In the 2024 rules, here are the rules for level 2 and 9:
Level 2: Deft Explorer
Thanks to your travels, you gain the following benefits.
Expertise. Choose one of your skill proficiencies with which you lack Expertise. You gain Expertise in that skill.
Languages. You know two languages of your choice from the language tables in chapter 2.
Level 9: Expertise
Choose two of your skill proficiencies with which you lack Expertise. You gain Expertise in those skills.
The total number of Expertise the Ranger gets (3) is fine by me, as is having to take Expertise in Survival. However, it feels like the expertise you get at level 2 is more or less forced into being into Survival, if you want to be good at the stuff a Ranger is supposed to be good at.
So I was wondering what the consequences would be if I reduced the number of Expertises the Ranger gets at level 9 from two (2) to one (1), and change the text of Deft Explorer to this (addition is in blue and underlined):
Level 2: Deft Explorer
Thanks to your travels, you gain the following benefits.
Survival Proficiency. You gain Proficiency in the Survival skill. If you already have Proficiency in the Survival skill, you gain Expertise in that skill.
Expertise. Choose one of your skill proficiencies with which you lack Expertise. You gain Expertise in that skill.
Languages. You know two languages of your choice from the language tables in chapter 2.
Level 9: Expertise
Choose one of your skill proficiencies with which you lack Expertise. You gain Expertise in that skill.
The total number of Expertises you can choose would be reduced from 3 to 2, but you'd always have Proficiency or Expertise in Survival, and you get one expertise at level 2 to do with as you wish. This would allow for more flexibility and customization for your Ranger in early levels of play, with the justification being it's something you picked up on "thanks to your travels."
(I wrote the text to say "you gain proficiency in Survival but if you have it you gain Expertise," and not "you gain expertise in Survival," to prevent Rangers from getting a extra proficiency from not taking Survival at character creation and then jumping all the way to Expertise in it.)
Does this "homebrew" seem balanced and reasonable?
As the DM, will you make the Survival worthwhile to have/use?
If you never require a survival roll, or flip it and always have the party require a survival roll then it is probably unbalanced. Bottom line is: Never needing it = auto succeed.
If you want the party to occasionally fail the survival roll for whatever reason, don't make it mandatory to have.
It's not really a major change that would impact balance significantly. The only problems I can think of are that it gives more expertises for dips (minor), and that it forces pcs who are going into the shadow or fey subclasses to pick survival, which might not fit the vision of their character.
In the 2024 rules, here are the rules for level 2 and 9:
The total number of Expertise the Ranger gets (3) is fine by me, as is having to take Expertise in Survival. However, it feels like the expertise you get at level 2 is more or less forced into being into Survival, if you want to be good at the stuff a Ranger is supposed to be good at.
So I was wondering what the consequences would be if I reduced the number of Expertises the Ranger gets at level 9 from two (2) to one (1), and change the text of Deft Explorer to this (addition is in blue and underlined):
The total number of Expertises you can choose would be reduced from 3 to 2, but you'd always have Proficiency or Expertise in Survival, and you get one expertise at level 2 to do with as you wish. This would allow for more flexibility and customization for your Ranger in early levels of play, with the justification being it's something you picked up on "thanks to your travels."
(I wrote the text to say "you gain proficiency in Survival but if you have it you gain Expertise," and not "you gain expertise in Survival," to prevent Rangers from getting a extra proficiency from not taking Survival at character creation and then jumping all the way to Expertise in it.)
Does this "homebrew" seem balanced and reasonable?
As the DM, will you make the Survival worthwhile to have/use?
If you never require a survival roll, or flip it and always have the party require a survival roll then it is probably unbalanced.
Bottom line is: Never needing it = auto succeed.
If you want the party to occasionally fail the survival roll for whatever reason, don't make it mandatory to have.
It's not really a major change that would impact balance significantly. The only problems I can think of are that it gives more expertises for dips (minor), and that it forces pcs who are going into the shadow or fey subclasses to pick survival, which might not fit the vision of their character.
Forcing a particular skill is a mistake, moving the second expertise from L9 to L2 is a good idea however - one WOtC should have done to begin with.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.