Rangers do fine damage and with Hail of Thorns, Spike Growth, Conjure Barrage, Lightning Arrow, and Conjure Volley have many options at many tiers for multiple target damage. Meanwhile Paladin gets only Destructive Wave at 5th. So one half caster is better at multi target and the other at single target. How many fights are just the party against one boss with no minions? A closer look at single target damage and you see the paladin leaning heavily on a handful of spells to keep up with others at that tier.
Single target damage is just very overrated. It omits and ignores how important aspects like control (entangle, ensnaring strike, spike growth, plant growth), and summoning impact the battlefield. The Ranger is just better at these aspects. I just had two fights in a row completely nerfed by a Ranger using Gust of Wind. He did almost no damage, but ruined the DM's plans. I will take the trade we have in the design.
The right spell at the right time is the chorus of casters.
And now its one of the best aspects of the new ranger, changing one spell per day expands the utility a lot in comparison to 2014, giving chance to try or prepare any spell anytime not just the staples (summoning, dmg spells, path without trace, spike growth). Adapting not only to possible encounters, but also party composition and options.
I believe a 2014 actually can hold up in tier 3 by planning and work. Harvesting or buying purple worm poison + swift quiver works on at worst 60% of enemies and even the immune bbegs usually have Secondary minions that are affected.
Fogcloud (that a party plans for) alone can reduce many high level encounters from deadly to normal or easy.
Rangers problem was rarely damage or combat prowess. Its tone and thematic play. people talk about dissatisfaction but they often forget it was one of the most played classes. People were interested in its mechanics and play styles. The mechanics just were ignored, unsuported or required effort.
My problem with 2024 will never be damage it will be the build constraints of HM and the lack of real "Ranging ability"
The problem with real "Ranging Ability" is that unless your group emphasizes the exploration and travel phase of the game then you are. never going to feel fully Rangery.
I can remember playing an Elven Ranger with the "Pathfinder" Kit in 2nd Edition which meant that the party got bonuses if I scouted ahead and trail blazed for the party. The DM knowing that was one of the central themes of the kit ensured that there was suitable opportunities to use my skills. Many groups today just sort of fast forward through the travel or they might have one random encounter and then the party arrives at their destination, which eliminates the "ranging" of the Ranger.
Agreed, the “cinematic” travel nerfs the ranger badly.as far as “ranging” goes. All the individual ranging stuff is really covered by proficiency and expertise in nature and survival ( & perception). And who gets those expertises at L3? The scout rogue not th ranger.im hoping for a splat book that reworks the ranger (again) as well as the scout rogue and finally gets it right - scout rogue gets proficiency in nature and survival (skills the base rogue traditionally didn’t have access to) while rangers get expertise in both and a third expertise later rather than 1 expertise and 2 more later.. then getting some ribbons that aide the party as a whole when out n the wilderness. That along with a book or adventure focused n wilderness travel and adventure.(outside the jungles of Chult). So players and DMs with little/ no actual wilderness. ExPerience to draw on can see and get a feel for how to run such adventures or parts of adventures.
I still was always able to get 2014 ranger benefits even with cinematic travel. There are ways to represent ranging abilities even in non travel games. The free travel activities are no joke. Cinematic travel doesn't change that(few classeshave guaranteed downtime). Tool checks could also often get a ranger boon. Favored enemy works wonders on ally medicine and animal handling checks. This is why the variable expertise works way better for me than just one or two from 2024. You never really know which skill will be the important one to feel like a suvival expert.
Now the game has changed and tools aren't really the same as we started 5e but there were other ways to update the ranger skill set to mechanically support non-survival games and still feel like it has ranging and survival capabilities.
There was supposed to be The Game Masters Book of Wilderness Encounters that I was hoping would focus on this. I preordered it a while back and it was supposed to release next May but it looks like it’s been cancelled. I think they started working on it well before the 5.5 announcement and decided to cancel.
I’m not unhappy with the ‘24 ranger, but that also means I’m not ecstatic about it. The biggest thing wrong with the ranger isn’t anything in the ranger class - it’s the existence of the scout rogue. Had they stopped at giving it proficiency with nature and survival it would have been fine. It is that final line: “Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses either of those proficiencies.” that provides effective expertise with both skills at level 3. Even the ‘24 ranger can’t compete with this as it only gets a single expertise at L2. A book like that Surraguard mentions would have been the ideal place to correct both those (and other ranger class “mistakes”).too bad it seems to be gone or delayed. So my “fixes”: 1) at L2 - you gain expertise in the nature and survival skills. This adds your proficiency bonus to he number of people and creatures can effectively forage for. 2) at L6 - roving not only increases your personal speed but it increases the overland travel speed of any party you are with - just how much I’m not sure but even a 10% boost would be enough to make it a significant boost. This might also be a good place to give the ranger advantage on all checks to avoid getting lost. 3) at L13 - the advantage on concentration is for all spells not just HM. I would also consider granting the ranger the elimination of disadvantage on spellcasting attack spells when in melee (foe in 5’ radius). By this time the ranger should be a skilled combat caster. 4) at L20 - the ranger gets a third attack with its extra attack ability. The fighter is getting 4 here so why can’t the ranger stay one step behind? 5) access to at least a few elemental based evocation spells. I get why things like fireball, lightning bolt, etc are off the list but how about things like Melf’s minute Meteors or Snilloc’s snowball swarm? They seem right up the ranger’s alley.
The ranger's lack of attacks is, imo, a big part of it's problem mathematically. Theme-wise, it's problematic for trying to be too many things for too many people and focused on a pillar of the game that's often ignored.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Yeah being a little of everything for veryone is pretty much also being not enough of anything for everyone. There are enough classes and subclasses that you can create almost anything you want out of almost any class. Might be time to reset a few so they have clear areas of mastery again.
The biggest problem with the ranger is it's name. Ranger means too many different things to too many different people for all ranger fans to be satisfied.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Ranger as an archetype is different than a ranger as a profession. Neither are what whole a 5e class is. I go to the ranger class because (at least 2014) provides a unique playspace that isn't garanteed with other classes.
Wild bills comment about revisiting classes is a good one an I almost wish we got artificers instead in 2024 because of the artificerconcept being better defined as a framework and playspace.
Given that the (wilderness) exploration leg of the game is all but dead and even when done most ignore rations, missiles and probably difficult terrain just what is the ranger for? What is his/her purpose in the game? If those are the sole reasons for a ranger - as a ranger - then maybe it is time for it to go back to being a fighter subclass. If the ranger is the game’s closest thing to a true Gish then why doesn’t it get cantrips and arcane spells? If a ranger is a Druid that can wear armor and can’t wildshape then why can’t use the full list of Druid/primal spells? So yes, the first and most mportant question is What Is A Ranger? And the second key question is Where does the ranger fit in today’s game? Once those are effectively answered we will know how WotC sees the ranger and what they want to do with it. I have the feeling that they themselves don’t know and are hoping we come up with some brilliant idea they can use.
Given that the (wilderness) exploration leg of the game is all but dead and even when done most ignore rations, missiles and probably difficult terrain just what is the ranger for? What is his/her purpose in the game? If those are the sole reasons for a ranger - as a ranger - then maybe it is time for it to go back to being a fighter subclass. If the ranger is the game’s closest thing to a true Gish then why doesn’t it get cantrips and arcane spells? If a ranger is a Druid that can wear armor and can’t wildshape then why can’t use the full list of Druid/primal spells? So yes, the first and most mportant question is What Is A Ranger? And the second key question is Where does the ranger fit in today’s game? Once those are effectively answered we will know how WotC sees the ranger and what they want to do with it. I have the feeling that they themselves don’t know and are hoping we come up with some brilliant idea they can use.
I would argue the data supports that ranger is a highly desirable archetype even if exploration "mechanics" are considered a drag on gameplay. Few want the survivalist role but lots of people want to play Aragorn, lone ranger, Perin Abarra or Lan Mandagoran.
(Most desirable class to play but with "least" satisfaction).
The archetype speaks to enemy detection and advanced training.
I would say one way to make ranger training feel good is to make them feel accurate (the +2 fighting style for archery is incredibly popular) to make rangers by standard the most accurate class would feel good even if they weren't the highest damage.
Another way is unique party support especially in areas of movement and diseases and detection. Paladins can give everyone a save boost why not give ranger a shareable movement boost.
Rangers just desperately need another attack at higher levels. Getting rid of the strange fixation on hunters mark would be nice as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I don’t mind hunter’s mark, but tieing everything to it is a bit much. Having steel wind strike helps offset but it’s just one or two castings a day so yess more would be nice. The +2 accuracy for archery is good as a fighting style but how do you get that for melee? And perhaps more importantly, how do you do that as a class feature not a fighting style that other classes can take? Also preferably not a L1 so no quick dips just for it. That might be where both HM and favored enemies make a comeback - starting at L3, against your favored foes or a foe marked by your hunters mark spell the ranger’s focused understanding grants him a +2 to hit. ( this could be general so you don’t need the archery style anymore as a ranger) combine this with getting 2 more types of favored enemies (5 over all or 6 if you take the 2 humanoids) then giving rangers the herbalism tool and party support for movement, foraging etc as part of an expanded favored terrain - again getting 5 overall not 3.
while a lot of folks base their ranger fantasies on Aragorn and others from high fantasy settings as R. Mentioned mine is less high fantasy and somewhat more down to earth - the long hunters, fur trappers and mountain men from America’s late 1700s to late 1800s along with the fiction about them. To me, they give the best view of what a ranger in pretty much anytime would be like skill wise.
So.... how come nobody has talked about the adjusted Primal spells? A few of them got stronger (like Jump), but many of them got nerfed big time. Conjure Animals is literally a shadow compared to its 2014 form.
Every single Primal list conjuration spell that had been in the 5e PHB has been seriously nerfed, both in terms of flavor and in terms of mechanics. The only serious improvement seems to be Grasping Vine (4th lvl), which I guess they felt they had to boost since very few people ever took it based on 2014 rules. But the big staple of Rangers' high level spellcasting is now hobbled into a video game-easy "take damage and 1 effect" instead of presenting us with actual range of useful control/buff/debuff options.
You can add this to Deft Explorer at level 2: you focus on the finer details of your surroundings for the next minute. You have advantage on Survival and Perception checks while this ability is active. You may use this ability a number of times equal to your WIS bonus. Fixes the Scout Rogue issue easily. If you're going to make the mistake of making something that basically steps all over the features of another class you need to come back and correct the error later.
The Ranger should also absolutely have some ability to resistant elemental damage and maybe share that resistance with others also since they literally brave the elements. This is not even difficult game design. You simply need to make sure all the features that you say are part of the class are actually represented mechanically. That's why many people are disappointed in the effort given to making sure this class did not end up with the same lousy reputation it had when it was released in 2014.
So.... how come nobody has talked about the adjusted Primal spells? A few of them got stronger (like Jump), but many of them got nerfed big time. Conjure Animals is literally a shadow compared to its 2014 form.
Every single Primal list conjuration spell that had been in the 5e PHB has been seriously nerfed, both in terms of flavor and in terms of mechanics. The only serious improvement seems to be Grasping Vine (4th lvl), which I guess they felt they had to boost since very few people ever took it based on 2014 rules. But the big staple of Rangers' high level spellcasting is now hobbled into a video game-easy "take damage and 1 effect" instead of presenting us with actual range of useful control/buff/debuff options.
"No body" talks about it because it's often just wrapped up in the player base that says they are not moving on to 2024. Most of Those players are done with wotc "spin doctors."
They hinted in the ranger video that some choices were made for the "health" of the game instead of desirability. I assume stat block abilities that cross dm/ player divide are one such topic. Many ranger spells as well.
To me this "health of the game" sounds like controlling design for profit rather than breadth of play.
You can add this to Deft Explorer at level 2: you focus on the finer details of your surroundings for the next minute. You have advantage on Survival and Perception checks while this ability is active. You may use this ability a number of times equal to your WIS bonus. Fixes the Scout Rogue issue easily. If you're going to make the mistake of making something that basically steps all over the features of another class you need to come back and correct the error later.
The Ranger should also absolutely have some ability to resistant elemental damage and maybe share that resistance with others also since they literally brave the elements. This is not even difficult game design. You simply need to make sure all the features that you say are part of the class are actually represented mechanically. That's why many people are disappointed in the effort given to making sure this class did not end up with the same lousy reputation it had when it was released in 2014.
Several adventures league modules referenced cold/hot weather gear as available for purchase. These types of items make it unnecessary for rangers to get environmental boons(also absorb elements). However, I usually gave rangers with the terrain checks to make or premtively aquire such gear.
Wotc could have integrated such equipment into the ranger class similar to a Rouge's "poison from nowhere" that comes with 2024 sneak enhancements.
Similarly rewiting favored terrain and primeval awareness into one cohesive feature (with no specific terrains but spell slot costs for certain benefits like detection or movement boons) could work.
Rangers do fine damage and with Hail of Thorns, Spike Growth, Conjure Barrage, Lightning Arrow, and Conjure Volley have many options at many tiers for multiple target damage. Meanwhile Paladin gets only Destructive Wave at 5th. So one half caster is better at multi target and the other at single target. How many fights are just the party against one boss with no minions? A closer look at single target damage and you see the paladin leaning heavily on a handful of spells to keep up with others at that tier.
Single target damage is just very overrated. It omits and ignores how important aspects like control (entangle, ensnaring strike, spike growth, plant growth), and summoning impact the battlefield. The Ranger is just better at these aspects. I just had two fights in a row completely nerfed by a Ranger using Gust of Wind. He did almost no damage, but ruined the DM's plans. I will take the trade we have in the design.
The right spell at the right time is the chorus of casters.
And now its one of the best aspects of the new ranger, changing one spell per day expands the utility a lot in comparison to 2014, giving chance to try or prepare any spell anytime not just the staples (summoning, dmg spells, path without trace, spike growth). Adapting not only to possible encounters, but also party composition and options.
I believe a 2014 actually can hold up in tier 3 by planning and work. Harvesting or buying purple worm poison + swift quiver works on at worst 60% of enemies and even the immune bbegs usually have Secondary minions that are affected.
Fogcloud (that a party plans for) alone can reduce many high level encounters from deadly to normal or easy.
Rangers problem was rarely damage or combat prowess. Its tone and thematic play. people talk about dissatisfaction but they often forget it was one of the most played classes. People were interested in its mechanics and play styles. The mechanics just were ignored, unsuported or required effort.
My problem with 2024 will never be damage it will be the build constraints of HM and the lack of real "Ranging ability"
The problem with real "Ranging Ability" is that unless your group emphasizes the exploration and travel phase of the game then you are. never going to feel fully Rangery.
I can remember playing an Elven Ranger with the "Pathfinder" Kit in 2nd Edition which meant that the party got bonuses if I scouted ahead and trail blazed for the party. The DM knowing that was one of the central themes of the kit ensured that there was suitable opportunities to use my skills. Many groups today just sort of fast forward through the travel or they might have one random encounter and then the party arrives at their destination, which eliminates the "ranging" of the Ranger.
Agreed, the “cinematic” travel nerfs the ranger badly.as far as “ranging” goes. All the individual ranging stuff is really covered by proficiency and expertise in nature and survival ( & perception). And who gets those expertises at L3? The scout rogue not th ranger.im hoping for a splat book that reworks the ranger (again) as well as the scout rogue and finally gets it right - scout rogue gets proficiency in nature and survival (skills the base rogue traditionally didn’t have access to) while rangers get expertise in both and a third expertise later rather than 1 expertise and 2 more later.. then getting some ribbons that aide the party as a whole when out n the wilderness. That along with a book or adventure focused n wilderness travel and adventure.(outside the jungles of Chult). So players and DMs with little/ no actual wilderness. ExPerience to draw on can see and get a feel for how to run such adventures or parts of adventures.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I still was always able to get 2014 ranger benefits even with cinematic travel. There are ways to represent ranging abilities even in non travel games. The free travel activities are no joke. Cinematic travel doesn't change that(few classeshave guaranteed downtime). Tool checks could also often get a ranger boon. Favored enemy works wonders on ally medicine and animal handling checks. This is why the variable expertise works way better for me than just one or two from 2024. You never really know which skill will be the important one to feel like a suvival expert.
Now the game has changed and tools aren't really the same as we started 5e but there were other ways to update the ranger skill set to mechanically support non-survival games and still feel like it has ranging and survival capabilities.
There was supposed to be The Game Masters Book of Wilderness Encounters that I was hoping would focus on this. I preordered it a while back and it was supposed to release next May but it looks like it’s been cancelled. I think they started working on it well before the 5.5 announcement and decided to cancel.
I’m not unhappy with the ‘24 ranger, but that also means I’m not ecstatic about it. The biggest thing wrong with the ranger isn’t anything in the ranger class - it’s the existence of the scout rogue. Had they stopped at giving it proficiency with nature and survival it would have been fine. It is that final line: “Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses either of those proficiencies.” that provides effective expertise with both skills at level 3. Even the ‘24 ranger can’t compete with this as it only gets a single expertise at L2. A book like that Surraguard mentions would have been the ideal place to correct both those (and other ranger class “mistakes”).too bad it seems to be gone or delayed. So my “fixes”:
1) at L2 - you gain expertise in the nature and survival skills. This adds your proficiency bonus to he number of people and creatures can effectively forage for.
2) at L6 - roving not only increases your personal speed but it increases the overland travel speed of any party you are with - just how much I’m not sure but even a 10% boost would be enough to make it a significant boost. This might also be a good place to give the ranger advantage on all checks to avoid getting lost.
3) at L13 - the advantage on concentration is for all spells not just HM. I would also consider granting the ranger the elimination of disadvantage on spellcasting attack spells when in melee (foe in 5’ radius). By this time the ranger should be a skilled combat caster.
4) at L20 - the ranger gets a third attack with its extra attack ability. The fighter is getting 4 here so why can’t the ranger stay one step behind?
5) access to at least a few elemental based evocation spells. I get why things like fireball, lightning bolt, etc are off the list but how about things like Melf’s minute Meteors or Snilloc’s snowball swarm? They seem right up the ranger’s alley.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The ranger's lack of attacks is, imo, a big part of it's problem mathematically. Theme-wise, it's problematic for trying to be too many things for too many people and focused on a pillar of the game that's often ignored.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Yeah being a little of everything for veryone is pretty much also being not enough of anything for everyone. There are enough classes and subclasses that you can create almost anything you want out of almost any class. Might be time to reset a few so they have clear areas of mastery again.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The biggest problem with the ranger is it's name. Ranger means too many different things to too many different people for all ranger fans to be satisfied.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Ranger as an archetype is different than a ranger as a profession. Neither are what whole a 5e class is. I go to the ranger class because (at least 2014) provides a unique playspace that isn't garanteed with other classes.
Wild bills comment about revisiting classes is a good one an I almost wish we got artificers instead in 2024 because of the artificerconcept being better defined as a framework and playspace.
Given that the (wilderness) exploration leg of the game is all but dead and even when done most ignore rations, missiles and probably difficult terrain just what is the ranger for? What is his/her purpose in the game? If those are the sole reasons for a ranger - as a ranger - then maybe it is time for it to go back to being a fighter subclass. If the ranger is the game’s closest thing to a true Gish then why doesn’t it get cantrips and arcane spells? If a ranger is a Druid that can wear armor and can’t wildshape then why can’t use the full list of Druid/primal spells? So yes, the first and most mportant question is What Is A Ranger? And the second key question is Where does the ranger fit in today’s game? Once those are effectively answered we will know how WotC sees the ranger and what they want to do with it. I have the feeling that they themselves don’t know and are hoping we come up with some brilliant idea they can use.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I would argue the data supports that ranger is a highly desirable archetype even if exploration "mechanics" are considered a drag on gameplay. Few want the survivalist role but lots of people want to play Aragorn, lone ranger, Perin Abarra or Lan Mandagoran.
(Most desirable class to play but with "least" satisfaction).
The archetype speaks to enemy detection and advanced training.
I would say one way to make ranger training feel good is to make them feel accurate (the +2 fighting style for archery is incredibly popular) to make rangers by standard the most accurate class would feel good even if they weren't the highest damage.
Another way is unique party support especially in areas of movement and diseases and detection. Paladins can give everyone a save boost why not give ranger a shareable movement boost.
Rangers just desperately need another attack at higher levels. Getting rid of the strange fixation on hunters mark would be nice as well.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I don’t mind hunter’s mark, but tieing everything to it is a bit much. Having steel wind strike helps offset but it’s just one or two castings a day so yess more would be nice. The +2 accuracy for archery is good as a fighting style but how do you get that for melee? And perhaps more importantly, how do you do that as a class feature not a fighting style that other classes can take? Also preferably not a L1 so no quick dips just for it. That might be where both HM and favored enemies make a comeback - starting at L3, against your favored foes or a foe marked by your hunters mark spell the ranger’s focused understanding grants him a +2 to hit. ( this could be general so you don’t need the archery style anymore as a ranger) combine this with getting 2 more types of favored enemies (5 over all or 6 if you take the 2 humanoids) then giving rangers the herbalism tool and party support for movement, foraging etc as part of an expanded favored terrain - again getting 5 overall not 3.
while a lot of folks base their ranger fantasies on Aragorn and others from high fantasy settings as R. Mentioned mine is less high fantasy and somewhat more down to earth - the long hunters, fur trappers and mountain men from America’s late 1700s to late 1800s along with the fiction about them. To me, they give the best view of what a ranger in pretty much anytime would be like skill wise.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
So.... how come nobody has talked about the adjusted Primal spells? A few of them got stronger (like Jump), but many of them got nerfed big time. Conjure Animals is literally a shadow compared to its 2014 form.
Every single Primal list conjuration spell that had been in the 5e PHB has been seriously nerfed, both in terms of flavor and in terms of mechanics. The only serious improvement seems to be Grasping Vine (4th lvl), which I guess they felt they had to boost since very few people ever took it based on 2014 rules. But the big staple of Rangers' high level spellcasting is now hobbled into a video game-easy "take damage and 1 effect" instead of presenting us with actual range of useful control/buff/debuff options.
You can add this to Deft Explorer at level 2: you focus on the finer details of your surroundings for the next minute. You have advantage on Survival and Perception checks while this ability is active. You may use this ability a number of times equal to your WIS bonus. Fixes the Scout Rogue issue easily. If you're going to make the mistake of making something that basically steps all over the features of another class you need to come back and correct the error later.
The Ranger should also absolutely have some ability to resistant elemental damage and maybe share that resistance with others also since they literally brave the elements. This is not even difficult game design. You simply need to make sure all the features that you say are part of the class are actually represented mechanically. That's why many people are disappointed in the effort given to making sure this class did not end up with the same lousy reputation it had when it was released in 2014.
"No body" talks about it because it's often just wrapped up in the player base that says they are not moving on to 2024. Most of Those players are done with wotc "spin doctors."
They hinted in the ranger video that some choices were made for the "health" of the game instead of desirability. I assume stat block abilities that cross dm/ player divide are one such topic. Many ranger spells as well.
To me this "health of the game" sounds like controlling design for profit rather than breadth of play.
Several adventures league modules referenced cold/hot weather gear as available for purchase. These types of items make it unnecessary for rangers to get environmental boons(also absorb elements). However, I usually gave rangers with the terrain checks to make or premtively aquire such gear.
Wotc could have integrated such equipment into the ranger class similar to a Rouge's "poison from nowhere" that comes with 2024 sneak enhancements.
Similarly rewiting favored terrain and primeval awareness into one cohesive feature (with no specific terrains but spell slot costs for certain benefits like detection or movement boons) could work.