exhaustion would penalise a Berserker, or not being able to take long rests will penalise most spellcasters and so-on.
D&D is a collaborative game with the DM, and most won't know everything about every class (class details are the player's responsibility), which is why you should have session zeroes to discuss stuff, and be constantly talking about what you need/want as a player, so they can work it in and make sure everyone is having a good time.
Sometimes you are going to end up outside your favoured terrain, and that's fine, because part of the fun of the game is being challenged and having to adapt. Just as a melee specialist has to adapt to enemies fighting at range, or a caster has to adapt to an anti-magic field or enemy caster and so-on. Casters actually face it all the time depending upon their favourite spells as enemies can be resistant or even immune to the damage/effects. The potential for something to be taken away isn't a failing of a feature, it's just part 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.
Well even in Faerun you can run into several different biomes. Chult is a great example as you are a relatively small space and randomness when it comes to what hex you start on and work your way into areas you might not expect...and maybe the DM doesn't want to spoil?
The biomes shouldn't occur equally; if you use the actual map of chult then the vast majority of the landmass is covered by (rain)forest, and the party can choose to avoid going over mountains or through the wastes if you don't have that covered at your current level (or go through anyway, knowing you won't have the advantages you would have when sticking to the forest).
If you go fully random then again that's something you should discuss with the DM, as that's a mechanic that's going to penalise one of your class features, just as taking extra points of exhaustion would penalise a Berserker, or not being able to take long rests will penalise most spellcasters and so-on.
D&D is a collaborative game with the DM, and most won't know everything about every class (class details are the player's responsibility), which is why you should have session zeroes to discuss stuff, and be constantly talking about what you need/want as a player, so they can work it in and make sure everyone is having a good time.
Sometimes you are going to end up outside your favoured terrain, and that's fine, because part of the fun of the game is being challenged and having to adapt. Just as a melee specialist has to adapt to enemies fighting at range, or a caster has to adapt to an anti-magic field or enemy caster and so-on. Casters actually face it all the time depending upon their favourite spells as enemies can be resistant or even immune to the damage/effects. The potential for something to be taken away isn't a failing of a feature, it's just part of the game.
Thats fair which is why I think that swapping the terrain makes sense from several perspectives then as a design choice.
Rangers did not get prepared casting either so I felt they need SOME kind of flexibility when it comes to their abilities. Honestly more long rest to long rest choices for the classes in general I think would even the gap between casters and martials.
Rangers got known spells and less of them, (compared to the paladin I guess, because that’s what everyone compares them to for some reason) because I’m a one for one basis ranger spells tend to be “better” than paladin spells, more game changing/shaping, and longer lasting through concentration or a lack there of.
Best to think of ranger spells as long rest class features.
Yes. It isn’t ever a 1/5, or 2/5 situation. Chult was a great example you game. The map says it all.
In terms of weight, arctic, desert, underdark, and perhaps even swamp do NOT carry a full share of frequency. You’re looking at half as frequent, tops. Forest, mountain, and coast are going to show up above the rest big time in all but the campaigns where you are in a specific environment like Rime or Abyss.
Grassland is a joke. And hills aren’t an option. For me those two are non land types as you either wouldn’t need to make any kind of survival check or any survival check would be so easy that it doesn’t matter.
And that’s another consideration. Pick a land type that you would WANT to make tough checks. Harsh environments is where the DC would be higher anyway. A 10% or 15% better chance from expertise is almost moot if the DC is 10. So a ranger that chooses swamp and mountain as favored terrain is 15% less likely to make a DC 10 survival check to hunt or navigate while traveling hills, grasslands, or open roads.
Yes. It isn’t ever a 1/5, or 2/5 situation. Chult was a great example you game. The map says it all.
In terms of weight, arctic, desert, underdark, and perhaps even swamp do NOT carry a full share of frequency. You’re looking at half as frequent, tops. Forest, mountain, and coast are going to show up above the rest big time in all but the campaigns where you are in a specific environment like Rime or Abyss.
Grassland is a joke. And hills aren’t an option. For me those two are non land types as you either wouldn’t need to make any kind of survival check or any survival check would be so easy that it doesn’t matter.
And that’s another consideration. Pick a land type that you would WANT to make tough checks. Harsh environments is where the DC would be higher anyway. A 10% or 15% better chance from expertise is almost moot if the DC is 10. So a ranger that chooses swamp and mountain as favored terrain is 15% less likely to make a DC 10 survival check to hunt or navigate while traveling hills, grasslands, or open roads.
Chult is one thats likely one of the better campaigns for a low level ranger yeah since its a lot jungle. But you could also be in the mountains/underdark for several sessions too without getting into too many spoilers....
Avernus and IWD would be others that would be monobiome as well. Other campaigns you are less likely to have that benefit as the Sword Coast is pretty diverse with biomes.
Thats fair which is why I think that swapping the terrain makes sense from several perspectives then as a design choice.
If you can just do it whenever you want then what would be the point of choosing in the first place? I could maybe see it following the format of spells, i.e- whenever you gain a new favored terrain/enemy you can swap out one that you already have at the same time, since it's supposed to reflect experience/practice, but anything faster would diminish the choice.
But this is something you can already do if you want; it's another ask your DM situation. People mess up choices of spells, eldritch invocations etc. all the time, and I've never played in a campaign where the DM hasn't been happy to let them swap for something that's a better fit, so long as no-one is taking the piss (trying to change right before a battle or such) and you can justify why you want to do it, and how it might happen.
Also assuming the Ranger is built to be good at exploration, being outside of Favored Terrain doesn't mean they aren't able to cope; high Wisdom and survival proficiency will mean they still can track, forage etc. better than the rest of your party likely will (you're usually only really competing with Clerics and Monks for Wisdom, but depending on theme they may not take survival as both need to do so via a background). As a result, a Ranger built to be good at survival should still be good at exploration in any terrain, the point of Favored Terrain is that they are significantly better in certain types of terrain, to the point that your party should try to stick to those wherever possible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
We should, instead of stating opinions over and over again, take each WotC published adventure and roughly calculate how many significant different ranger terrain categories there are in each book and how many levels each book assumes the party will be in.
I know we’ll disagree some more, for example I would give favored terrain desert to a ranger in Avernus.
Rangers got known spells and less of them, (compared to the paladin I guess, because that’s what everyone compares them to for some reason) because I’m a one for one basis ranger spells tend to be “better” than paladin spells, more game changing/shaping, and longer lasting through concentration or a lack there of.
Best to think of ranger spells as long rest class features.
I would disagree that ranger spells are better.
Paladins get some really good spells particularly from their oath like Spirit Guardians, Haste, and Misty Step.
Thats fair which is why I think that swapping the terrain makes sense from several perspectives then as a design choice.
If you can just do it whenever you want then what would be the point of choosing in the first place? I could maybe see it following the format of spells, i.e- whenever you gain a new favored terrain/enemy you can swap out one that you already have at the same time, since it's supposed to reflect experience/practice, but anything faster would diminish the choice.
But this is something you can already do if you want; it's another ask your DM situation. People mess up choices of spells, eldritch invocations etc. all the time, and I've never played in a campaign where the DM hasn't been happy to let them swap for something that's a better fit, so long as no-one is taking the piss (trying to change right before a battle or such) and you can justify why you want to do it, and how it might happen.
Also assuming the Ranger is built to be good at exploration, being outside of Favored Terrain doesn't mean they aren't able to cope; high Wisdom and survival proficiency will mean they still can track, forage etc. better than the rest of your party likely will (you're usually only really competing with Clerics and Monks for Wisdom, but depending on theme they may not take survival as both need to do so via a background). As a result, a Ranger built to be good at survival should still be good at exploration in any terrain, the point of Favored Terrain is that they are significantly better in certain types of terrain, to the point that your party should try to stick to those wherever possible.
Choosing would be less about actually choosing but the number of terrains you could have invested in at one time. The more you can have "on" at a time only makes you better and more versatile and ready to go at a moments notice. By that point your wizard will have teleport and has had teleportation circle for some time so travel across mass distances will be something a lot more common.
If you limit the party to only going where you are already good at...that's not really exploring is it?
Rangers got known spells and less of them, (compared to the paladin I guess, because that’s what everyone compares them to for some reason) because I’m a one for one basis ranger spells tend to be “better” than paladin spells, more game changing/shaping, and longer lasting through concentration or a lack there of.
Best to think of ranger spells as long rest class features.
I would disagree that ranger spells are better.
Paladins get some really good spells particularly from their oath like Spirit Guardians, Haste, and Misty Step.
I'm sure you do. But ranger spells, baseline ranger spells that all rangers get, are constantly listed as some of the most powerful spells in the game. At each level.
Rangers got known spells and less of them, (compared to the paladin I guess, because that’s what everyone compares them to for some reason) because I’m a one for one basis ranger spells tend to be “better” than paladin spells, more game changing/shaping, and longer lasting through concentration or a lack there of.
Best to think of ranger spells as long rest class features.
I would disagree that ranger spells are better.
Paladins get some really good spells particularly from their oath like Spirit Guardians, Haste, and Misty Step.
I'm sure you do. But ranger spells, baseline ranger spells that all rangers get, are constantly listed as some of the most powerful spells in the game. At each level.
I mean things like Bless are very powerful at first level and they are the only ones to get a flying steed!
Aura of Vitality is one I steal a lot as a Bard.
Spirit Shroud is a great one now to keep them close for more smites.
Rangers got known spells and less of them, (compared to the paladin I guess, because that’s what everyone compares them to for some reason) because I’m a one for one basis ranger spells tend to be “better” than paladin spells, more game changing/shaping, and longer lasting through concentration or a lack there of.
Best to think of ranger spells as long rest class features.
I would disagree that ranger spells are better.
Paladins get some really good spells particularly from their oath like Spirit Guardians, Haste, and Misty Step.
I'm sure you do. But ranger spells, baseline ranger spells that all rangers get, are constantly listed as some of the most powerful spells in the game. At each level.
I mean things like Bless are very powerful at first level and they are the only ones to get a flying steed!
Aura of Vitality is one I steal a lot as a Bard.
Spirit Shroud is a great one now to keep them close for more smites.
All combat and healing. All of it. Paladins work in one pillar of the game. The combat biome.
ok so guys i just realized that the following benefit from Natural Explorer is WAY better than what i first realized:
Your group cannot become lost through nonmagical means
First of all, this feature makes it so that no person in the party, not even the ranger, is required to take the "Navigate" downtime activity since all that travel activity does is prevent you from being lost. If the group will never be separated from their ranger this might also scratches out the need for "Draw a Map" since all having a map does for the party is give you advantage on ability checks made to navigate.
Second of all, the chance of actiually getting lost is way bigger than i realized, especially at early levels. For a 3rd level scout rogue with a decent score of 14 in wisdom trying to navigate in medium difficulty terrain (arctic, desert and hills) will have an 15% chance of getting lost. If the scout instead tried to navigate in say a forest or mountain (two fairly common biomes for advantures) and tried to move at Fast pace while doing so, the risk of getting lost is 65% (making it almost more worthwhile to move at slow pace to lower the risk of the rogue getting lost).
While it is fairly easy to gain advantage on the check (requiring only that you either have a accurate map or that you are able to see the sun / the stars) the chance of getting lost is still somewhat significant, and not having to worry about it can potentially save time and resources
i am starting to see why y'all are so pro- phb ranger:
in a context where you are trying to navigate to a place, the ranger fills the role of 3-4 party members depending on how you count (as they can Forage while looking for threats while also Navigating, and thus drawing a map is lo longer nessesary) meaning that the other members of the party can now focus entirely on looking for threats with perception, or if they happen to be a scout or barbarian or druid with surivial proficiency or even like a artificer with cook's utensils they could instead also help the ranger forage, making rations unnecessary. In that group, you are either an Food Bringer, Watcher or you are just the Ranger doing everything and more
if we are instead in a context where the ranger has to Track a creature down, favored terrain lets them gain additional information when they track compared to what would happen if anyone else tried to track the mark (further distinguishing you from the masses), and hunter's mark/ favoured enemy could easily grant you advantage on your check on top of your expertise (not always of course, only some of the time, and anyone else could easily get advantage with some Help from their allies)
in a context outside of their specific favored terrain, they are going to be exactly as competent as a druid or monk with proficiency in survival, but inside their favored terrain they are going to just straight up be a "Win" button where unless the ranger splits from the party for some reason, the party will not exactly be challenged much.
This also makes me feel like the PHB ranger can actually afford to split of from the party more often and in fact should split from the party regularly. Not only does this let the PHB ranger get to move stealthily slightly faster than normal without it affecting what they are capable of on their own, but now the party he split from is now going to experience a modicrum of hardship. Perhaps the party needs to go somewhere that is not one of the ranger's favored terrains while the ranger is on a lone stealth mission to as quickly as possible pick up an important relic from an temple somewhere in enemy territory and fetch it back to the party
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Rangers got known spells and less of them, (compared to the paladin I guess, because that’s what everyone compares them to for some reason) because I’m a one for one basis ranger spells tend to be “better” than paladin spells, more game changing/shaping, and longer lasting through concentration or a lack there of.
Best to think of ranger spells as long rest class features.
I would disagree that ranger spells are better.
Paladins get some really good spells particularly from their oath like Spirit Guardians, Haste, and Misty Step.
I'm sure you do. But ranger spells, baseline ranger spells that all rangers get, are constantly listed as some of the most powerful spells in the game. At each level.
I mean things like Bless are very powerful at first level and they are the only ones to get a flying steed!
Aura of Vitality is one I steal a lot as a Bard.
Spirit Shroud is a great one now to keep them close for more smites.
All combat and healing. All of it. Paladins work in one pillar of the game. The combat biome.
Combat is like 75% of the rules so it makes sense.
Rangers got known spells and less of them, (compared to the paladin I guess, because that’s what everyone compares them to for some reason) because I’m a one for one basis ranger spells tend to be “better” than paladin spells, more game changing/shaping, and longer lasting through concentration or a lack there of.
Best to think of ranger spells as long rest class features.
I would disagree that ranger spells are better.
Paladins get some really good spells particularly from their oath like Spirit Guardians, Haste, and Misty Step.
I'm sure you do. But ranger spells, baseline ranger spells that all rangers get, are constantly listed as some of the most powerful spells in the game. At each level.
I mean things like Bless are very powerful at first level and they are the only ones to get a flying steed!
Aura of Vitality is one I steal a lot as a Bard.
Spirit Shroud is a great one now to keep them close for more smites.
All combat and healing. All of it. Paladins work in one pillar of the game. The combat biome.
Combat is like 75% of the rules so it makes sense.
Yes! And that is 90% of what paladins have an impact on in the game. Unlike rangers, paladins are hyper focused on that pillar, and their spells only double down on that in general and within them self.
The Ranger spell has a much larger scope of form and function, and affects all three pillars in a much more impactful way.
there are a number of spells that I think make sense to add to the list of ranger spells- things like Thunderwave - rangers are supposed to be loners really so being able to hit all the foes in a 15' cube around you at once when surrounded and driving them back 10 feet would make a lot of sense to me. A lot of rangers I play right now multiclass into sorceror early on for just that spell (along with Detect Magic). I don't think other spells like Fireball are appropriate however there should be a really good rational for any spell being added.
Rangers got known spells and less of them, (compared to the paladin I guess, because that’s what everyone compares them to for some reason) because I’m a one for one basis ranger spells tend to be “better” than paladin spells, more game changing/shaping, and longer lasting through concentration or a lack there of.
Best to think of ranger spells as long rest class features.
I would disagree that ranger spells are better.
Paladins get some really good spells particularly from their oath like Spirit Guardians, Haste, and Misty Step.
I'm sure you do. But ranger spells, baseline ranger spells that all rangers get, are constantly listed as some of the most powerful spells in the game. At each level.
I mean things like Bless are very powerful at first level and they are the only ones to get a flying steed!
Aura of Vitality is one I steal a lot as a Bard.
Spirit Shroud is a great one now to keep them close for more smites.
All combat and healing. All of it. Paladins work in one pillar of the game. The combat biome.
Combat is like 75% of the rules so it makes sense.
Yes! And that is 90% of what paladins have an impact on in the game. Unlike rangers, paladins are hyper focused on that pillar, and their spells only double down on that in general and within them self.
The Ranger spell has a much larger scope of form and function, and affects all three pillars in a much more impactful way.
Social is a big paladin thing too as they have the CHA to back it up.
That with Zone of Truth and they function as the stick in the ol "Carrot or the Stick" approach.
Ranger doesn't have as much in the social realm unless you pick the Fey one who gets some help with checks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Lol just tweet at him!
Oh. I have tweeted him several times in the last 3 or so years. No response yet.
The biomes shouldn't occur equally; if you use the actual map of chult then the vast majority of the landmass is covered by (rain)forest, and the party can choose to avoid going over mountains or through the wastes if you don't have that covered at your current level (or go through anyway, knowing you won't have the advantages you would have when sticking to the forest).
If you go fully random then again that's something you should discuss with the DM, as that's a mechanic that's going to penalise one of your class features, just as taking extra points of exhaustion would penalise a Berserker, or not being able to take long rests will penalise most spellcasters and so-on.
D&D is a collaborative game with the DM, and most won't know everything about every class (class details are the player's responsibility), which is why you should have session zeroes to discuss stuff, and be constantly talking about what you need/want as a player, so they can work it in and make sure everyone is having a good time.
Sometimes you are going to end up outside your favoured terrain, and that's fine, because part of the fun of the game is being challenged and having to adapt. Just as a melee specialist has to adapt to enemies fighting at range, or a caster has to adapt to an anti-magic field or enemy caster and so-on. Casters actually face it all the time depending upon their favourite spells as enemies can be resistant or even immune to the damage/effects. The potential for something to be taken away isn't a failing of a feature, it's just part 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.
Thats fair which is why I think that swapping the terrain makes sense from several perspectives then as a design choice.
Rangers did not get prepared casting either so I felt they need SOME kind of flexibility when it comes to their abilities. Honestly more long rest to long rest choices for the classes in general I think would even the gap between casters and martials.
Rangers got known spells and less of them, (compared to the paladin I guess, because that’s what everyone compares them to for some reason) because I’m a one for one basis ranger spells tend to be “better” than paladin spells, more game changing/shaping, and longer lasting through concentration or a lack there of.
Best to think of ranger spells as long rest class features.
Yes. It isn’t ever a 1/5, or 2/5 situation. Chult was a great example you game. The map says it all.
In terms of weight, arctic, desert, underdark, and perhaps even swamp do NOT carry a full share of frequency. You’re looking at half as frequent, tops. Forest, mountain, and coast are going to show up above the rest big time in all but the campaigns where you are in a specific environment like Rime or Abyss.
Grassland is a joke. And hills aren’t an option. For me those two are non land types as you either wouldn’t need to make any kind of survival check or any survival check would be so easy that it doesn’t matter.
And that’s another consideration. Pick a land type that you would WANT to make tough checks. Harsh environments is where the DC would be higher anyway. A 10% or 15% better chance from expertise is almost moot if the DC is 10. So a ranger that chooses swamp and mountain as favored terrain is 15% less likely to make a DC 10 survival check to hunt or navigate while traveling hills, grasslands, or open roads.
Chult is one thats likely one of the better campaigns for a low level ranger yeah since its a lot jungle. But you could also be in the mountains/underdark for several sessions too without getting into too many spoilers....
Avernus and IWD would be others that would be monobiome as well. Other campaigns you are less likely to have that benefit as the Sword Coast is pretty diverse with biomes.
If you can just do it whenever you want then what would be the point of choosing in the first place? I could maybe see it following the format of spells, i.e- whenever you gain a new favored terrain/enemy you can swap out one that you already have at the same time, since it's supposed to reflect experience/practice, but anything faster would diminish the choice.
But this is something you can already do if you want; it's another ask your DM situation. People mess up choices of spells, eldritch invocations etc. all the time, and I've never played in a campaign where the DM hasn't been happy to let them swap for something that's a better fit, so long as no-one is taking the piss (trying to change right before a battle or such) and you can justify why you want to do it, and how it might happen.
Also assuming the Ranger is built to be good at exploration, being outside of Favored Terrain doesn't mean they aren't able to cope; high Wisdom and survival proficiency will mean they still can track, forage etc. better than the rest of your party likely will (you're usually only really competing with Clerics and Monks for Wisdom, but depending on theme they may not take survival as both need to do so via a background). As a result, a Ranger built to be good at survival should still be good at exploration in any terrain, the point of Favored Terrain is that they are significantly better in certain types of terrain, to the point that your party should try to stick to those wherever possible.
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.
We should, instead of stating opinions over and over again, take each WotC published adventure and roughly calculate how many significant different ranger terrain categories there are in each book and how many levels each book assumes the party will be in.
I know we’ll disagree some more, for example I would give favored terrain desert to a ranger in Avernus.
Here is a list of all of the official adventures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_&_Dragons_rulebooks
I would disagree that ranger spells are better.
Paladins get some really good spells particularly from their oath like Spirit Guardians, Haste, and Misty Step.
Choosing would be less about actually choosing but the number of terrains you could have invested in at one time. The more you can have "on" at a time only makes you better and more versatile and ready to go at a moments notice. By that point your wizard will have teleport and has had teleportation circle for some time so travel across mass distances will be something a lot more common.
If you limit the party to only going where you are already good at...that's not really exploring is it?
I'm sure you do. But ranger spells, baseline ranger spells that all rangers get, are constantly listed as some of the most powerful spells in the game. At each level.
I mean things like Bless are very powerful at first level and they are the only ones to get a flying steed!
Aura of Vitality is one I steal a lot as a Bard.
Spirit Shroud is a great one now to keep them close for more smites.
All combat and healing. All of it. Paladins work in one pillar of the game. The combat biome.
ok so guys i just realized that the following benefit from Natural Explorer is WAY better than what i first realized:
First of all, this feature makes it so that no person in the party, not even the ranger, is required to take the "Navigate" downtime activity since all that travel activity does is prevent you from being lost. If the group will never be separated from their ranger this might also scratches out the need for "Draw a Map" since all having a map does for the party is give you advantage on ability checks made to navigate.
Second of all, the chance of actiually getting lost is way bigger than i realized, especially at early levels. For a 3rd level scout rogue with a decent score of 14 in wisdom trying to navigate in medium difficulty terrain (arctic, desert and hills) will have an 15% chance of getting lost. If the scout instead tried to navigate in say a forest or mountain (two fairly common biomes for advantures) and tried to move at Fast pace while doing so, the risk of getting lost is 65% (making it almost more worthwhile to move at slow pace to lower the risk of the rogue getting lost).
While it is fairly easy to gain advantage on the check (requiring only that you either have a accurate map or that you are able to see the sun / the stars) the chance of getting lost is still somewhat significant, and not having to worry about it can potentially save time and resources
i am starting to see why y'all are so pro- phb ranger:
in a context outside of their specific favored terrain, they are going to be exactly as competent as a druid or monk with proficiency in survival, but inside their favored terrain they are going to just straight up be a "Win" button where unless the ranger splits from the party for some reason, the party will not exactly be challenged much.
This also makes me feel like the PHB ranger can actually afford to split of from the party more often and in fact should split from the party regularly. Not only does this let the PHB ranger get to move stealthily slightly faster than normal without it affecting what they are capable of on their own, but now the party he split from is now going to experience a modicrum of hardship. Perhaps the party needs to go somewhere that is not one of the ranger's favored terrains while the ranger is on a lone stealth mission to as quickly as possible pick up an important relic from an temple somewhere in enemy territory and fetch it back to the party
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Combat is like 75% of the rules so it makes sense.
Yes! And that is 90% of what paladins have an impact on in the game. Unlike rangers, paladins are hyper focused on that pillar, and their spells only double down on that in general and within them self.
The Ranger spell has a much larger scope of form and function, and affects all three pillars in a much more impactful way.
there are a number of spells that I think make sense to add to the list of ranger spells- things like Thunderwave - rangers are supposed to be loners really so being able to hit all the foes in a 15' cube around you at once when surrounded and driving them back 10 feet would make a lot of sense to me. A lot of rangers I play right now multiclass into sorceror early on for just that spell (along with Detect Magic). I don't think other spells like Fireball are appropriate however there should be a really good rational for any spell being added.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Social is a big paladin thing too as they have the CHA to back it up.
That with Zone of Truth and they function as the stick in the ol "Carrot or the Stick" approach.
Ranger doesn't have as much in the social realm unless you pick the Fey one who gets some help with checks.