Yes. It's not meta gaming. It's building your character as part of the world they exist in. It SHOULD be done.
Meta gaming is using any outside knowledge that your character wouldn't have but you have to make character-based decisions.
So, yes, it's metagaming. However, not all metagaming is bad, some is inevitable. However, if your features require you to metagame, that will make issues in some (if not most) tables.
I hear what you are saying. I just can not see and have not experienced that as a negative issue. Not once as a player or DM.
Also, the character existed in the world long before we ever think them up. They would definitely have this “campaign knowledge” incorporated into their life. A ranger that lives in the mountains all their life wouldn’t have desert as their favored terrain.
Yes. It's not meta gaming. It's building your character as part of the world they exist in. It SHOULD be done.
Meta gaming is using any outside knowledge that your character wouldn't have but you have to make character-based decisions.
So, yes, it's metagaming. However, not all metagaming is bad, some is inevitable. However, if your features require you to metagame, that will make issues in some (if not most) tables.
I hear what you are saying. I just can not see and have not experienced that as a negative issue. Not once as a player or DM.
Also, the character existed in the world long before we ever think them up. They would definitely have this “campaign knowledge” incorporated into their life. A ranger that lives in the mountains all their life wouldn’t have desert as their favored terrain.
I'm gonna have to agree to Frank on this one to some extent.
Third is right that not all Meta-gaming is bad. But at the same time. The Type of Area your going to be in, some idea if the game is staying in that area or traveling, and potentially some sense of the nearest differing terrain areas may in some sense are valid character creation questions to have with the DM while making your character and fitting it into the group and the story if you are able to. This is in a sense meta-gaming that is not all bad just like it's not all bad to have knowledge of what the other players in the group are making for characters so that you can round out the group somewhat if it's possible, while still technically be a form of metagaming. It's metagaming that translate into things that character may actually be somewhat aware of as an individual in that world, and particularly in that area.
I can even give a real world example of this. I personally happen to live in a Desert, I know that if I go in one general direction from me I will get into forest. i know that Mountains kind of ring where I live as well, And I know that beyond some of those mountains is a plains area even though overall I don't travel much from this area normally. if somebody were me and building me as a Ranger. It could help them to do so better by knowing these things as well. They could stick with desert since that actually covers a rather good chunk of the area around me. Even combining with the mountains in places. They could Get Mountains, or they could even justify forests very easily. The only issue would be if everything is going towards the plains... but if it is going in that direction for some reason. There are way to tailor characters to build for that as well.
Yes. It's not meta gaming. It's building your character as part of the world they exist in. It SHOULD be done.
Meta gaming is using any outside knowledge that your character wouldn't have but you have to make character-based decisions.
So, yes, it's metagaming. However, not all metagaming is bad, some is inevitable. However, if your features require you to metagame, that will make issues in some (if not most) tables.
I hear what you are saying. I just can not see and have not experienced that as a negative issue. Not once as a player or DM.
Also, the character existed in the world long before we ever think them up. They would definitely have this “campaign knowledge” incorporated into their life. A ranger that lives in the mountains all their life wouldn’t have desert as their favored terrain.
I'm gonna have to agree to Frank on this one to some extent.
Third is right that not all Meta-gaming is bad. But at the same time. The Type of Area your going to be in, some idea if the game is staying in that area or traveling, and potentially some sense of the nearest differing terrain areas may in some sense are valid character creation questions to have with the DM while making your character and fitting it into the group and the story if you are able to. This is in a sense meta-gaming that is not all bad just like it's not all bad to have knowledge of what the other players in the group are making for characters so that you can round out the group somewhat if it's possible, while still technically be a form of metagaming. It's metagaming that translate into things that character may actually be somewhat aware of as an individual in that world, and particularly in that area.
I can even give a real world example of this. I personally happen to live in a Desert, I know that if I go in one general direction from me I will get into forest. i know that Mountains kind of ring where I live as well, And I know that beyond some of those mountains is a plains area even though overall I don't travel much from this area normally. if somebody were me and building me as a Ranger. It could help them to do so better by knowing these things as well. They could stick with desert since that actually covers a rather good chunk of the area around me. Even combining with the mountains in places. They could Get Mountains, or they could even justify forests very easily. The only issue would be if everything is going towards the plains... but if it is going in that direction for some reason. There are way to tailor characters to build for that as well.
When I DM and someone wants to play ranger. I ask them if they want their first favored terrain to be the most common one, or a close by one.
and then I pick it for them. The other levels terrains. That’s on them for looking at maps/etc by then to figure it out.
but I always give them a terrain that they WILL go through at some guaranteed point if they willfully want a more obscure one. And I let them know it too for if it has backstory implications.
Yes. It's not meta gaming. It's building your character as part of the world they exist in. It SHOULD be done.
Meta gaming is using any outside knowledge that your character wouldn't have but you have to make character-based decisions.
So, yes, it's metagaming. However, not all metagaming is bad, some is inevitable. However, if your features require you to metagame, that will make issues in some (if not most) tables.
Yep, 100% agree here.
There is a difference in asking where the campaign starts off (Ye Olde Fantasy Taverne in the Untracked Steppes of the North) and where the campaign will take you (Bob's Fish Market on the Very Well Explored Coast). Some tables may have an issue with this, some tables won't, I've not launched a comprehensive study on D&D gaming groups so I can't say what the percentage is, but I'd guess it is probably evenly split? So in terms of making, what appear to be, the core abilities of the Ranger (NE and FE, for those playing along at home) appealing there's already a blow to a lot of gamers. Another important thing to consider here is that some DMs will be happy to accommodate your choices in game even if you haven't made good ones, but some DMs most certainly will not.
As Frank says earlier, the abilities also don't offer any combat boon, and at a guess I'd say of the Very Evenly Played™ Pillarsof Eternity D&D that most tables would roughly prioritise these to a 70% combat, 20% Social, and 10% Exploration split. Abilities that don't do things in combat aren't likely sexy to the majority of players, so they disregard them.
On top of that some other of the base Ranger's abilities, especially low level (I'm looking at you Primaeval Awareness) either don't read well on first glance, or are underappreciated (spellcasting is amazing but when you're looking at what is traditionally a Martial class most people don't really consider the implications). Plus when you read base Ranger, you get base Ranger first, and the Ranger Archetypes, especially more recent ones are amazingly awesome front loaded bodies of goodness, but first glance doesn't give you that. If you only see PHB Ranger archetypes your mileage may vary too, lots of people seem to have issues with the Beast Master, I played one for two sessions and had a blast but never deep dove, and to me the Hunter is perhaps the most disappointing salad of an archetype, there is zero appeal there.
I think this all contributes to people's perception of the Ranger as weak and underpowered. I genuinely love the class, but I can totally see how someone playing the Ranger in a heavy combat focused game with an unforgiving DM might not enjoy it, or feel they're getting mileage out of it, despite the Ranger being excellent in combat. Just remember our experiences don't invalidate other's experiences with the class, just as theirs don't invalidate ours.
The Ranger could definitely have been better written with broader appeal, but it wasn't, so we just have to deal with it.
It's ultimately pretty easy to homebrew-fix the most crippling problems of the Ranger; other, less glaring problems might be harder to fix in a satisfying way. Let rangers, once per time unit (I suggest long rest, but you could make it short rest, dawn, after an hour in ritual - pick something you think will work out well for your campaign), change either one of their favored enemy types (this magically also changes their known languages) or favored terrain types.
Wham, bam, done. Now the Ranger can roll with campaign punches and keep their class features relevant to gameplay even as the campaign evolves over time.
Other (lesser) defects are harder to figure out the best solution for. For example, one GM might agree that allowing a Ranger to declare at use time a range reduction to Primeval Awareness (one of the strangest aspects of PA is how it punishes a Ranger for being in their Favored Terrain by giving them less information), allowing them to scope just a building, is reasonable, but another might think it's wildly inappropriate and instead prefer allowing the Ranger to be parsimonious (allowing them to restrict it to only fey), and a third might think it's better to reveal direction (while not revealing distance, so still not revealing location). Hard to say.
Hide in Plain Sight is basically made out of defects RAW, some of which are trivial to house rule away (the RAW that you have to have materials on hand independent of where and how you're trying to hide are so stupid I seriously doubt any GM in the history of the game has actually enforced that e.g. in order for a Ranger to HIPS in the Underdark, an environment with literally no native plants, they have to have plants on hand) and some are less so (the requirement that the Ranger shut their eyes because RAW blinking shuts down HIPS is easy to just say no to, but exactly how much movement to allow without dropping HIPS is a lot harder to settle on).
Other (lesser) defects are harder to figure out the best solution for. For example, one GM might agree that allowing a Ranger to declare at use time a range reduction to Primeval Awareness (one of the strangest aspects of PA is how it punishes a Ranger for being in their Favored Terrain by giving them less information), allowing them to scope just a building, is reasonable, but another might think it's wildly inappropriate and instead prefer allowing the Ranger to be parsimonious (allowing them to restrict it to only fey), and a third might think it's better to reveal direction (while not revealing distance, so still not revealing location). Hard to say.
1. Its a 1 mile distance. A mile is not that big. Anyone can make an effort to track if they have the skill proficiencies to do so. Most rangers would. Beast masters are even better.
2. If you are in your favored terrain you can choose the distance between 1 mile and 6 miles (up to). Ranger's choice. If you are in your favored terrain, you are even better at tracking through the survival skill, now with expertise, in addition to all of the second benefits from the natural explorer ability, which makes you (and everyone else in the party) travel quicker, stealthier, and you know the information you (the player) want to know like how many, what type, how long ago the traveled through (which equals distance), and of course direction (normal for tracking).
3. The primeval awareness ability doesn't just give you one yes or no answer to if any or all of those creature types are in the range. It tells you if each type is in the range. Like: aberrations? Yes., celestials? No., dragons? no., etc. So you narrow down the information on creature type.
Hide in Plain Sight is basically made out of defects RAW, some of which are trivial to house rule away (the RAW that you have to have materials on hand independent of where and how you're trying to hide are so stupid I seriously doubt any GM in the history of the game has actually enforced that e.g. in order for a Ranger to HIPS in the Underdark, an environment with literally no native plants, they have to have plants on hand) and some are less so (the requirement that the Ranger shut their eyes because RAW blinking shuts down HIPS is easy to just say no to, but exactly how much movement to allow without dropping HIPS is a lot harder to settle on).
1. To say that "by RAW" you need all of those exact things in order to create your camouflage is ridiculous on a level that seems purposeful. If you are playing by RAW to this level of specificity then you surely must be playing encumbrance, spell components (including somatic, material, and gp costs), food and water needs, money, cover, long rest restrictions, proper item interaction, tracking ammunition, proper initiative, and every other rule in the PHB strictly by RAW. If you aren't, yet holding this ranger ability up to some kind of crazy level of perfectness, then you are biased heavily to "ranger = bad" anyway and these conversations are pointless. Obviously by RAI and RAF you use the stuff around you to make camouflage that allows you to blend into the environment around you. In the same way that if you created camouflage in the forest that same camouflage wouldn't do anything in the underdark.
2. Blinking? Really. See my above criticism about RAW. Crazy. Obviously this means you can't use your speed or take any actions when you are benefiting from this crazy high bonus to hiding. Clearly. This is class ability that functions just like the two racial abilities that break the general hiding rules with the added +10 bonus and the added need for a setup (basically restricting this to a one use per combat effect) and lack of movement or taking of actions while doing so. Blinking?! Really?! What about breathing?
You must have access to fresh mud, dirt, plants, soot, and other naturally occurring materials with which to create your camouflage.
So, you can literally use carry the materials in a satchel or pouch of some kind and take it with you. Or, by RAW, you can also find anything that's around so long as it's naturally occurring.
Also, no blinking? That is the most disingenuous reading of HiPS I've ever heard, and I've heard quite a few. Honestly, it doesn't even deserve the dignity of a response. And yet here we are.
It's ultimately pretty easy to homebrew-fix the most crippling problems of the Ranger; other, less glaring problems might be harder to fix in a satisfying way. Let rangers, once per time unit (I suggest long rest, but you could make it short rest, dawn, after an hour in ritual - pick something you think will work out well for your campaign), change either one of their favored enemy types (this magically also changes their known languages) or favored terrain types.
Wham, bam, done. Now the Ranger can roll with campaign punches and keep their class features relevant to gameplay even as the campaign evolves over time.
Other (lesser) defects are harder to figure out the best solution for. For example, one GM might agree that allowing a Ranger to declare at use time a range reduction to Primeval Awareness (one of the strangest aspects of PA is how it punishes a Ranger for being in their Favored Terrain by giving them less information), allowing them to scope just a building, is reasonable, but another might think it's wildly inappropriate and instead prefer allowing the Ranger to be parsimonious (allowing them to restrict it to only fey), and a third might think it's better to reveal direction (while not revealing distance, so still not revealing location). Hard to say.
Hide in Plain Sight is basically made out of defects RAW, some of which are trivial to house rule away (the RAW that you have to have materials on hand independent of where and how you're trying to hide are so stupid I seriously doubt any GM in the history of the game has actually enforced that e.g. in order for a Ranger to HIPS in the Underdark, an environment with literally no native plants, they have to have plants on hand) and some are less so (the requirement that the Ranger shut their eyes because RAW blinking shuts down HIPS is easy to just say no to, but exactly how much movement to allow without dropping HIPS is a lot harder to settle on).
Your going to want to learn a lot more about various environments before you make any more claims about what they do and don't have. The Underdark actually has a lot of kinds of plants. Various forms of fungus, Mushrooms, and Ferns being some of the most common in fact. But there are other things to be found down there as well in various pockets and types for various reasons.
Other (lesser) defects are harder to figure out the best solution for. For example, one GM might agree that allowing a Ranger to declare at use time a range reduction to Primeval Awareness (one of the strangest aspects of PA is how it punishes a Ranger for being in their Favored Terrain by giving them less information), allowing them to scope just a building, is reasonable, but another might think it's wildly inappropriate and instead prefer allowing the Ranger to be parsimonious (allowing them to restrict it to only fey), and a third might think it's better to reveal direction (while not revealing distance, so still not revealing location). Hard to say.
1. Its a 1 mile distance. A mile is not that big. Anyone can make an effort to track if they have the skill proficiencies to do so. Most rangers would. Beast masters are even better.
2. If you are in your favored terrain you can choose the distance between 1 mile and 6 miles (up to). Ranger's choice. If you are in your favored terrain, you are even better at tracking through the survival skill, now with expertise, in addition to all of the second benefits from the natural explorer ability, which makes you (and everyone else in the party) travel quicker, stealthier, and you know the information you (the player) want to know like how many, what type, how long ago the traveled through (which equals distance), and of course direction (normal for tracking).
3. The primeval awareness ability doesn't just give you one yes or no answer to if any or all of those creature types are in the range. It tells you if each type is in the range. Like: aberrations? Yes., celestials? No., dragons? no., etc. So you narrow down the information on creature type.
The problem I have here is that my DM states it is a mile, or 6 miles. I have asked if I can start at 500 feet and expand it out 500ft per round, but I just get a no.
A one mile radius check is over 3 square miles of area to cover, that goes up to 113 square miles in favoured terrain :(
This becomes worse in favoured terrain, as I generally find that there's something of everything.
Spell slot wasted.
My DM is sensible is most scenarios, but not this one
Other (lesser) defects are harder to figure out the best solution for. For example, one GM might agree that allowing a Ranger to declare at use time a range reduction to Primeval Awareness (one of the strangest aspects of PA is how it punishes a Ranger for being in their Favored Terrain by giving them less information), allowing them to scope just a building, is reasonable, but another might think it's wildly inappropriate and instead prefer allowing the Ranger to be parsimonious (allowing them to restrict it to only fey), and a third might think it's better to reveal direction (while not revealing distance, so still not revealing location). Hard to say.
1. Its a 1 mile distance. A mile is not that big. Anyone can make an effort to track if they have the skill proficiencies to do so. Most rangers would. Beast masters are even better.
2. If you are in your favored terrain you can choose the distance between 1 mile and 6 miles (up to). Ranger's choice. If you are in your favored terrain, you are even better at tracking through the survival skill, now with expertise, in addition to all of the second benefits from the natural explorer ability, which makes you (and everyone else in the party) travel quicker, stealthier, and you know the information you (the player) want to know like how many, what type, how long ago the traveled through (which equals distance), and of course direction (normal for tracking).
3. The primeval awareness ability doesn't just give you one yes or no answer to if any or all of those creature types are in the range. It tells you if each type is in the range. Like: aberrations? Yes., celestials? No., dragons? no., etc. So you narrow down the information on creature type.
The problem I have here is that my DM states it is a mile, or 6 miles. I have asked if I can start at 500 feet and expand it out 500ft per round, but I just get a no.
This becomes worse in favoured terrain, as I generally find that there's something of everything.
Spell slot wasted.
It doesn't sweep out like you are suggesting without using multiple spell slots to do so. And no matter what terrain you are in, the minimum is 1 mile. But the choice of range when in your favored terrain is very much a thing. Just like every other ability, effect, or spell in the game that says "up to", you can choose the range. If you want the range to be 1 mile, 2 miles, 3.14 miles, or 6 miles, it's yours. So 1 mile in the wilderness is not too large for one able bodied person, certainly not someone with proficiency in survival and nature, and certainly not an entire party of adventures. And while in their favored terrain a ranger will annihilate an area of 1 mile or easily cover an area of up to 6 miles. Primeval awareness doesn't give you exact distance or any direction on its own, but it works in tandem with the ranger's other abilities, spells, (potentially) the subclass choice, and certainly the rest of the party. Unlike many other class abilities that work as little bits that function on their own, many of the ranger abilities work together creating a sum that is greater than their individual parts.
I had a DM once that told me they dislike primeval awareness because they thought it was too much work for the DM. I disagreed, but I wasn't the DM, so that didn't matter. We spoke about it for a while in between games. This was a seafaring campaign that featured aberrations somewhat. We came up with a compromise home brew solution that worked well for them, the table, and me. This is a major way the ability works in my head anyway, but it took the part the DM disliked from the ability off the table. Essentially, I handed the activation of this ability to the DM to use at their discretion for narrative purposes. Nothing else about the ability was changed. It still functioned the same way as written in the PHB, I could use it with my other abilities, spells, and party members, and could activate it myself, but the DM would activate when they wanted/needed to. A spell slot was used and everything. This house rule version was great as it functioned like a "spidey sense" or "I sense a disturbance in the force" kind of thing. It was used this way successfully several times to pull the party back towards the main plot or alert us of an incoming threat. I don't think the ability needs to be changed. But this was a tweak we made I thought I'd share of how once we got past the DM's apprehensions of its use the ability is really fun and functional.
I’ll put out there to anyone who wishes to accept:
DM a campaign. Any campaign you want. I’ll play a ranger.
you decide come end of campaign, if I was the most useless person or not.
That sounds like a you problem.
Would you like some help playing the class? I volunteer.
I don't think that you're getting the point that was trying to be made here, unless I've completely misread EPK's previous post. I think they are saying that they won't be the most useless.
I’ll put out there to anyone who wishes to accept:
DM a campaign. Any campaign you want. I’ll play a ranger.
you decide come end of campaign, if I was the most useless person or not.
That sounds like a you problem.
Would you like some help playing the class? I volunteer.
I don't think that you're getting the point that was trying to be made here, unless I've completely misread EPK's previous post. I think they are saying that they won't be the most useless.
Really?!
If so, I’m very sorry. I apologize, EPK.
That is a hard post for me to read. I’m not used to folks making such bold posts in favor of rangers.
Rangers are the best and most well rounded at wilderness exploration and survival, and are at the top of their game when in their favored terrain (Expertise in two skills does not a survivor make. I’m looking at you scout rogues.).
not really, bar the natural explorer feature that only works in certain terrains and that can be replaced by some expertise the ranger gets almost no love in the exploration department despite that being their niche, we have land's stride at 8th level that helps a bit, we have vanish at 14th level that is cool as all hell but few campaigns make it that far and i guess you might count one or two spells they have access to like good berry that negates the need to keep track of hunger for the rest of campaign, a ranger who chooses the deft explorer feature will not be any significant amount better at survival and exploration than a rouge who picks stealth, survival and outlander
How does this rogue prevent their group from difficult terrain slowing themselves or any of their entire group down?
How do they remain “alert” to danger without the alert feat, while doing navigating or tracking?
The rogue of trying by to do this stealthily moves at half the pace of the ranger.
The rogue does not learn the exact number, sizes, and how long ago they passed by while tracking them. And, that’s not exactly low DC stuff to find out. And since most rogues don’t have wisdom much higher than a 14. That’s not even going to be a useful check chance for the rogue until they have reliable talent.
Rangers are the best and most well rounded at wilderness exploration and survival, and are at the top of their game when in their favored terrain (Expertise in two skills does not a survivor make. I’m looking at you scout rogues.).
not really, bar the natural explorer feature that only works in certain terrains and that can be replaced by some expertise the ranger gets almost no love in the exploration department despite that being their niche, we have land's stride at 8th level that helps a bit, we have vanish at 14th level that is cool as all hell but few campaigns make it that far and i guess you might count one or two spells they have access to like good berry that negates the need to keep track of hunger for the rest of campaign, a ranger who chooses the deft explorer feature will not be any significant amount better at survival and exploration than a rouge who picks stealth, survival and outlander
How does this rogue prevent their group from difficult terrain slowing themselves or any of their entire group down?
How do they remain “alert” to danger without the alert feat, while doing navigating or tracking?
The rogue of trying by to do this stealthily moves at half the pace of the ranger.
The rogue does not learn the exact number, sizes, and how long ago they passed by while tracking them. And, that’s not exactly low DC stuff to find out. And since most rogues don’t have wisdom much higher than a 14. That’s not even going to be a useful check chance for the rogue until they have reliable talent.
Multiclassing is also available (to both the rogue and the ranger, of course!). My party in a game I'm playing right now ignores your first concern (we have a flying carpet), and I solve the second (I'm the party scout, and I'm a rogue with a 1-dip in cleric; I'm WIS 14, as you predicted) by being an Arcane Trickster. My owl literally watches my back.
And you don't see how jumping through so many hoops for the sake of replicating (part of) Natural Explorer --of all things-- isn't actually the rock-solid case against the Ranger you seem to think it is?
Rangers are the best and most well rounded at wilderness exploration and survival, and are at the top of their game when in their favored terrain (Expertise in two skills does not a survivor make. I’m looking at you scout rogues.).
not really, bar the natural explorer feature that only works in certain terrains and that can be replaced by some expertise the ranger gets almost no love in the exploration department despite that being their niche, we have land's stride at 8th level that helps a bit, we have vanish at 14th level that is cool as all hell but few campaigns make it that far and i guess you might count one or two spells they have access to like good berry that negates the need to keep track of hunger for the rest of campaign, a ranger who chooses the deft explorer feature will not be any significant amount better at survival and exploration than a rouge who picks stealth, survival and outlander
How does this rogue prevent their group from difficult terrain slowing themselves or any of their entire group down?
How do they remain “alert” to danger without the alert feat, while doing navigating or tracking?
The rogue of trying by to do this stealthily moves at half the pace of the ranger.
The rogue does not learn the exact number, sizes, and how long ago they passed by while tracking them. And, that’s not exactly low DC stuff to find out. And since most rogues don’t have wisdom much higher than a 14. That’s not even going to be a useful check chance for the rogue until they have reliable talent.
Multiclassing is also available (to both the rogue and the ranger, of course!). My party in a game I'm playing right now ignores your first concern (we have a flying carpet), and I solve the second (I'm the party scout, and I'm a rogue with a 1-dip in cleric; I'm WIS 14, as you predicted) by being an Arcane Trickster. My owl literally watches my back.
These kinds of examples are a bit silly. You know who is better at skills than the fighter or wizard? The rogue. You know who is better at fighting than the rogue and wizard? The fighter. You know who is better at casting spells than the fighter and rogue? The wizard. Multiclassing allows just about any character to do anything, and saying a multiclass can do what a single class can do is equally silly across the board in all situations. You and others keep giving these examples, but all I see is people building crazy multiclass characters that devote their background and subclasses to do a little of what the ranger does, kind of.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I hear what you are saying. I just can not see and have not experienced that as a negative issue. Not once as a player or DM.
Also, the character existed in the world long before we ever think them up. They would definitely have this “campaign knowledge” incorporated into their life. A ranger that lives in the mountains all their life wouldn’t have desert as their favored terrain.
I'm gonna have to agree to Frank on this one to some extent.
Third is right that not all Meta-gaming is bad. But at the same time. The Type of Area your going to be in, some idea if the game is staying in that area or traveling, and potentially some sense of the nearest differing terrain areas may in some sense are valid character creation questions to have with the DM while making your character and fitting it into the group and the story if you are able to. This is in a sense meta-gaming that is not all bad just like it's not all bad to have knowledge of what the other players in the group are making for characters so that you can round out the group somewhat if it's possible, while still technically be a form of metagaming. It's metagaming that translate into things that character may actually be somewhat aware of as an individual in that world, and particularly in that area.
I can even give a real world example of this. I personally happen to live in a Desert, I know that if I go in one general direction from me I will get into forest. i know that Mountains kind of ring where I live as well, And I know that beyond some of those mountains is a plains area even though overall I don't travel much from this area normally. if somebody were me and building me as a Ranger. It could help them to do so better by knowing these things as well. They could stick with desert since that actually covers a rather good chunk of the area around me. Even combining with the mountains in places. They could Get Mountains, or they could even justify forests very easily. The only issue would be if everything is going towards the plains... but if it is going in that direction for some reason. There are way to tailor characters to build for that as well.
When I DM and someone wants to play ranger. I ask them if they want their first favored terrain to be the most common one, or a close by one.
and then I pick it for them. The other levels terrains. That’s on them for looking at maps/etc by then to figure it out.
but I always give them a terrain that they WILL go through at some guaranteed point if they willfully want a more obscure one. And I let them know it too for if it has backstory implications.
Blank
Yep, 100% agree here.
There is a difference in asking where the campaign starts off (Ye Olde Fantasy Taverne in the Untracked Steppes of the North) and where the campaign will take you (Bob's Fish Market on the Very Well Explored Coast). Some tables may have an issue with this, some tables won't, I've not launched a comprehensive study on D&D gaming groups so I can't say what the percentage is, but I'd guess it is probably evenly split? So in terms of making, what appear to be, the core abilities of the Ranger (NE and FE, for those playing along at home) appealing there's already a blow to a lot of gamers. Another important thing to consider here is that some DMs will be happy to accommodate your choices in game even if you haven't made good ones, but some DMs most certainly will not.
As Frank says earlier, the abilities also don't offer any combat boon, and at a guess I'd say of the Very Evenly Played™ Pillars of
EternityD&D that most tables would roughly prioritise these to a 70% combat, 20% Social, and 10% Exploration split. Abilities that don't do things in combat aren't likely sexy to the majority of players, so they disregard them.On top of that some other of the base Ranger's abilities, especially low level (I'm looking at you Primaeval Awareness) either don't read well on first glance, or are underappreciated (spellcasting is amazing but when you're looking at what is traditionally a Martial class most people don't really consider the implications). Plus when you read base Ranger, you get base Ranger first, and the Ranger Archetypes, especially more recent ones are amazingly awesome front loaded bodies of goodness, but first glance doesn't give you that. If you only see PHB Ranger archetypes your mileage may vary too, lots of people seem to have issues with the Beast Master, I played one for two sessions and had a blast but never deep dove, and to me the Hunter is perhaps the most disappointing salad of an archetype, there is zero appeal there.
I think this all contributes to people's perception of the Ranger as weak and underpowered. I genuinely love the class, but I can totally see how someone playing the Ranger in a heavy combat focused game with an unforgiving DM might not enjoy it, or feel they're getting mileage out of it, despite the Ranger being excellent in combat. Just remember our experiences don't invalidate other's experiences with the class, just as theirs don't invalidate ours.
The Ranger could definitely have been better written with broader appeal, but it wasn't, so we just have to deal with it.
It's ultimately pretty easy to homebrew-fix the most crippling problems of the Ranger; other, less glaring problems might be harder to fix in a satisfying way. Let rangers, once per time unit (I suggest long rest, but you could make it short rest, dawn, after an hour in ritual - pick something you think will work out well for your campaign), change either one of their favored enemy types (this magically also changes their known languages) or favored terrain types.
Wham, bam, done. Now the Ranger can roll with campaign punches and keep their class features relevant to gameplay even as the campaign evolves over time.
Other (lesser) defects are harder to figure out the best solution for. For example, one GM might agree that allowing a Ranger to declare at use time a range reduction to Primeval Awareness (one of the strangest aspects of PA is how it punishes a Ranger for being in their Favored Terrain by giving them less information), allowing them to scope just a building, is reasonable, but another might think it's wildly inappropriate and instead prefer allowing the Ranger to be parsimonious (allowing them to restrict it to only fey), and a third might think it's better to reveal direction (while not revealing distance, so still not revealing location). Hard to say.
Hide in Plain Sight is basically made out of defects RAW, some of which are trivial to house rule away (the RAW that you have to have materials on hand independent of where and how you're trying to hide are so stupid I seriously doubt any GM in the history of the game has actually enforced that e.g. in order for a Ranger to HIPS in the Underdark, an environment with literally no native plants, they have to have plants on hand) and some are less so (the requirement that the Ranger shut their eyes because RAW blinking shuts down HIPS is easy to just say no to, but exactly how much movement to allow without dropping HIPS is a lot harder to settle on).
1. Its a 1 mile distance. A mile is not that big. Anyone can make an effort to track if they have the skill proficiencies to do so. Most rangers would. Beast masters are even better.
2. If you are in your favored terrain you can choose the distance between 1 mile and 6 miles (up to). Ranger's choice. If you are in your favored terrain, you are even better at tracking through the survival skill, now with expertise, in addition to all of the second benefits from the natural explorer ability, which makes you (and everyone else in the party) travel quicker, stealthier, and you know the information you (the player) want to know like how many, what type, how long ago the traveled through (which equals distance), and of course direction (normal for tracking).
3. The primeval awareness ability doesn't just give you one yes or no answer to if any or all of those creature types are in the range. It tells you if each type is in the range. Like: aberrations? Yes., celestials? No., dragons? no., etc. So you narrow down the information on creature type.
1. To say that "by RAW" you need all of those exact things in order to create your camouflage is ridiculous on a level that seems purposeful. If you are playing by RAW to this level of specificity then you surely must be playing encumbrance, spell components (including somatic, material, and gp costs), food and water needs, money, cover, long rest restrictions, proper item interaction, tracking ammunition, proper initiative, and every other rule in the PHB strictly by RAW. If you aren't, yet holding this ranger ability up to some kind of crazy level of perfectness, then you are biased heavily to "ranger = bad" anyway and these conversations are pointless. Obviously by RAI and RAF you use the stuff around you to make camouflage that allows you to blend into the environment around you. In the same way that if you created camouflage in the forest that same camouflage wouldn't do anything in the underdark.
2. Blinking? Really. See my above criticism about RAW. Crazy. Obviously this means you can't use your speed or take any actions when you are benefiting from this crazy high bonus to hiding. Clearly. This is class ability that functions just like the two racial abilities that break the general hiding rules with the added +10 bonus and the added need for a setup (basically restricting this to a one use per combat effect) and lack of movement or taking of actions while doing so. Blinking?! Really?! What about breathing?
Hide in Plain Sight (emphasis mine) states that:
So, you can literally use carry the materials in a satchel or pouch of some kind and take it with you. Or, by RAW, you can also find anything that's around so long as it's naturally occurring.
Also, no blinking? That is the most disingenuous reading of HiPS I've ever heard, and I've heard quite a few. Honestly, it doesn't even deserve the dignity of a response. And yet here we are.
Your going to want to learn a lot more about various environments before you make any more claims about what they do and don't have. The Underdark actually has a lot of kinds of plants. Various forms of fungus, Mushrooms, and Ferns being some of the most common in fact. But there are other things to be found down there as well in various pockets and types for various reasons.
The problem I have here is that my DM states it is a mile, or 6 miles. I have asked if I can start at 500 feet and expand it out 500ft per round, but I just get a no.
A one mile radius check is over 3 square miles of area to cover, that goes up to 113 square miles in favoured terrain :(
This becomes worse in favoured terrain, as I generally find that there's something of everything.
Spell slot wasted.
My DM is sensible is most scenarios, but not this one
It doesn't sweep out like you are suggesting without using multiple spell slots to do so. And no matter what terrain you are in, the minimum is 1 mile. But the choice of range when in your favored terrain is very much a thing. Just like every other ability, effect, or spell in the game that says "up to", you can choose the range. If you want the range to be 1 mile, 2 miles, 3.14 miles, or 6 miles, it's yours. So 1 mile in the wilderness is not too large for one able bodied person, certainly not someone with proficiency in survival and nature, and certainly not an entire party of adventures. And while in their favored terrain a ranger will annihilate an area of 1 mile or easily cover an area of up to 6 miles. Primeval awareness doesn't give you exact distance or any direction on its own, but it works in tandem with the ranger's other abilities, spells, (potentially) the subclass choice, and certainly the rest of the party. Unlike many other class abilities that work as little bits that function on their own, many of the ranger abilities work together creating a sum that is greater than their individual parts.
I had a DM once that told me they dislike primeval awareness because they thought it was too much work for the DM. I disagreed, but I wasn't the DM, so that didn't matter. We spoke about it for a while in between games. This was a seafaring campaign that featured aberrations somewhat. We came up with a compromise home brew solution that worked well for them, the table, and me. This is a major way the ability works in my head anyway, but it took the part the DM disliked from the ability off the table. Essentially, I handed the activation of this ability to the DM to use at their discretion for narrative purposes. Nothing else about the ability was changed. It still functioned the same way as written in the PHB, I could use it with my other abilities, spells, and party members, and could activate it myself, but the DM would activate when they wanted/needed to. A spell slot was used and everything. This house rule version was great as it functioned like a "spidey sense" or "I sense a disturbance in the force" kind of thing. It was used this way successfully several times to pull the party back towards the main plot or alert us of an incoming threat. I don't think the ability needs to be changed. But this was a tweak we made I thought I'd share of how once we got past the DM's apprehensions of its use the ability is really fun and functional.
Thanks, I'll chat further with my DM
I’ll put out there to anyone who wishes to accept:
DM a campaign. Any campaign you want. I’ll play a ranger.
you decide come end of campaign, if I was the most useless person or not.
Blank
I don't think that you're getting the point that was trying to be made here, unless I've completely misread EPK's previous post. I think they are saying that they won't be the most useless.
Really?!
If so, I’m very sorry. I apologize, EPK.
That is a hard post for me to read. I’m not used to folks making such bold posts in favor of rangers.
I deleted the post.
How does this rogue prevent their group from difficult terrain slowing themselves or any of their entire group down?
How do they remain “alert” to danger without the alert feat, while doing navigating or tracking?
The rogue of trying by to do this stealthily moves at half the pace of the ranger.
The rogue does not learn the exact number, sizes, and how long ago they passed by while tracking them. And, that’s not exactly low DC stuff to find out. And since most rogues don’t have wisdom much higher than a 14. That’s not even going to be a useful check chance for the rogue until they have reliable talent.
Blank
Multiclassing is also available (to both the rogue and the ranger, of course!). My party in a game I'm playing right now ignores your first concern (we have a flying carpet), and I solve the second (I'm the party scout, and I'm a rogue with a 1-dip in cleric; I'm WIS 14, as you predicted) by being an Arcane Trickster. My owl literally watches my back.
And you don't see how jumping through so many hoops for the sake of replicating (part of) Natural Explorer --of all things-- isn't actually the rock-solid case against the Ranger you seem to think it is?
These kinds of examples are a bit silly. You know who is better at skills than the fighter or wizard? The rogue. You know who is better at fighting than the rogue and wizard? The fighter. You know who is better at casting spells than the fighter and rogue? The wizard. Multiclassing allows just about any character to do anything, and saying a multiclass can do what a single class can do is equally silly across the board in all situations. You and others keep giving these examples, but all I see is people building crazy multiclass characters that devote their background and subclasses to do a little of what the ranger does, kind of.