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.
You might be able to go full CSI and study the footprints of the murderer and deduce that they were recently in a forest to the West because of the traces of mud/leaves/sap.
Or to go back to an earlier example someone gave you might be treating a particular disease that originates in a forest tick and get a bonus to your medicine check.
So there is opportunity to get mileage out of it when outside your favoured terrain provided your DM isn't being deliberately malicious. It isn't something you'll always be able to do, but it is an option.
The biggest problem really is it requires creative roleplay, that's difficult for many veterans, let alone newcomers, which is why the abilities get maligned so much.
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.
You might be able to go full CSI and study the footprints of the murderer and deduce that they were recently in a forest to the West because of the traces of mud/leaves/sap.
Or to go back to an earlier example someone gave you might be treating a particular disease that originates in a forest tick and get a bonus to your medicine check.
So there is opportunity to get mileage out of it when outside your favoured terrain provided your DM isn't being deliberately malicious. It isn't something you'll always be able to do, but it is an option.
The biggest problem really is it requires creative roleplay, that's difficult for many veterans, let alone newcomers, which is why the abilities get maligned so much.
Those are solid examples, but they also all seem like you would have to have had a conversation with your DM or else there is 0 chance the DM will have thought of using skills in that way. I have never had a DM be that broad in skill application. Are there DMs who might do that, sure, but 90% wont unless you talk to them and set it up.
The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.
1. The DM describes the environment.
The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves (how many doors lead out of a room, what’s on a table, who’s in the tavern, and so on).
2. The players describe what they want to do.
Sometimes one player speaks for the whole party, saying, “We’ll take the east door,” for example. Other times, different adventurers do different things: one adventurer might search a treasure chest while a second examines an esoteric symbol engraved on a wall and a third keeps watch for monsters. The players don’t need to take turns, but the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions.
Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions.
Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.
This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or locked in mortal combat against a mighty dragon. In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions. But most of the time, play is fluid and flexible, adapting to the circumstances of the adventure.
Often the action of an adventure takes place in the imagination of the players and DM, relying on the DM’s verbal descriptions to set the scene. Some DMs like to use music, art, or recorded sound effects to help set the mood, and many players and DMs alike adopt different voices for the various adventurers, monsters, and other characters they play in the game. Sometimes, a DM might lay out a map and use tokens or miniature figures to represent each creature involved in a scene to help the players keep track of where everyone is.
Adventurers can try to do anything their players can imagine, but it can be helpful to talk about their activities in three broad categories: exploration, social interaction, and combat.
Exploration includes both the adventurers’ movement through the world and their interaction with objects and situations that require their attention. Exploration is the give-and-take of the players describing what they want their characters to do, and the Dungeon Master telling the players what happens as a result. On a large scale, that might involve the characters spending a day crossing a rolling plain or an hour making their way through caverns underground. On the smallest scale, it could mean one character pulling a lever in a dungeon room to see what happens.
Social interaction features the adventurers talking to someone (or something) else. It might mean demanding that a captured scout reveal the secret entrance to the goblin lair, getting information from a rescued prisoner, pleading for mercy from an orc chieftain, or persuading a talkative magic mirror to show a distant location to the adventurers.
Combat, the focus of chapter 9, involves characters and other creatures swinging weapons, casting spells, maneuvering for position, and so on—all in an effort to defeat their opponents, whether that means killing every enemy, taking captives, or forcing a rout. Combat is the most structured element of a D&D session, with creatures taking turns to make sure that everyone gets a chance to act. Even in the context of a pitched battle, there’s still plenty of opportunity for adventurers to attempt wacky stunts like surfing down a flight of stairs on a shield, to examine the environment (perhaps by pulling a mysterious lever), and to interact with other creatures, including allies, enemies, and neutral parties.
I find that if you just simply ask every time you roll an int or wisdom check you are proficient in you politely say "Does a Favored enemy and/or a terrain apply?" (no specifics just if one of them or both applies)The dm will start mentally assigning checks to certain types so they can say yes or no. The dm will either quickly self-realize if your being shortchanged and start thinking it through OR will determine that they think you are getting full use of your abilities.
When I roll I then say things like "I get 18 or 20 with forests" or "I get 18 but if beasts apply I get advantage"
most 5e games Really care more about the roll results first then the fiction second. A fighter that misses a roll is explained after the roll. Maybe the armor was too thick or the player tripped. A doctor that rolls a medicine check and succeeds always has the right bit of info that they would understand. Rangers kind of reverse that order Where the connection needs to be considered first then the roll. That frustrates some players and dms. This is why you need a clear dm system of "burden of proof." Some assume the ranger needs to prove the connection first (but how can they without the all the information?) while others assume the dm needs to prove why he is denying its use (but if he does give a full explanation wouldn't that give players Metagame knowledge). The system of asking the questions above is the best middle ground I've found for playing.
I find that if you just simply ask every time you roll an int or wisdom check you are proficient in you politely say "Does a Favored enemy and/or a terrain apply?" (no specifics just if one of them or both applies)The dm will start mentally assigning checks to certain types so they can say yes or no. The dm will either quickly self-realize if your being shortchanged and start thinking it through OR will determine that they think you are getting full use of your abilities.
When I roll I then say things like "I get 18 or 20 with forests" or "I get 18 but if beasts apply I get advantage"
most 5e games Really care more about the roll results first then the fiction second. A fighter that misses a roll is explained after the roll. Maybe the armor was too thick or the player tripped. A doctor that rolls a medicine check and succeeds always has the right bit of info that they would understand. Rangers kind of reverse that order Where the connection needs to be considered first then the roll. That frustrates some players and dms. This is why you need a clear dm system of "burden of proof." Some assume the ranger needs to prove the connection first (but how can they without the all the information?) while others assume the dm needs to prove why he is denying its use (but if he does give a full explanation wouldn't that give players Metagame knowledge). The system of asking the questions above is the best middle ground I've found for playing.
It is cumbersome. To help with and/or avoid that, the DM (if they aren't the type to announce the DC openly beforehand) can always just change the DC on their end secretly to account for these situations. Advantage = +5. Terrain related skill = + prof. bonus.
There's a lot of stuff that proficiency in a tool gives a character as well (advantage on a proficient skill check, proficiency bonus applied to another type of ability check, etc.). It can't rest on the DM's shoulders entirely to know and/or remember every little thing on each character's sheet. It is 50% the player's job to know and attempt to apply the stuff they have and the things they can do to a situation. Asking a DM if their natural explorer and/or favored enemy knowledge can be applied to a task is no different than asking if you can use your carpentry tools, 50' of rope, pitons, ball bearings, background feature, common magic item, boon (from the DMG), or anything else that is not combat related that can be used creatively in game.
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.
Looks like I struck a nerve. I invite you to introspect on why my post triggered you to such a point you felt you had to put words in my mouth and plant a strawman in the ground.
I never said optimizing (or optimizers) were bad. Rather, all I did was challenge the assumptions by which optimizers form their opinions on classes and point out the double standard that happens when judging the value of a feature. I also recognized that white room scenarios --while fun to theorycraft in and handy for mathematics-- fail to accurately represent the typical combat encounter (or adventuring day) to the point of uselessness. This is not to say optimizing is bad. Rather, I'm merely inviting you to reconsider the flaws in the context of the average optimizer's mindset and think of ways to reorient yourself so that your optimization yields results that better reflect the experience at the table.
Opinions fossilized from white room combat scenarios are flawed because of the white room combat scenarios own inherent shortcomings. I'm not telling you not to optimize (I do so myself.) I'm suggesting you should consider how you're optimizing, what the flaws are in how you're optimizing, and the holes in the conclusions you draw from the flawed framework of your optimization.
You haven't done much with the underdark have you. Automatically putting it as a Desolate Area. Deserts are often more desolate than the Underdark is. And Coasts aren't just automatically urban. In fact statistically more coastal area is going to be non-urban environment than urban environment. It's also completely natural. As is decent parts of the Underdark. And anything Arctic, Desert, or Mountain. These categorizations are faulty on multiple levels.
Those are solid examples, but they also all seem like you would have to have had a conversation with your DM or else there is 0 chance the DM will have thought of using skills in that way. I have never had a DM be that broad in skill application. Are there DMs who might do that, sure, but 90% wont unless you talk to them and set it up.
Oh for sure, that's undeniably a big fault, your DM has to be on board with it, which whilst some people will say isn't an issue it most certainly is for a lot of groups. Either the DM will disagree with your interpretation or will just not be prepared for it.
Not all DMs are the same, some are good, some are new/learning, some are lazy, some just want to be the player, some are vindictive, some are caught up in the power of being DM, some will just run a table top miniatures battle game. Sadly it isn't as easy as you'd hope to find a new group if you get stuck with a shitty one, and that can mar your experiences with the game, or specific classes in this case.
Those are solid examples, but they also all seem like you would have to have had a conversation with your DM or else there is 0 chance the DM will have thought of using skills in that way. I have never had a DM be that broad in skill application. Are there DMs who might do that, sure, but 90% wont unless you talk to them and set it up.
Oh for sure, that's undeniably a big fault, your DM has to be on board with it, which whilst some people will say isn't an issue it most certainly is for a lot of groups. Either the DM will disagree with your interpretation or will just not be prepared for it.
Not all DMs are the same, some are good, some are new/learning, some are lazy, some just want to be the player, some are vindictive, some are caught up in the power of being DM, some will just run a table top miniatures battle game. Sadly it isn't as easy as you'd hope to find a new group if you get stuck with a shitty one, and that can mar your experiences with the game, or specific classes in this case.
sounds to me the problem is when a dm and player can't co-operate and work together. Not the ranger class. Don't blame the wrong thing.
I can play with strict/new/minimalist dms but if I do I'm gonna make class choices that keep things clear and well defined. That Doesn't mean I don't like those class choices or that they are bad. It means that dm can't work with them. (which may or may not be intentional on the dms part).
When I want to play a ranger I always start with " I want to play a (PHB) ranger what do you think?" depending on their response I may choose a different option.
You haven't done much with the underdark have you. Automatically putting it as a Desolate Area. Deserts are often more desolate than the Underdark is. And Coasts aren't just automatically urban. In fact statistically more coastal area is going to be non-urban environment than urban environment. It's also completely natural. As is decent parts of the Underdark. And anything Arctic, Desert, or Mountain. These categorizations are faulty on multiple levels.
I mean this is a fair thought as survival in the underdark is a specific aside set in Out of the Abyss which primarily takes place there....they describe the process as "Hard but not impossible" so its fair to say its not as lush as a forrest.
You haven't done much with the underdark have you. Automatically putting it as a Desolate Area. Deserts are often more desolate than the Underdark is. And Coasts aren't just automatically urban. In fact statistically more coastal area is going to be non-urban environment than urban environment. It's also completely natural. As is decent parts of the Underdark. And anything Arctic, Desert, or Mountain. These categorizations are faulty on multiple levels.
The concept was to change the way you approach the idea of a "favored terrain". Rather than the overly limited choices (that don't even cover ALL of the terrain types you can encounter).
The main point is to have 4 major categories that go from easiest to survive in to hardest: Urban>Natural>Desolate>Inhospitable and to provide some examples, you can argue that some of the examples could go in other categories. This way you can say I choose x at level 1, y at 6, x at 11, and by level 17 there is no place a Ranger can go that they aren't really good at.
If a level 6 Ranger has Natural and Desolate choosen, the DM can decide if where the party is fits either of those.
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. The groups are listed from easiest to survive in to hardest, but all options are available at all levels.
Urban: Urban areas are often populated and resources are readily available (possibly for a cost). Even an untrained peasant can survive in an urban environment. Examples can include the coast, cities, and towns. Natural: Natural environments are often dense with foliage, fauna, and wild life. Those experienced with hunting and foraging can easily survive here. Examples can include forest, grasslands, and swamps. Desolate: Desolate areas are those that may be scarce in people and or wild life, possibly abandoned, haunted, or cursed. Additionally, locations with difficult conditions like a lack of sunlight. Examples can include dungeons, ruins and the Underdark. Inhospitable: Inhospitable locations are those where life is specially adapted and sparse - if it exist at all. Only those well prepared or fool hardy travel here. Examples can include the arctic, deserts, and mountains.
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.
You haven't done much with the underdark have you. Automatically putting it as a Desolate Area. Deserts are often more desolate than the Underdark is. And Coasts aren't just automatically urban. In fact statistically more coastal area is going to be non-urban environment than urban environment. It's also completely natural. As is decent parts of the Underdark. And anything Arctic, Desert, or Mountain. These categorizations are faulty on multiple levels.
The concept was to change the way you approach the idea of a "favored terrain". Rather than the overly limited choices (that don't even cover ALL of the terrain types you can encounter).
The main point is to have 4 major categories that go from easiest to survive in to hardest: Urban>Natural>Desolate>Inhospitable and to provide some examples, you can argue that some of the examples could go in other categories. This way you can say I choose x at level 1, y at 6, x at 11, and by level 17 there is no place a Ranger can go that they aren't really good at.
If a level 6 Ranger has Natural and Desolate choosen, the DM can decide if where the party is fits either of those.
Easiest to hardest to survive in is a matter of perception and your own skills. It's a problematic list at best. Creating an additional problem for each one your trying to solve with it.
A person with good survival skills but poor social and thieving skills May actually find it easier to survive in nature than in the cities. City scrounging is a particular kind of skill that doesn't necessarily translate over and is looking for different things from anything in nature. Which actually encompasses most Rangers. Your putting a lot of personal biases into the way your breaking things up.
Also things like Deserts and Snow Fields need a completely opposite application of skills. Deserts are about water more than anything for survival but Arctic areas are about being able to hunt things that you can't necessarily see. Lumping them together leads to it's own issues because of things like this.
And the thing is. The Ranger does not suck at these kinds of skills when they are out of their chosen environment. They are just particularly overly good inside of them. There is a vast difference between the two.
People act like they lose all ability to use their survival skill and other things once they leave their favored terrain. A skill that is both a class skill for them (meaning they get proficiency for it) and that survival is a Wisdom Based skill (meaning that they have some automatic synergy with it raising their skill). Something only accomplished by 2 or 3 other classes at best and maybe 1 or 2 subclasses. But that's all they do. Equal it. They don't surpass it. Partly because most of those aren't Wisdom Based so they have to shift stats around and build for it. Even the Scout Rogue. And I can already hear the rebuttal "But Scout Rogue get's Expertise!" Yeah. Expertise is how they equal the Ranger in most circumstances. and then I hear "But I can put points into Wisdom and Spend ASI's and get a +17". That's quite the investment to be making into wisdom. interesting choice just to boost your survival. But here's the thing. The Ranger can easily pick up Expertise itself. And still get additional bonuses for Terrain on top of that with Natural Explorer. Just plain not having to spend extra resources if they take Deft Explorer. But if we're willing to spend resources like feats there is just a lot more that you can add to the picture that was brought with tasha's as well.
In people's efforts to "fix" things they didn't realize what they are trying to fix can already be borderline broken did they? And that it takes massive investment by anybody else to even match what they can just get without getting into that borderline broken territory.
sounds to me the problem is when a dm and player can't co-operate and work together. Not the ranger class. Don't blame the wrong thing.
I can play with strict/new/minimalist dms but if I do I'm gonna make class choices that keep things clear and well defined. That Doesn't mean I don't like those class choices or that they are bad. It means that dm can't work with them. (which may or may not be intentional on the dms part).
When I want to play a ranger I always start with " I want to play a (PHB) ranger what do you think?" depending on their response I may choose a different option.
That was the whole point. There was no blaming the class, but if that's the way you see it I'm sorry.
There are some classes which will suffer more from DM interpretation/intervention than others. I think Ranger is one of the highest on that list, that doesn't make it bad, but in some situations it will certainly mar the experience of people playing it, or alongside it.
It is really good for you that you can do those things, but not everyone is as experienced as you. You have to consider playing D&D as if you were new to the game, new to the DM, new to the table to understand why people have the misconception of the Ranger being bad.
Consider being introduced to the base fighter, we'll call her 8 Ball Pool, the objective is simple, pot all your balls then the 8 and you're good, then the Ranger, we'll call her Snooker, whose rules I really don't understand, I'm sure it is easy once you learn it, but it takes a little more to understand the game and play it (if someone who actually plays Snooker comes along and tells me that it is actually super simple then I kindly ask you find me a better analogy). Both games are enjoyable, neither is bad, but it is certainly easier to pick up and play eight ball despite the similarities, at least to the majority of people. Some people, however, might just tell you that Snooker is bad because they don't know how to play her, or they had a bad experience.
You haven't done much with the underdark have you. Automatically putting it as a Desolate Area. Deserts are often more desolate than the Underdark is. And Coasts aren't just automatically urban. In fact statistically more coastal area is going to be non-urban environment than urban environment. It's also completely natural. As is decent parts of the Underdark. And anything Arctic, Desert, or Mountain. These categorizations are faulty on multiple levels.
Any suggestions for Aaron on how to improve these then?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You might be able to go full CSI and study the footprints of the murderer and deduce that they were recently in a forest to the West because of the traces of mud/leaves/sap.
Or to go back to an earlier example someone gave you might be treating a particular disease that originates in a forest tick and get a bonus to your medicine check.
So there is opportunity to get mileage out of it when outside your favoured terrain provided your DM isn't being deliberately malicious. It isn't something you'll always be able to do, but it is an option.
The biggest problem really is it requires creative roleplay, that's difficult for many veterans, let alone newcomers, which is why the abilities get maligned so much.
Those are solid examples, but they also all seem like you would have to have had a conversation with your DM or else there is 0 chance the DM will have thought of using skills in that way. I have never had a DM be that broad in skill application. Are there DMs who might do that, sure, but 90% wont unless you talk to them and set it up.
How to Play
The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.
1. The DM describes the environment.
The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves (how many doors lead out of a room, what’s on a table, who’s in the tavern, and so on).
2. The players describe what they want to do.
Sometimes one player speaks for the whole party, saying, “We’ll take the east door,” for example. Other times, different adventurers do different things: one adventurer might search a treasure chest while a second examines an esoteric symbol engraved on a wall and a third keeps watch for monsters. The players don’t need to take turns, but the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions.
Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions.
Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.
This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or locked in mortal combat against a mighty dragon. In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions. But most of the time, play is fluid and flexible, adapting to the circumstances of the adventure.
Often the action of an adventure takes place in the imagination of the players and DM, relying on the DM’s verbal descriptions to set the scene. Some DMs like to use music, art, or recorded sound effects to help set the mood, and many players and DMs alike adopt different voices for the various adventurers, monsters, and other characters they play in the game. Sometimes, a DM might lay out a map and use tokens or miniature figures to represent each creature involved in a scene to help the players keep track of where everyone is.
The Three Pillars of Adventure
Adventurers can try to do anything their players can imagine, but it can be helpful to talk about their activities in three broad categories: exploration, social interaction, and combat.
Exploration includes both the adventurers’ movement through the world and their interaction with objects and situations that require their attention. Exploration is the give-and-take of the players describing what they want their characters to do, and the Dungeon Master telling the players what happens as a result. On a large scale, that might involve the characters spending a day crossing a rolling plain or an hour making their way through caverns underground. On the smallest scale, it could mean one character pulling a lever in a dungeon room to see what happens.
Social interaction features the adventurers talking to someone (or something) else. It might mean demanding that a captured scout reveal the secret entrance to the goblin lair, getting information from a rescued prisoner, pleading for mercy from an orc chieftain, or persuading a talkative magic mirror to show a distant location to the adventurers.
The rules in part 2 (especially "Using Ability Scores" and "Adventuring") support exploration and social interaction, as do many class features in "Classes" and personality traits in "Personality and Background."
Combat, the focus of chapter 9, involves characters and other creatures swinging weapons, casting spells, maneuvering for position, and so on—all in an effort to defeat their opponents, whether that means killing every enemy, taking captives, or forcing a rout. Combat is the most structured element of a D&D session, with creatures taking turns to make sure that everyone gets a chance to act. Even in the context of a pitched battle, there’s still plenty of opportunity for adventurers to attempt wacky stunts like surfing down a flight of stairs on a shield, to examine the environment (perhaps by pulling a mysterious lever), and to interact with other creatures, including allies, enemies, and neutral parties.
I find that if you just simply ask every time you roll an int or wisdom check you are proficient in you politely say "Does a Favored enemy and/or a terrain apply?" (no specifics just if one of them or both applies)The dm will start mentally assigning checks to certain types so they can say yes or no. The dm will either quickly self-realize if your being shortchanged and start thinking it through OR will determine that they think you are getting full use of your abilities.
When I roll I then say things like "I get 18 or 20 with forests" or "I get 18 but if beasts apply I get advantage"
most 5e games Really care more about the roll results first then the fiction second. A fighter that misses a roll is explained after the roll. Maybe the armor was too thick or the player tripped. A doctor that rolls a medicine check and succeeds always has the right bit of info that they would understand. Rangers kind of reverse that order Where the connection needs to be considered first then the roll. That frustrates some players and dms. This is why you need a clear dm system of "burden of proof." Some assume the ranger needs to prove the connection first (but how can they without the all the information?) while others assume the dm needs to prove why he is denying its use (but if he does give a full explanation wouldn't that give players Metagame knowledge). The system of asking the questions above is the best middle ground I've found for playing.
It is cumbersome. To help with and/or avoid that, the DM (if they aren't the type to announce the DC openly beforehand) can always just change the DC on their end secretly to account for these situations. Advantage = +5. Terrain related skill = + prof. bonus.
There's a lot of stuff that proficiency in a tool gives a character as well (advantage on a proficient skill check, proficiency bonus applied to another type of ability check, etc.). It can't rest on the DM's shoulders entirely to know and/or remember every little thing on each character's sheet. It is 50% the player's job to know and attempt to apply the stuff they have and the things they can do to a situation. Asking a DM if their natural explorer and/or favored enemy knowledge can be applied to a task is no different than asking if you can use your carpentry tools, 50' of rope, pitons, ball bearings, background feature, common magic item, boon (from the DMG), or anything else that is not combat related that can be used creatively in game.
Rangers are the 10' pole of 5E.
PMSL
Looks like I struck a nerve. I invite you to introspect on why my post triggered you to such a point you felt you had to put words in my mouth and plant a strawman in the ground.
I never said optimizing (or optimizers) were bad. Rather, all I did was challenge the assumptions by which optimizers form their opinions on classes and point out the double standard that happens when judging the value of a feature. I also recognized that white room scenarios --while fun to theorycraft in and handy for mathematics-- fail to accurately represent the typical combat encounter (or adventuring day) to the point of uselessness. This is not to say optimizing is bad. Rather, I'm merely inviting you to reconsider the flaws in the context of the average optimizer's mindset and think of ways to reorient yourself so that your optimization yields results that better reflect the experience at the table.
Opinions fossilized from white room combat scenarios are flawed because of the white room combat scenarios own inherent shortcomings. I'm not telling you not to optimize (I do so myself.) I'm suggesting you should consider how you're optimizing, what the flaws are in how you're optimizing, and the holes in the conclusions you draw from the flawed framework of your optimization.
You haven't done much with the underdark have you. Automatically putting it as a Desolate Area. Deserts are often more desolate than the Underdark is. And Coasts aren't just automatically urban. In fact statistically more coastal area is going to be non-urban environment than urban environment. It's also completely natural. As is decent parts of the Underdark. And anything Arctic, Desert, or Mountain. These categorizations are faulty on multiple levels.
Oh for sure, that's undeniably a big fault, your DM has to be on board with it, which whilst some people will say isn't an issue it most certainly is for a lot of groups. Either the DM will disagree with your interpretation or will just not be prepared for it.
Not all DMs are the same, some are good, some are new/learning, some are lazy, some just want to be the player, some are vindictive, some are caught up in the power of being DM, some will just run a table top miniatures battle game. Sadly it isn't as easy as you'd hope to find a new group if you get stuck with a shitty one, and that can mar your experiences with the game, or specific classes in this case.
sounds to me the problem is when a dm and player can't co-operate and work together. Not the ranger class. Don't blame the wrong thing.
I can play with strict/new/minimalist dms but if I do I'm gonna make class choices that keep things clear and well defined. That Doesn't mean I don't like those class choices or that they are bad. It means that dm can't work with them. (which may or may not be intentional on the dms part).
When I want to play a ranger I always start with " I want to play a (PHB) ranger what do you think?" depending on their response I may choose a different option.
100%
I mean this is a fair thought as survival in the underdark is a specific aside set in Out of the Abyss which primarily takes place there....they describe the process as "Hard but not impossible" so its fair to say its not as lush as a forrest.
The concept was to change the way you approach the idea of a "favored terrain". Rather than the overly limited choices (that don't even cover ALL of the terrain types you can encounter).
The main point is to have 4 major categories that go from easiest to survive in to hardest: Urban>Natural>Desolate>Inhospitable and to provide some examples, you can argue that some of the examples could go in other categories. This way you can say I choose x at level 1, y at 6, x at 11, and by level 17 there is no place a Ranger can go that they aren't really good at.
If a level 6 Ranger has Natural and Desolate choosen, the DM can decide if where the party is fits either of those.
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. The groups are listed from easiest to survive in to hardest, but all options are available at all levels.
Urban: Urban areas are often populated and resources are readily available (possibly for a cost). Even an untrained peasant can survive in an urban environment. Examples can include the coast, cities, and towns.
Natural: Natural environments are often dense with foliage, fauna, and wild life. Those experienced with hunting and foraging can easily survive here. Examples can include forest, grasslands, and swamps.
Desolate: Desolate areas are those that may be scarce in people and or wild life, possibly abandoned, haunted, or cursed. Additionally, locations with difficult conditions like a lack of sunlight. Examples can include dungeons, ruins and the Underdark.
Inhospitable: Inhospitable locations are those where life is specially adapted and sparse - if it exist at all. Only those well prepared or fool hardy travel here. Examples can include the arctic, deserts, and mountains.
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.
Easiest to hardest to survive in is a matter of perception and your own skills. It's a problematic list at best. Creating an additional problem for each one your trying to solve with it.
A person with good survival skills but poor social and thieving skills May actually find it easier to survive in nature than in the cities. City scrounging is a particular kind of skill that doesn't necessarily translate over and is looking for different things from anything in nature. Which actually encompasses most Rangers. Your putting a lot of personal biases into the way your breaking things up.
Also things like Deserts and Snow Fields need a completely opposite application of skills. Deserts are about water more than anything for survival but Arctic areas are about being able to hunt things that you can't necessarily see. Lumping them together leads to it's own issues because of things like this.
And the thing is. The Ranger does not suck at these kinds of skills when they are out of their chosen environment. They are just particularly overly good inside of them. There is a vast difference between the two.
People act like they lose all ability to use their survival skill and other things once they leave their favored terrain. A skill that is both a class skill for them (meaning they get proficiency for it) and that survival is a Wisdom Based skill (meaning that they have some automatic synergy with it raising their skill). Something only accomplished by 2 or 3 other classes at best and maybe 1 or 2 subclasses. But that's all they do. Equal it. They don't surpass it. Partly because most of those aren't Wisdom Based so they have to shift stats around and build for it. Even the Scout Rogue. And I can already hear the rebuttal "But Scout Rogue get's Expertise!" Yeah. Expertise is how they equal the Ranger in most circumstances. and then I hear "But I can put points into Wisdom and Spend ASI's and get a +17". That's quite the investment to be making into wisdom. interesting choice just to boost your survival. But here's the thing. The Ranger can easily pick up Expertise itself. And still get additional bonuses for Terrain on top of that with Natural Explorer. Just plain not having to spend extra resources if they take Deft Explorer. But if we're willing to spend resources like feats there is just a lot more that you can add to the picture that was brought with tasha's as well.
In people's efforts to "fix" things they didn't realize what they are trying to fix can already be borderline broken did they? And that it takes massive investment by anybody else to even match what they can just get without getting into that borderline broken territory.
That was the whole point. There was no blaming the class, but if that's the way you see it I'm sorry.
There are some classes which will suffer more from DM interpretation/intervention than others. I think Ranger is one of the highest on that list, that doesn't make it bad, but in some situations it will certainly mar the experience of people playing it, or alongside it.
It is really good for you that you can do those things, but not everyone is as experienced as you. You have to consider playing D&D as if you were new to the game, new to the DM, new to the table to understand why people have the misconception of the Ranger being bad.
Consider being introduced to the base fighter, we'll call her 8 Ball Pool, the objective is simple, pot all your balls then the 8 and you're good, then the Ranger, we'll call her Snooker, whose rules I really don't understand, I'm sure it is easy once you learn it, but it takes a little more to understand the game and play it (if someone who actually plays Snooker comes along and tells me that it is actually super simple then I kindly ask you find me a better analogy). Both games are enjoyable, neither is bad, but it is certainly easier to pick up and play eight ball despite the similarities, at least to the majority of people. Some people, however, might just tell you that Snooker is bad because they don't know how to play her, or they had a bad experience.
Any suggestions for Aaron on how to improve these then?