Like, seriously. You need at least a 3rd-level Scout Rogue for some Expertises, one level of cleric, an owl pet, and a flying carpet. And all of that together still doesn't cover all of the things Natural Explorer alone does. Let alone the rest of the Ranger package. Let alone the subclasses.
Jumping through so many hoops just to (poorly) try to prove that you can sort of kind of maybe possibly in some situations replace one of the Ranger's abilities is...a choice.
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.
Your flying carpet doesn’t work to well in a forest. Branches and such. You can fly over the forest. But doing that, how are you tracking something in the forest?
the flying carpet is also negated by an anti magic field
the flying carpet also has weighty limits and capacity limits. The ranger could literally lead an entire village of people through a forest. Call it 1000 NPCs to avoid a goblin attack. Can your flying carpet?
Furthermore, sorry forgot this in original, your owl pet. Owls are nocturnal. So just the fact of seeing one in the daytime. Alarms anything with more than a 4 int. That something is weird. Even beasts, beasts with less than 4 int, that are effected by ranger spells to talk with animals, know that owls are nocturnal. Your Owl is actually giving away your party’s position to anyone who sees it. And, that’s not even including that owls aren’t the top of the food chain either if it’s off by itself.
I might be missing part of the conversation, or misunderstanding information here:
But, I personally, am struggling to see how you can say a level 1 ability of a Class “sucks” and the reasoning behind it is because you are utilizing, a level 3 subclass ability, a pet/familiar (which takes a 1 level dip or is a different subclass than previous used rogue ability), and a magic item.
to get SOME of the benefits of the level 1 ability. and then, in the same breath, say that the rangers level 1 ability, which is a god-given birth talent of the ranger, is scenario specific, while you are crafting an entire 3-4+ level character of a different class (or many) that is Specifically designed, to do part of what ANY ranger can do.
I really feel like I am missing a big part of the conversation here. Can anyone fill me in on the void of what I am missing? I do notice that it seems not many people have played a “full ranger” and so are unfamiliar of just what you can do at level 17 once you learn Wrath of Nature.
I might be missing part of the conversation, or misunderstanding information here:
But, I personally, am struggling to see how you can say a level 1 ability of a Class “sucks” and the reasoning behind it is because you are utilizing, a level 3 subclass ability, a pet/familiar (which takes a 1 level dip or is a different subclass than previous used rogue ability), and a magic item.
to get SOME of the benefits of the level 1 ability. and then, in the same breath, say that the rangers level 1 ability, which is a god-given birth talent of the ranger, is scenario specific, while you are crafting an entire 3-4+ level character of a different class (or many) that is Specifically designed, to do part of what ANY ranger can do.
I really feel like I am missing a big part of the conversation here. Can anyone fill me in on the void of what I am missing? I do notice that it seems not many people have played a “full ranger” and so are unfamiliar of just what you can do at level 17 once you learn Wrath of Nature.
No. From what I can tell you've hit the nail on the head exactly. It doesn't even cover all the things that the rogue/cleric/whatever hybrid with it's bird gives up to be able to do all that.
I might be missing part of the conversation, or misunderstanding information here:
But, I personally, am struggling to see how you can say a level 1 ability of a Class “sucks” and the reasoning behind it is because you are utilizing, a level 3 subclass ability, a pet/familiar (which takes a 1 level dip or is a different subclass than previous used rogue ability), and a magic item.
to get SOME of the benefits of the level 1 ability. and then, in the same breath, say that the rangers level 1 ability, which is a god-given birth talent of the ranger, is scenario specific, while you are crafting an entire 3-4+ level character of a different class (or many) that is Specifically designed, to do part of what ANY ranger can do.
I really feel like I am missing a big part of the conversation here. Can anyone fill me in on the void of what I am missing? I do notice that it seems not many people have played a “full ranger” and so are unfamiliar of just what you can do at level 17 once you learn Wrath of Nature.
Which ability are you talking about? Because neither L1 ability of the Ranger is worth copying, in general - the problems with the Ranger L1 abilities are that they have a high likelihood of being irrelevant to gameplay. At higher levels, this becomes less true, particularly because if you leveled up during the campaign, you can now make more informed choices than at L1. E.g. if you're playing in a campaign that starts on the arctic coast and then the whole thing moves to the underdark, which you had no feasible way of predicting, L1 favored terrain isn't helpful, but at a higher level, you can grab underdark and it's fine. Same issue with favored enemy.
That's why the number one house rule I pitch for "fixing" stock rangers is giving them a mechanic for changing their choices without needing to level, so they can stay relevant.
I might be missing part of the conversation, or misunderstanding information here:
But, I personally, am struggling to see how you can say a level 1 ability of a Class “sucks” and the reasoning behind it is because you are utilizing, a level 3 subclass ability, a pet/familiar (which takes a 1 level dip or is a different subclass than previous used rogue ability), and a magic item.
to get SOME of the benefits of the level 1 ability. and then, in the same breath, say that the rangers level 1 ability, which is a god-given birth talent of the ranger, is scenario specific, while you are crafting an entire 3-4+ level character of a different class (or many) that is Specifically designed, to do part of what ANY ranger can do.
I really feel like I am missing a big part of the conversation here. Can anyone fill me in on the void of what I am missing? I do notice that it seems not many people have played a “full ranger” and so are unfamiliar of just what you can do at level 17 once you learn Wrath of Nature.
Which ability are you talking about? Because neither L1 ability of the Ranger is worth copying, in general - the problems with the Ranger L1 abilities are that they have a high likelihood of being irrelevant to gameplay. At higher levels, this becomes less true, particularly because if you leveled up during the campaign, you can now make more informed choices than at L1. E.g. if you're playing in a campaign that starts on the arctic coast and then the whole thing moves to the underdark, which you had no feasible way of predicting, L1 favored terrain isn't helpful, but at a higher level, you can grab underdark and it's fine. Same issue with favored enemy.
That's why the number one house rule I pitch for "fixing" stock rangers is giving them a mechanic for changing their choices without needing to level, so they can stay relevant.
Quindraco you obviously have had nothing but terrible experiences with the PHB ranger at the table. I’m very sorry about that. It’s a real shame. I am happy to report that myself, many people I know personally, and many I speak with even on these forums, have had wonderful experiences with the PHB ranger, the abilities they have, as they are written, in game! I don’t think its fair to judge something as “it sucks” because some folks have had unfavorable experiences with it.
To be honest, I am not sure why this discussion is still happening? If you don't like favored terrain or favored enemy, they have replaced those features. I am not wild about Favored Foe, so I kept Favored Enemy, but I do think Deft Explorer is better than terrain and am using it. So why is this an argument?
To be honest, I am not sure why this discussion is still happening? If you don't like favored terrain or favored enemy, they have replaced those features. I am not wild about Favored Foe, so I kept Favored Enemy, but I do think Deft Explorer is better than terrain and am using it. So why is this an argument?
Everyone is letting off Covid-19 fatigue frustration.
To be honest, I am not sure why this discussion is still happening? If you don't like favored terrain or favored enemy, they have replaced those features. I am not wild about Favored Foe, so I kept Favored Enemy, but I do think Deft Explorer is better than terrain and am using it. So why is this an argument?
Fandom inertia. The Ranger has been the fandom's punching bag for so long that people don't really know how to handle it now that they've been given a buff.
So they ignore all the changes and fixes (and in some cases, reality altogether) just so they can continue to complain.
It's, like, yes. If you ignore all the tools the Rangers have received since 5E started, then sure. They're still underwhelming. Why not? Not sure what the point of continuing down that road is, but here we are.
To be honest, I am not sure why this discussion is still happening? If you don't like favored terrain or favored enemy, they have replaced those features. I am not wild about Favored Foe, so I kept Favored Enemy, but I do think Deft Explorer is better than terrain and am using it. So why is this an argument?
Fandom inertia. The Ranger has been the fandom's punching bag for so long that people don't really know how to handle it now that they've been given a buff.
So they ignore all the changes and fixes (and in some cases, reality altogether) just so they can continue to complain.
It's, like, yes. If you ignore all the tools the Rangers have received since 5E started, then sure. They're still underwhelming. Why not? Not sure what the point of continuing down that road is, but here we are.
I’ll add on.
they don’t want to admit that Druidic and Thieves Cant almost exclusively never happen in campaigns because DMs don’t want to bother with them. And are literally completely useless, instead of only “situationally useless”, and the situationally useless ranger abilities depends entirely on you as a player asking questions about the world in session 0, and paying attention during. The campaign for level up choices.
the hate on most of the ranger abilities, is quite frankly either because “one-shots” it’s not too helpful, as rangers are more designed for long campaigns and actual world explorations in campaigns. Or by min-maxxers. Which have many better, more fitting for min-maxxing classes and subclasses to choose from.
personally, I think WoTC did Monks more dirty than rangers for 5e.
To be honest, I am not sure why this discussion is still happening? If you don't like favored terrain or favored enemy, they have replaced those features. I am not wild about Favored Foe, so I kept Favored Enemy, but I do think Deft Explorer is better than terrain and am using it. So why is this an argument?
Fandom inertia. The Ranger has been the fandom's punching bag for so long that people don't really know how to handle it now that they've been given a buff.
So they ignore all the changes and fixes (and in some cases, reality altogether) just so they can continue to complain.
It's, like, yes. If you ignore all the tools the Rangers have received since 5E started, then sure. They're still underwhelming. Why not? Not sure what the point of continuing down that road is, but here we are.
I’ll add on.
they don’t want to admit that Druidic and Thieves Cant almost exclusively never happen in campaigns because DMs don’t want to bother with them. And are literally completely useless, instead of only “situationally useless”, and the situationally useless ranger abilities depends entirely on you as a player asking questions about the world in session 0, and paying attention during. The campaign for level up choices.
the hate on most of the ranger abilities, is quite frankly either because “one-shots” it’s not too helpful, as rangers are more designed for long campaigns and actual world explorations in campaigns. Or by min-maxxers. Which have many better, more fitting for min-maxxing classes and subclasses to choose from.
personally, I think WoTC did Monks more dirty than rangers for 5e.
I'll continue to add to that. By and large, min-maxers tend to care about single-target dpr in a white room combat Encounter against a gray sack of HP, which is such a narrow focus to the point of being functionally useless outside of passing the time in internet discussion forums.
Also, min-maxers tend to make assumptions in favor of certain classes' situational abilities that they don't make in the case of the Ranger. For instance, assuming the Rogue will always get Sneak Attack, or that the wizard/cleric/druid will always have the right spell for the job, or that the fighter or paladin will always have Action Surge/Smite slots. They do not do this for the Ranger. If we start assuming that Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy are always on in white room scenarios the same way we assume Sneak Attack is, the Ranger suddenly becomes a much more attractive class.
But they're going to argue that it's much easier to get Sneak Attack than to get the benefits of Natural Explorer. To that, I counter that getting Sneak Attack relies heavily on the player and their party making smart choices in combat in the exact same way that Natural Explorer relies heavily on the Ranger player making smart Favored Terrain choices (mountains, forest, and grasslands are all generally solid starting Terrains, while the rest can be chosen by simply paying attention to the story.)
I might be missing part of the conversation, or misunderstanding information here:
But, I personally, am struggling to see how you can say a level 1 ability of a Class “sucks” and the reasoning behind it is because you are utilizing, a level 3 subclass ability, a pet/familiar (which takes a 1 level dip or is a different subclass than previous used rogue ability), and a magic item.
to get SOME of the benefits of the level 1 ability. and then, in the same breath, say that the rangers level 1 ability, which is a god-given birth talent of the ranger, is scenario specific, while you are crafting an entire 3-4+ level character of a different class (or many) that is Specifically designed, to do part of what ANY ranger can do.
I really feel like I am missing a big part of the conversation here. Can anyone fill me in on the void of what I am missing? I do notice that it seems not many people have played a “full ranger” and so are unfamiliar of just what you can do at level 17 once you learn Wrath of Nature.
Which ability are you talking about? Because neither L1 ability of the Ranger is worth copying, in general - the problems with the Ranger L1 abilities are that they have a high likelihood of being irrelevant to gameplay. At higher levels, this becomes less true, particularly because if you leveled up during the campaign, you can now make more informed choices than at L1. E.g. if you're playing in a campaign that starts on the arctic coast and then the whole thing moves to the underdark, which you had no feasible way of predicting, L1 favored terrain isn't helpful, but at a higher level, you can grab underdark and it's fine. Same issue with favored enemy.
That's why the number one house rule I pitch for "fixing" stock rangers is giving them a mechanic for changing their choices without needing to level, so they can stay relevant.
Quindraco you obviously have had nothing but terrible experiences with the PHB ranger at the table. I’m very sorry about that. It’s a real shame. I am happy to report that myself, many people I know personally, and many I speak with even on these forums, have had wonderful experiences with the PHB ranger, the abilities they have, as they are written, in game! I don’t think its fair to judge something as “it sucks” because some folks have had unfavorable experiences with it.
Not even terrible experiences with PHB ranger. I mean, it seems that’s a part of it, but it also seems like he’s had some experiences with some sub optimal DMs. That let biases for and against classes come to their tables.
character creation. Unless your ranger is literally born that second. He has lived in the world for X years. To live in a world X years without knowing the demographics or geography of the area near you, as a ranger, doesn’t make any sense.
Heres a snippet from the PHB:
Deadly Hunters
Warriors of the wilderness, rangers specialize in hunting the monsters that threaten the edges of civilization—humanoid raiders, rampaging beasts and monstrosities, terrible giants, and deadly dragons. They learn to track their quarry as a predator does, moving stealthily through the wilds and hiding themselves in brush and rubble. Rangers focus their combat training on techniques that are particularly useful against their specific favored foes.
Thanks to their familiarity with the wilds, rangers acquire the ability to cast spells that harness nature’s power, much as a druid does.
“thanks to their familiarity with the wilds.”
if the DM, is not working with them for their first favored terrain and enemy. And the player is not picking them solelay as some role play backstory mechanic with the intention of it not necessarily coming up. Then it is the Player failing to understand ranger, and the DM failing on multiple levels. Helping his players. Knowing what they are doing. And creating an enjoyable game for all parties involved.
more from PHB:
Creating a Ranger
As you create your ranger character, consider the nature of the training that gave you your particular capabilities. Did you train with a single mentor, wandering the wilds together until you mastered the ranger’s ways? Did you leave your apprenticeship, or was your mentor slain—perhaps by the same kind of monster that became your favored enemy? Or perhaps you learned your skills as part of a band of rangers affiliated with a druidic circle, trained in mystic paths as well as wilderness lore. You might be self-taught, a recluse who learned combat skills, tracking, and even a magical connection to nature through the necessity of surviving in the wilds.
What’s the source of your particular hatred of a certain kind of enemy? Did a monster kill someone you loved or destroy your home village? Or did you see too much of the destruction these monsters cause and commit yourself to reining in their depredations? Is your adventuring career a continuation of your work in protecting the borderlands, or a significant change? What made you join up with a band of adventurers? Do you find it challenging to teach new allies the ways of the wild, or do you welcome the relief from solitude that they offer?
a lot of stuff in there that straight up says “your dm and you collaborate on this portion”
bad rangers are made mostly because of players and DMs not communicating. Or bad DMs who don’t do what they’re supposed to.
To be honest, I am not sure why this discussion is still happening? If you don't like favored terrain or favored enemy, they have replaced those features. I am not wild about Favored Foe, so I kept Favored Enemy, but I do think Deft Explorer is better than terrain and am using it. So why is this an argument?
Both sides are so convinced they're right that they're unwilling to consider the arguments and experiences of the other side?
To be honest, I am not sure why this discussion is still happening? If you don't like favored terrain or favored enemy, they have replaced those features. I am not wild about Favored Foe, so I kept Favored Enemy, but I do think Deft Explorer is better than terrain and am using it. So why is this an argument?
Both sides are so convinced they're right that they're unwilling to consider the arguments and experiences of the other side?
Do you mean to tell us that people on the internet can be intractible? Say it isn't so!
Confirmation bias is something we all have to deal with, and that sucks. We owe it to ourselves, and to each other, to listen. People who had a good time should listen to hear what might have gone wrong. And people who had a bad time should listen to those who offer up ideas on how to improve the experience.
Tasha's also introduced a means of player characters changing their skill proficiencies. Thanks, I hate it. If the idea is, "Well, I'm just not using this skill," then why aren't you? Are you not looking for ways to use what your character is good at? Are you not roleplaying your character? Features like Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer are things the player should be looking to use. Languages like Druidic and Thieves' Cant are things the player should be looking to use. Don't shoulder the DM with everything. If you don't care that your character can do these things, then a savvy DM isn't going to force it on you.
I'll continue to add to that. By and large, min-maxers tend to care about single-target dpr in a white room combat Encounter against a gray sack of HP, which is such a narrow focus to the point of being functionally useless outside of passing the time in internet discussion forums.
Also, min-maxers tend to make assumptions in favor of certain classes' situational abilities that they don't make in the case of the Ranger. For instance, assuming the Rogue will always get Sneak Attack, or that the wizard/cleric/druid will always have the right spell for the job, or that the fighter or paladin will always have Action Surge/Smite slots. They do not do this for the Ranger. If we start assuming that Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy are always on in white room scenarios the same way we assume Sneak Attack is, the Ranger suddenly becomes a much more attractive class.
But they're going to argue that it's much easier to get Sneak Attack than to get the benefits of Natural Explorer. To that, I counter that getting Sneak Attack relies heavily on the player and their party making smart choices in combat in the exact same way that Natural Explorer relies heavily on the Ranger player making smart Favored Terrain choices (mountains, forest, and grasslands are all generally solid starting Terrains, while the rest can be chosen by simply paying attention to the story.)
While I agree with your sentiments about Ranger abilities you're doing yourself no favors spewing off rhetoric about "min-maxers". It is toxic to lump people into groups you use as a scapegoat, and it's even worse to continue on by spreading uneducated opinions. People that optimize are way more varied and interesting in their approach to the game than you give them credit in this little smear post. All you're doing is continuing the ignorant, fearmongering dialogue around optimization. It would be cool if you could make your point without dumping crap on swaths of people you really know nothing about.
I'm on record in this thread as not being enamored with much of the PHB Ranger, but I also think these class comparisons are mostly really silly and not conducive to a helpful dialogue. I'm sorry Quandrico, I get where you are coming from but I think you are super off base with your multiclass, item-dependant build.
I've come around to thinking it's really other aspects of the game that does the Ranger dirty more than anything else. In particular how pervasive familiars are (this is where I empathize with your stance Quan). I watched my friend's gloomstalker ranger play second fiddle when scouting and this was an underdark campaign! It was dumb. I'm pretty sure all my apathy towards medium Ranger abilities morphed into a general malaise towards Find Familiar's broken ass.
To be honest, I am not sure why this discussion is still happening? If you don't like favored terrain or favored enemy, they have replaced those features. I am not wild about Favored Foe, so I kept Favored Enemy, but I do think Deft Explorer is better than terrain and am using it. So why is this an argument?
Both sides are so convinced they're right that they're unwilling to consider the arguments and experiences of the other side?
Do you mean to tell us that people on the internet can be intractible? Say it isn't so!
Confirmation bias is something we all have to deal with, and that sucks. We owe it to ourselves, and to each other, to listen. People who had a good time should listen to hear what might have gone wrong. And people who had a bad time should listen to those who offer up ideas on how to improve the experience.
Tasha's also introduced a means of player characters changing their skill proficiencies. Thanks, I hate it. If the idea is, "Well, I'm just not using this skill," then why aren't you? Are you not looking for ways to use what your character is good at? Are you not roleplaying your character? Features like Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer are things the player should be looking to use. Languages like Druidic and Thieves' Cant are things the player should be looking to use. Don't shoulder the DM with everything. If you don't care that your character can do these things, then a savvy DM isn't going to force it on you.
But you'll both be poorer for it.
To be fair though "looking for ways to use your abilities" can only go so far. You can't say "I know we are investigating this murder in town, but maybe we should go to the forest where I can use my favored terrain." Not really the same thing as looking for ways to make Animal Handling useful.
That being said I did an update to favored terrain... (copied from earlier in the post)
I have never thought the ranger to be underpowered. I do think some of the abilities are too situational. A little over a year ago I wrote a proposed fix for Natural Explorer...
Natural Explorer You are particularly familiar with environments in which you have honed your craft and are adept at traveling and surviving in such regions. Choose one environmental group as favored terrain:
While in any favored terrain you gain the following benefits: • You ignore difficult terrain. • You have advantage on initiative rolls. • On your first turn during combat, you have advantage on attack rolls against creatures that have not yet acted.
While traveling for an hour or more in your favored terrain, you gain the following benefits:
• Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel. • Your group can’t become lost except by magical means. • Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger. • If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace. • When you forage, you find twice as much food as you normally would. • While tracking other creatures, you also learn their exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area.
You choose additional favored terrain types at 6th, 11th, and 17th level.
To be honest, I am not sure why this discussion is still happening? If you don't like favored terrain or favored enemy, they have replaced those features. I am not wild about Favored Foe, so I kept Favored Enemy, but I do think Deft Explorer is better than terrain and am using it. So why is this an argument?
Both sides are so convinced they're right that they're unwilling to consider the arguments and experiences of the other side?
Do you mean to tell us that people on the internet can be intractible? Say it isn't so!
Confirmation bias is something we all have to deal with, and that sucks. We owe it to ourselves, and to each other, to listen. People who had a good time should listen to hear what might have gone wrong. And people who had a bad time should listen to those who offer up ideas on how to improve the experience.
Tasha's also introduced a means of player characters changing their skill proficiencies. Thanks, I hate it. If the idea is, "Well, I'm just not using this skill," then why aren't you? Are you not looking for ways to use what your character is good at? Are you not roleplaying your character? Features like Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer are things the player should be looking to use. Languages like Druidic and Thieves' Cant are things the player should be looking to use. Don't shoulder the DM with everything. If you don't care that your character can do these things, then a savvy DM isn't going to force it on you.
But you'll both be poorer for it.
To be fair though "looking for ways to use your abilities" can only go so far. You can't say "I know we are investigating this murder in town, but maybe we should go to the forest where I can use my favored terrain." Not really the same thing as looking for ways to make Animal Handling useful.
And that's a key disconnect I see far too often. The ranger doesn't need to be in one of their chosen terrains to gain the benefit of Natural Explorer. They gain expertise on any Intelligence or Wisdom check related to that terrain; regardless of where they are. So, let's say you're trying to identify a poison used in that murder. If the poison came from a creature found in one of their chosen terrains, the ranger doubles their proficiency bonus on the check to identify the poison and to recall information about the creature. Naturally, they have to be proficient in the skill.
This is one of the reasons why I get so annoyed when people call Intelligence a "dump stat". It's objectively not the case. Some classes benefit immensely from it.
I dislike dump stats on principle, but that's me. We all have to prioritize. But how that goes can vary wildly. A ranger, for example, can specialize in studying beasts and monstrosities. Between skills like Animal Handling and Nature, they can cover the wild animals pretty well. But Insight is also on their class skill list. With a decent Charisma modifier and Favored Enemy choices, they can pick up a lot of languages and serve as a go-between for several cultures.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Like, seriously. You need at least a 3rd-level Scout Rogue for some Expertises, one level of cleric, an owl pet, and a flying carpet. And all of that together still doesn't cover all of the things Natural Explorer alone does. Let alone the rest of the Ranger package. Let alone the subclasses.
Jumping through so many hoops just to (poorly) try to prove that you can sort of kind of maybe possibly in some situations replace one of the Ranger's abilities is...a choice.
Your flying carpet doesn’t work to well in a forest. Branches and such. You can fly over the forest. But doing that, how are you tracking something in the forest?
the flying carpet is also negated by an anti magic field
the flying carpet also has weighty limits and capacity limits. The ranger could literally lead an entire village of people through a forest. Call it 1000 NPCs to avoid a goblin attack. Can your flying carpet?
Furthermore, sorry forgot this in original, your owl pet. Owls are nocturnal. So just the fact of seeing one in the daytime. Alarms anything with more than a 4 int. That something is weird. Even beasts, beasts with less than 4 int, that are effected by ranger spells to talk with animals, know that owls are nocturnal. Your Owl is actually giving away your party’s position to anyone who sees it. And, that’s not even including that owls aren’t the top of the food chain either if it’s off by itself.
Watch me on twitch
I might be missing part of the conversation, or misunderstanding information here:
But, I personally, am struggling to see how you can say a level 1 ability of a Class “sucks” and the reasoning behind it is because you are utilizing, a level 3 subclass ability, a pet/familiar (which takes a 1 level dip or is a different subclass than previous used rogue ability), and a magic item.
to get SOME of the benefits of the level 1 ability. and then, in the same breath, say that the rangers level 1 ability, which is a god-given birth talent of the ranger, is scenario specific, while you are crafting an entire 3-4+ level character of a different class (or many) that is Specifically designed, to do part of what ANY ranger can do.
I really feel like I am missing a big part of the conversation here. Can anyone fill me in on the void of what I am missing? I do notice that it seems not many people have played a “full ranger” and so are unfamiliar of just what you can do at level 17 once you learn Wrath of Nature.
Watch me on twitch
No. From what I can tell you've hit the nail on the head exactly. It doesn't even cover all the things that the rogue/cleric/whatever hybrid with it's bird gives up to be able to do all that.
@Fateless
ah. Thanks to you. I just wanted to make sure cause it’s been like a year since I checked this thread.
Watch me on twitch
Which ability are you talking about? Because neither L1 ability of the Ranger is worth copying, in general - the problems with the Ranger L1 abilities are that they have a high likelihood of being irrelevant to gameplay. At higher levels, this becomes less true, particularly because if you leveled up during the campaign, you can now make more informed choices than at L1. E.g. if you're playing in a campaign that starts on the arctic coast and then the whole thing moves to the underdark, which you had no feasible way of predicting, L1 favored terrain isn't helpful, but at a higher level, you can grab underdark and it's fine. Same issue with favored enemy.
That's why the number one house rule I pitch for "fixing" stock rangers is giving them a mechanic for changing their choices without needing to level, so they can stay relevant.
Quindraco you obviously have had nothing but terrible experiences with the PHB ranger at the table. I’m very sorry about that. It’s a real shame. I am happy to report that myself, many people I know personally, and many I speak with even on these forums, have had wonderful experiences with the PHB ranger, the abilities they have, as they are written, in game! I don’t think its fair to judge something as “it sucks” because some folks have had unfavorable experiences with it.
To be honest, I am not sure why this discussion is still happening? If you don't like favored terrain or favored enemy, they have replaced those features. I am not wild about Favored Foe, so I kept Favored Enemy, but I do think Deft Explorer is better than terrain and am using it. So why is this an argument?
Everyone is letting off Covid-19 fatigue frustration.
Fandom inertia. The Ranger has been the fandom's punching bag for so long that people don't really know how to handle it now that they've been given a buff.
So they ignore all the changes and fixes (and in some cases, reality altogether) just so they can continue to complain.
It's, like, yes. If you ignore all the tools the Rangers have received since 5E started, then sure. They're still underwhelming. Why not? Not sure what the point of continuing down that road is, but here we are.
I’ll add on.
they don’t want to admit that Druidic and Thieves Cant almost exclusively never happen in campaigns because DMs don’t want to bother with them. And are literally completely useless, instead of only “situationally useless”, and the situationally useless ranger abilities depends entirely on you as a player asking questions about the world in session 0, and paying attention during. The campaign for level up choices.
the hate on most of the ranger abilities, is quite frankly either because “one-shots” it’s not too helpful, as rangers are more designed for long campaigns and actual world explorations in campaigns. Or by min-maxxers. Which have many better, more fitting for min-maxxing classes and subclasses to choose from.
personally, I think WoTC did Monks more dirty than rangers for 5e.
Watch me on twitch
I'll continue to add to that. By and large, min-maxers tend to care about single-target dpr in a white room combat Encounter against a gray sack of HP, which is such a narrow focus to the point of being functionally useless outside of passing the time in internet discussion forums.
Also, min-maxers tend to make assumptions in favor of certain classes' situational abilities that they don't make in the case of the Ranger. For instance, assuming the Rogue will always get Sneak Attack, or that the wizard/cleric/druid will always have the right spell for the job, or that the fighter or paladin will always have Action Surge/Smite slots. They do not do this for the Ranger. If we start assuming that Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy are always on in white room scenarios the same way we assume Sneak Attack is, the Ranger suddenly becomes a much more attractive class.
But they're going to argue that it's much easier to get Sneak Attack than to get the benefits of Natural Explorer. To that, I counter that getting Sneak Attack relies heavily on the player and their party making smart choices in combat in the exact same way that Natural Explorer relies heavily on the Ranger player making smart Favored Terrain choices (mountains, forest, and grasslands are all generally solid starting Terrains, while the rest can be chosen by simply paying attention to the story.)
Not even terrible experiences with PHB ranger. I mean, it seems that’s a part of it, but it also seems like he’s had some experiences with some sub optimal DMs. That let biases for and against classes come to their tables.
character creation. Unless your ranger is literally born that second. He has lived in the world for X years. To live in a world X years without knowing the demographics or geography of the area near you, as a ranger, doesn’t make any sense.
Heres a snippet from the PHB:
Deadly Hunters
Warriors of the wilderness, rangers specialize in hunting the monsters that threaten the edges of civilization—humanoid raiders, rampaging beasts and monstrosities, terrible giants, and deadly dragons. They learn to track their quarry as a predator does, moving stealthily through the wilds and hiding themselves in brush and rubble. Rangers focus their combat training on techniques that are particularly useful against their specific favored foes.
Thanks to their familiarity with the wilds, rangers acquire the ability to cast spells that harness nature’s power, much as a druid does.
“thanks to their familiarity with the wilds.”
if the DM, is not working with them for their first favored terrain and enemy. And the player is not picking them solelay as some role play backstory mechanic with the intention of it not necessarily coming up. Then it is the Player failing to understand ranger, and the DM failing on multiple levels. Helping his players. Knowing what they are doing. And creating an enjoyable game for all parties involved.
more from PHB:
Creating a Ranger
As you create your ranger character, consider the nature of the training that gave you your particular capabilities. Did you train with a single mentor, wandering the wilds together until you mastered the ranger’s ways? Did you leave your apprenticeship, or was your mentor slain—perhaps by the same kind of monster that became your favored enemy? Or perhaps you learned your skills as part of a band of rangers affiliated with a druidic circle, trained in mystic paths as well as wilderness lore. You might be self-taught, a recluse who learned combat skills, tracking, and even a magical connection to nature through the necessity of surviving in the wilds.
What’s the source of your particular hatred of a certain kind of enemy? Did a monster kill someone you loved or destroy your home village? Or did you see too much of the destruction these monsters cause and commit yourself to reining in their depredations? Is your adventuring career a continuation of your work in protecting the borderlands, or a significant change? What made you join up with a band of adventurers? Do you find it challenging to teach new allies the ways of the wild, or do you welcome the relief from solitude that they offer?
a lot of stuff in there that straight up says “your dm and you collaborate on this portion”
bad rangers are made mostly because of players and DMs not communicating. Or bad DMs who don’t do what they’re supposed to.
Watch me on twitch
Both sides are so convinced they're right that they're unwilling to consider the arguments and experiences of the other side?
Do you mean to tell us that people on the internet can be intractible? Say it isn't so!
Confirmation bias is something we all have to deal with, and that sucks. We owe it to ourselves, and to each other, to listen. People who had a good time should listen to hear what might have gone wrong. And people who had a bad time should listen to those who offer up ideas on how to improve the experience.
Tasha's also introduced a means of player characters changing their skill proficiencies. Thanks, I hate it. If the idea is, "Well, I'm just not using this skill," then why aren't you? Are you not looking for ways to use what your character is good at? Are you not roleplaying your character? Features like Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer are things the player should be looking to use. Languages like Druidic and Thieves' Cant are things the player should be looking to use. Don't shoulder the DM with everything. If you don't care that your character can do these things, then a savvy DM isn't going to force it on you.
But you'll both be poorer for it.
While I agree with your sentiments about Ranger abilities you're doing yourself no favors spewing off rhetoric about "min-maxers". It is toxic to lump people into groups you use as a scapegoat, and it's even worse to continue on by spreading uneducated opinions. People that optimize are way more varied and interesting in their approach to the game than you give them credit in this little smear post. All you're doing is continuing the ignorant, fearmongering dialogue around optimization. It would be cool if you could make your point without dumping crap on swaths of people you really know nothing about.
I'm on record in this thread as not being enamored with much of the PHB Ranger, but I also think these class comparisons are mostly really silly and not conducive to a helpful dialogue. I'm sorry Quandrico, I get where you are coming from but I think you are super off base with your multiclass, item-dependant build.
I've come around to thinking it's really other aspects of the game that does the Ranger dirty more than anything else. In particular how pervasive familiars are (this is where I empathize with your stance Quan). I watched my friend's gloomstalker ranger play second fiddle when scouting and this was an underdark campaign! It was dumb. I'm pretty sure all my apathy towards medium Ranger abilities morphed into a general malaise towards Find Familiar's broken ass.
To be fair though "looking for ways to use your abilities" can only go so far. You can't say "I know we are investigating this murder in town, but maybe we should go to the forest where I can use my favored terrain." Not really the same thing as looking for ways to make Animal Handling useful.
That being said I did an update to favored terrain... (copied from earlier in the post)
I have never thought the ranger to be underpowered. I do think some of the abilities are too situational. A little over a year ago I wrote a proposed fix for Natural Explorer...
Natural Explorer
You are particularly familiar with environments in which you have honed your craft and are adept at traveling and surviving in such regions. Choose one environmental group as favored terrain:
Inhospitable: Arctic/Desert/Mountain
Natural: Forest/Grassland/Swamp
Urban: Coast/Cities/Towns
Desolate: Dungeon/Ruins/Underdark
While in any favored terrain you gain the following benefits:
• You ignore difficult terrain.
• You have advantage on initiative rolls.
• On your first turn during combat, you have advantage on attack rolls against creatures that have not yet acted.
While traveling for an hour or more in your favored terrain, you gain the following benefits:
• Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel.
• Your group can’t become lost except by magical means.
• Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger.
• If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace.
• When you forage, you find twice as much food as you normally would.
• While tracking other creatures, you also learn their exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area.
You choose additional favored terrain types at 6th, 11th, and 17th level.
And that's a key disconnect I see far too often. The ranger doesn't need to be in one of their chosen terrains to gain the benefit of Natural Explorer. They gain expertise on any Intelligence or Wisdom check related to that terrain; regardless of where they are. So, let's say you're trying to identify a poison used in that murder. If the poison came from a creature found in one of their chosen terrains, the ranger doubles their proficiency bonus on the check to identify the poison and to recall information about the creature. Naturally, they have to be proficient in the skill.
This is one of the reasons why I get so annoyed when people call Intelligence a "dump stat". It's objectively not the case. Some classes benefit immensely from it.
Charisma is always my dump stat followed by strength
I dislike dump stats on principle, but that's me. We all have to prioritize. But how that goes can vary wildly. A ranger, for example, can specialize in studying beasts and monstrosities. Between skills like Animal Handling and Nature, they can cover the wild animals pretty well. But Insight is also on their class skill list. With a decent Charisma modifier and Favored Enemy choices, they can pick up a lot of languages and serve as a go-between for several cultures.