Quick note: there are only two Intelligence-based classes in the game, and neither of them are exactly skill monkeys. They both get only two skills from their classes (which means they have to work harder to match the Ranger and even harder than that to match Rogue and Bard,) and a lot of competition for those two slots. Plus, Wizards and Artificers are --by design-- going to focus more on their spells/item-crafts than on skills anyway.
Point being, Investigation isn't a definitive priority for the two Int classes.
Quick note: there are only two Intelligence-based classes in the game, and neither of them are exactly skill monkeys. They both get only two skills from their classes (which means they have to work harder to match the Ranger and even harder than that to match Rogue and Bard,) and a lot of competition for those two slots. Plus, Wizards and Artificers are --by design-- going to focus more on their spells/item-crafts than on skills anyway.
Point being, Investigation isn't a definitive priority for the two Int classes.
Yes! And, the ranger has plenty of incentive to at least put some points into intelligence. History, investigation, and nature, all for natural explorer, and for any checks made with favored enemy (advantage on ALL intelligence checks). For the same reason a trap finding rogue might have a 12 or 14 in intelligence, so to might a ranger.
Quick note: there are only two Intelligence-based classes in the game, and neither of them are exactly skill monkeys. They both get only two skills from their classes (which means they have to work harder to match the Ranger and even harder than that to match Rogue and Bard,) and a lot of competition for those two slots. Plus, Wizards and Artificers are --by design-- going to focus more on their spells/item-crafts than on skills anyway.
Point being, Investigation isn't a definitive priority for the two Int classes.
Rogues start with four skill proficiencies (six if you include their background), are proficient in Intelligence saving throws, and have a subclass that cares about Intelligence. Druids have the saving throw proficiency and three Intelligence skills. Eldritch Knights use it for their spellcasting, and the baseline fighter has a single Intelligence skill.
And Investigation is still an exploration skill that competes with Perception. Both can yield the same result; you just arrive there by different means. And your passive scores for both, along with Insight, are found on every character sheet on this website. It's only not a priority because the "meta" doesn't value Intelligence.
And, I'm sorry, but I just can't take seriously anyone who doesn't value intelligence.
Quick note: there are only two Intelligence-based classes in the game, and neither of them are exactly skill monkeys. They both get only two skills from their classes (which means they have to work harder to match the Ranger and even harder than that to match Rogue and Bard,) and a lot of competition for those two slots. Plus, Wizards and Artificers are --by design-- going to focus more on their spells/item-crafts than on skills anyway.
Point being, Investigation isn't a definitive priority for the two Int classes.
Rogues start with four skill proficiencies (six if you include their background), are proficient in Intelligence saving throws, and have a subclass that cares about Intelligence. Druids have the saving throw proficiency and three Intelligence skills. Eldritch Knights use it for their spellcasting, and the baseline fighter has a single Intelligence skill.
And Investigation is still an exploration skill that competes with Perception. Both can yield the same result; you just arrive there by different means. And your passive scores for both, along with Insight, are found on every character sheet on this website. It's only not a priority because the "meta" doesn't value Intelligence.
And, I'm sorry, but I just can't take seriously anyone who doesn't value intelligence.
Quick note: there are only two Intelligence-based classes in the game, and neither of them are exactly skill monkeys. They both get only two skills from their classes (which means they have to work harder to match the Ranger and even harder than that to match Rogue and Bard,) and a lot of competition for those two slots. Plus, Wizards and Artificers are --by design-- going to focus more on their spells/item-crafts than on skills anyway.
Point being, Investigation isn't a definitive priority for the two Int classes.
Rogues start with four skill proficiencies (six if you include their background), are proficient in Intelligence saving throws, and have a subclass that cares about Intelligence. Druids have the saving throw proficiency and three Intelligence skills. Eldritch Knights use it for their spellcasting, and the baseline fighter has a single Intelligence skill.
And Investigation is still an exploration skill that competes with Perception. Both can yield the same result; you just arrive there by different means. And your passive scores for both, along with Insight, are found on every character sheet on this website. It's only not a priority because the "meta" doesn't value Intelligence.
And, I'm sorry, but I just can't take seriously anyone who doesn't value intelligence.
Okay....I never said I didn't value Intelligence. All I said was that the two Intelligence-based classes in the game didn't necessarily have to prioritize the Investigation skill.
Quick note: there are only two Intelligence-based classes in the game, and neither of them are exactly skill monkeys. They both get only two skills from their classes (which means they have to work harder to match the Ranger and even harder than that to match Rogue and Bard,) and a lot of competition for those two slots. Plus, Wizards and Artificers are --by design-- going to focus more on their spells/item-crafts than on skills anyway.
Point being, Investigation isn't a definitive priority for the two Int classes.
Rogues start with four skill proficiencies (six if you include their background), are proficient in Intelligence saving throws, and have a subclass that cares about Intelligence. Druids have the saving throw proficiency and three Intelligence skills. Eldritch Knights use it for their spellcasting, and the baseline fighter has a single Intelligence skill.
And Investigation is still an exploration skill that competes with Perception. Both can yield the same result; you just arrive there by different means. And your passive scores for both, along with Insight, are found on every character sheet on this website. It's only not a priority because the "meta" doesn't value Intelligence.
And, I'm sorry, but I just can't take seriously anyone who doesn't value intelligence.
Okay....I never said I didn't value Intelligence. All I said was that the two Intelligence-based classes in the game didn't necessarily have to prioritize the Investigation skill.
I can think of two reasons why someone would be interested in it: they're likely to have a high base modifier, and it's an exploration skill. Unless you're running a game that doesn't care about exploration at all, they're useful skills to have. It doesn't need to be a priority, nothing does, but the option is there and should not be dismissed.
Okay....but I'm not dismissing the Investigation skill. Or the value of it for exploration. All I'm saying is that Wizards and Artificers specifically aren't necessarily guaranteed to take it because they only get two skills and have a lot of competition for them.
Quick note: there are only two Intelligence-based classes in the game, and neither of them are exactly skill monkeys. They both get only two skills from their classes (which means they have to work harder to match the Ranger and even harder than that to match Rogue and Bard,) and a lot of competition for those two slots. Plus, Wizards and Artificers are --by design-- going to focus more on their spells/item-crafts than on skills anyway.
Point being, Investigation isn't a definitive priority for the two Int classes.
Rogues start with four skill proficiencies (six if you include their background), are proficient in Intelligence saving throws, and have a subclass that cares about Intelligence. Druids have the saving throw proficiency and three Intelligence skills. Eldritch Knights use it for their spellcasting, and the baseline fighter has a single Intelligence skill.
And Investigation is still an exploration skill that competes with Perception. Both can yield the same result; you just arrive there by different means. And your passive scores for both, along with Insight, are found on every character sheet on this website. It's only not a priority because the "meta" doesn't value Intelligence.
And, I'm sorry, but I just can't take seriously anyone who doesn't value intelligence.
Okay....but I'm not dismissing the Investigation skill. Or the value of it for exploration. All I'm saying is that Wizards and Artificers specifically aren't necessarily guaranteed to take it because they only get two skills and have a lot of competition for them.
You're putting words in my mouth. Please stop.
I never accused you of not valuing Intelligence. You said there were only two Intelligence-based classes in the game, and I offered up a rebuttal. And I agree that no one needs to prioritize any one skill. That's not how the game is designed. And in that context, saying something isn't a definitive priority for them is a meaningless statement. Artificers and Wizards have seven and six class skills, respectively, but they can only ever choose two each. And none of them are essential, not even Arcana or Perception.
Sorry if you think this is me putting words in your mouth, but that's not my intention.
Quick note: there are only two Intelligence-based classes in the game, and neither of them are exactly skill monkeys. They both get only two skills from their classes (which means they have to work harder to match the Ranger and even harder than that to match Rogue and Bard,) and a lot of competition for those two slots. Plus, Wizards and Artificers are --by design-- going to focus more on their spells/item-crafts than on skills anyway.
Point being, Investigation isn't a definitive priority for the two Int classes.
Rogues start with four skill proficiencies (six if you include their background), are proficient in Intelligence saving throws, and have a subclass that cares about Intelligence. Druids have the saving throw proficiency and three Intelligence skills. Eldritch Knights use it for their spellcasting, and the baseline fighter has a single Intelligence skill.
And Investigation is still an exploration skill that competes with Perception. Both can yield the same result; you just arrive there by different means. And your passive scores for both, along with Insight, are found on every character sheet on this website. It's only not a priority because the "meta" doesn't value Intelligence.
And, I'm sorry, but I just can't take seriously anyone who doesn't value intelligence.
i mean in general a lot of fighter subclasses will tend to use intelegence for whatever reason, it is also the core stat of psi-knights and arcane archers, battle masters from tasha's get to boost their intelegence (investigation) and intelegence (history) checks with it, rune knights were almost int-based before they changed it's stat to constiution instead. And the exact same applies to the rouge in a very different way, only the arcane trickster and to a lesser degree the Inquisitive actively reward investing in intelegence, but both Inquisitives and Masterminds are sort of encouraged to do so anyways thanks to the kinds of characters those two subclasses emulate.
However intelegence is still generally speaking a lot less valuable to people than other skills, unless you are specifically making a more gimmicy, professor-type ranger (using favoured enemy and canny together to gain a bunch of languages and expertise + advantage, possibly combined with a race that has int-based spellcasting like high elves and svirfneblin). It is not like pathfinder and a prior editions of dungeons and dragons where having a high intelegence modifier grants you additional skill proficiencies, unless your class features rely on int or you like the skills themselves becuase they fit what you want your character to be good at. Some rouges choose to excell at investigation mostly since they are only dependent on one abillity score, dexterity, and are thus more able to invest into stats with less mechanical weight while front-liners are expected to have decent constiution, and either strength or dex, and in the case of rangers wisdom for their spellcasting (you can of course deliberately choose spells with no spell attacks, saving throws or abillity score modifiers involved and thus dump wisdom completely if you are a very particular type of player and making a very particular build, but it is generally not recommended).
Like for the most part, rangers will have an int score of 8, 10 or 12, probably leaning towards the upper end if you are learning towards the archetypical ranger as Nature, Investigation as well as generally knowing the History of your favoured enemies are all seen as important facets of the ranger's fluff and being knowledgable about certain topics is the reason for your one and only exploration feature that sets you appart from other characters
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
The standard array is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. I can see a ranger dumping charisma WAAAY before dumping intelligence, and even dumping constitution or strength if the build is a ranged one. So assuming you put the 8 in charisma, at minimum you are looking at a 10 in intelligence, and more likely a 12 or 13 before racial modifiers.
I don't think it's fair to call it gimmicky. To use your example, if you wanted a "professorial" ranger, which is really just one knowledgeable about various beasts, monstrosities, plants is just someone who studies potential threats. To use your example of a high elf ranger, I could build that with point-buy at 12 16 12 14 14 8 and not shuffling around ASIs via Tasha's. So give them Animal Handling and Nature, and they'd still have Perception, out of six skills total.
While a much more diplomatic ranger, who serves as a bridge between several cultures, is going to want History, Insight, and some Charisma-based skills like Persuasion. So maybe pick a half-elf and have a spread of (12-8) 16 14 (8-12) 14 12. I don't think Intelligence shouldn't be too low, and I dislike negative scores where I'm proficient in a saving throw as a matter of principle, so maybe setting Strength and Intelligence to 10 each is the best option here.
First-level rangers, even if they have the same terrain set to Natural Explorer, can be incredibly diverse in how they specialize. And if they're specialized, then they can steer the party's activities. "Hey, I'm really good at this, so can we try it?" It's something not well-communicated to players, I'll give people that much. I find the PHB has several disappointments, including (but not limited to) not properly fleshing out exploration and social interaction pillars.
Easiest to hardest isn't a matter of perception or skill. I am simply looking at it in the most basic terms. If you took four average people, not a fantasy hero, and you put one in each area, the person in the city will last the longest, then the person in a natural setting like a forest, etc...
"Your putting a lot of personal biases into the way your breaking things up." Again, not really. I hardly think it is bias to say that someone can survive longer in a city than a desert.
Is a desert and the arctic the same, no, but you are waaay over analyzing this. Its a game, I created a way to group environments in a way that I feel makes sense from a gameplay logic and in a way that creates a number of possible options that fit the mold so that at level 17 you have all of them. If you want to create your own version of Favored Terrain that has 47 different possible terrains because surviving in each has its own list of crap go for it.
This is just an alternative for someone who wants to use Favored Terrain over Deft Explorer and feel like the choice is more impactful.
Overall it does the job.
I am not gonna bother rebuffing most of your points because again, you apply your own rules and assumptions to the scenario so there is little point and I will simply respond to the last statement. Clearly most players don't agree with that "[o]verall it does the job" and the fact that Wizards didn't tweak it but abandoned it all together, but you are free to disagree.
Actually. you can't prove that most players actually don't agree that it does the job overall. You can only prove that the vocal minority... much of which is all about combat and min-maxing doesn't agree with it. Even this thread shows that you can't make that Most Players argument because there are many players over the length of this thread that do not think it is bad overall. Just that they don't get to use it much. Which is very different from what your trying to argue here. Particularly since there are a lot of varied reasons as to why they didn't get to do it much that range from player choice to DM choices, to different focuses in their campaigns. But your just going to ignore all that of course. Because those don't fit the personal bias your going for or your supposed efforts to make things better.
I think the fact that Wizards replaced it with Deft Explorer shows that a bulk of the audience didn't like Favored Terrain. Yeah, you can argue that people on this forum have defended it, myself included, but then ask those defenders how many have switched? I know I did. And again, what is this "personal bias" nonsense?
Saying that a feature being entirely replaced rather than tweaked or reworked is a sign that it was a feature a lot of players did not like isn't personal bias, it is acknowledging reality. I don't think they would have developed, play tested, and introduced a major change to a class if only "a vocal minority" was the one asking for it. Deft Explorer is going to become the default for most rangers and I would bet that when 6e comes out the Ranger will have some form of it and they will completely abandon Favored Terrain.
Quick note: there are only two Intelligence-based classes in the game, and neither of them are exactly skill monkeys. They both get only two skills from their classes (which means they have to work harder to match the Ranger and even harder than that to match Rogue and Bard,) and a lot of competition for those two slots. Plus, Wizards and Artificers are --by design-- going to focus more on their spells/item-crafts than on skills anyway.
Point being, Investigation isn't a definitive priority for the two Int classes.
Rogues start with four skill proficiencies (six if you include their background), are proficient in Intelligence saving throws, and have a subclass that cares about Intelligence. Druids have the saving throw proficiency and three Intelligence skills. Eldritch Knights use it for their spellcasting, and the baseline fighter has a single Intelligence skill.
And Investigation is still an exploration skill that competes with Perception. Both can yield the same result; you just arrive there by different means. And your passive scores for both, along with Insight, are found on every character sheet on this website. It's only not a priority because the "meta" doesn't value Intelligence.
And, I'm sorry, but I just can't take seriously anyone who doesn't value intelligence.
Depending on the Race, a Rogue can start with 8 skills, mine did.
"And, I'm sorry, but I just can't take seriously anyone who doesn't value intelligence." - In what way? Int is one of the most dumped stats. I would say Charisma is the most, but then I would wager the Intelligence gets slot number 2 for dumped stat.
The standard array is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. I can see a ranger dumping charisma WAAAY before dumping intelligence, and even dumping constitution or strength if the build is a ranged one. So assuming you put the 8 in charisma, at minimum you are looking at a 10 in intelligence, and more likely a 12 or 13 before racial modifiers.
I would argue that anyone dumping Con in favor of Int is doing it wrong, even if they are ranged.
Quick note: there are only two Intelligence-based classes in the game, and neither of them are exactly skill monkeys. They both get only two skills from their classes (which means they have to work harder to match the Ranger and even harder than that to match Rogue and Bard,) and a lot of competition for those two slots. Plus, Wizards and Artificers are --by design-- going to focus more on their spells/item-crafts than on skills anyway.
Point being, Investigation isn't a definitive priority for the two Int classes.
Rogues start with four skill proficiencies (six if you include their background), are proficient in Intelligence saving throws, and have a subclass that cares about Intelligence. Druids have the saving throw proficiency and three Intelligence skills. Eldritch Knights use it for their spellcasting, and the baseline fighter has a single Intelligence skill.
And Investigation is still an exploration skill that competes with Perception. Both can yield the same result; you just arrive there by different means. And your passive scores for both, along with Insight, are found on every character sheet on this website. It's only not a priority because the "meta" doesn't value Intelligence.
And, I'm sorry, but I just can't take seriously anyone who doesn't value intelligence.
Depending on the Race, a Rogue can start with 8 skills, mine did.
"And, I'm sorry, but I just can't take seriously anyone who doesn't value intelligence." - In what way? Int is one of the most dumped stats. I would say Charisma is the most, but then I would wager the Intelligence gets slot number 2 for dumped stat.
I used lower case, so I wasn't talking about the ability in that last sentence. There's a rampant strain of anti-intellectualism. People, even so-called political leaders, actively belittle intelligence and one's desire to learn more.
Now, from a purely mechanical standpoint, you need to prioritize your scores. Something is going to get the highest, and something else is going to get the lowest. But that doesn't mean there needs to be a "dump stat". If your particular vision for your character doesn't have a use for it, then fine. That's on you.
But I've lost track of how many guides say Intelligence is meaningless because the skills are all situational and/or crap and Perception is either the most-rolled or can to everything Investigation can; only better.
Easiest to hardest isn't a matter of perception or skill. I am simply looking at it in the most basic terms. If you took four average people, not a fantasy hero, and you put one in each area, the person in the city will last the longest, then the person in a natural setting like a forest, etc...
"Your putting a lot of personal biases into the way your breaking things up." Again, not really. I hardly think it is bias to say that someone can survive longer in a city than a desert.
Is a desert and the arctic the same, no, but you are waaay over analyzing this. Its a game, I created a way to group environments in a way that I feel makes sense from a gameplay logic and in a way that creates a number of possible options that fit the mold so that at level 17 you have all of them. If you want to create your own version of Favored Terrain that has 47 different possible terrains because surviving in each has its own list of crap go for it.
This is just an alternative for someone who wants to use Favored Terrain over Deft Explorer and feel like the choice is more impactful.
Overall it does the job.
I am not gonna bother rebuffing most of your points because again, you apply your own rules and assumptions to the scenario so there is little point and I will simply respond to the last statement. Clearly most players don't agree with that "[o]verall it does the job" and the fact that Wizards didn't tweak it but abandoned it all together, but you are free to disagree.
Actually. you can't prove that most players actually don't agree that it does the job overall. You can only prove that the vocal minority... much of which is all about combat and min-maxing doesn't agree with it. Even this thread shows that you can't make that Most Players argument because there are many players over the length of this thread that do not think it is bad overall. Just that they don't get to use it much. Which is very different from what your trying to argue here. Particularly since there are a lot of varied reasons as to why they didn't get to do it much that range from player choice to DM choices, to different focuses in their campaigns. But your just going to ignore all that of course. Because those don't fit the personal bias your going for or your supposed efforts to make things better.
I think the fact that Wizards replaced it with Deft Explorer shows that a bulk of the audience didn't like Favored Terrain. Yeah, you can argue that people on this forum have defended it, myself included, but then ask those defenders how many have switched? I know I did. And again, what is this "personal bias" nonsense?
Saying that a feature being entirely replaced rather than tweaked or reworked is a sign that it was a feature a lot of players did not like isn't personal bias, it is acknowledging reality. I don't think they would have developed, play tested, and introduced a major change to a class if only "a vocal minority" was the one asking for it. Deft Explorer is going to become the default for most rangers and I would bet that when 6e comes out the Ranger will have some form of it and they will completely abandon Favored Terrain.
Except they didn't outright replace it. It's an option that lets you personalize your experience. If you're playing primarily in an urban campain or manufactured dungeons, then Natural Explorer isn't really helpful.
The big reason people complained about this and Favored Enemy is because they weren't obviously applicable to combat. That's it. It's not that they were bad or didn't work as intended. Far from it. No, it was a vocal subset of the playerbase that simply didn't care for it. They didn't want to meet it on it's terms. They threw up their hands and shouted because it wasn't what they wanted.
Nevermind that you still can't find someone who can properly articulate what they were hoping for, or what kind of fix they think the features need. They simply didn't live up to artificial expectations.
Easiest to hardest isn't a matter of perception or skill. I am simply looking at it in the most basic terms. If you took four average people, not a fantasy hero, and you put one in each area, the person in the city will last the longest, then the person in a natural setting like a forest, etc...
"Your putting a lot of personal biases into the way your breaking things up." Again, not really. I hardly think it is bias to say that someone can survive longer in a city than a desert.
Is a desert and the arctic the same, no, but you are waaay over analyzing this. Its a game, I created a way to group environments in a way that I feel makes sense from a gameplay logic and in a way that creates a number of possible options that fit the mold so that at level 17 you have all of them. If you want to create your own version of Favored Terrain that has 47 different possible terrains because surviving in each has its own list of crap go for it.
This is just an alternative for someone who wants to use Favored Terrain over Deft Explorer and feel like the choice is more impactful.
Overall it does the job.
I am not gonna bother rebuffing most of your points because again, you apply your own rules and assumptions to the scenario so there is little point and I will simply respond to the last statement. Clearly most players don't agree with that "[o]verall it does the job" and the fact that Wizards didn't tweak it but abandoned it all together, but you are free to disagree.
Actually. you can't prove that most players actually don't agree that it does the job overall. You can only prove that the vocal minority... much of which is all about combat and min-maxing doesn't agree with it. Even this thread shows that you can't make that Most Players argument because there are many players over the length of this thread that do not think it is bad overall. Just that they don't get to use it much. Which is very different from what your trying to argue here. Particularly since there are a lot of varied reasons as to why they didn't get to do it much that range from player choice to DM choices, to different focuses in their campaigns. But your just going to ignore all that of course. Because those don't fit the personal bias your going for or your supposed efforts to make things better.
I think the fact that Wizards replaced it with Deft Explorer shows that a bulk of the audience didn't like Favored Terrain. Yeah, you can argue that people on this forum have defended it, myself included, but then ask those defenders how many have switched? I know I did. And again, what is this "personal bias" nonsense?
Saying that a feature being entirely replaced rather than tweaked or reworked is a sign that it was a feature a lot of players did not like isn't personal bias, it is acknowledging reality. I don't think they would have developed, play tested, and introduced a major change to a class if only "a vocal minority" was the one asking for it. Deft Explorer is going to become the default for most rangers and I would bet that when 6e comes out the Ranger will have some form of it and they will completely abandon Favored Terrain.
Except they didn't outright replace it. It's an option that lets you personalize your experience. If you're playing primarily in an urban campain or manufactured dungeons, then Natural Explorer isn't really helpful.
The big reason people complained about this and Favored Enemy is because they weren't obviously applicable to combat. That's it. It's not that they were bad or didn't work as intended. Far from it. No, it was a vocal subset of the playerbase that simply didn't care for it. They didn't want to meet it on it's terms. They threw up their hands and shouted because it wasn't what they wanted.
Nevermind that you still can't find someone who can properly articulate what they were hoping for, or what kind of fix they think the features need. They simply didn't live up to artificial expectations.
Yeah - you can say they didn't outright replace it, but it is an 'Option' the way multiclassing and feats are 'options' - 90% of tables are going to use it and basically treat it as the defacto norm.
Easiest to hardest isn't a matter of perception or skill. I am simply looking at it in the most basic terms. If you took four average people, not a fantasy hero, and you put one in each area, the person in the city will last the longest, then the person in a natural setting like a forest, etc...
"Your putting a lot of personal biases into the way your breaking things up." Again, not really. I hardly think it is bias to say that someone can survive longer in a city than a desert.
Is a desert and the arctic the same, no, but you are waaay over analyzing this. Its a game, I created a way to group environments in a way that I feel makes sense from a gameplay logic and in a way that creates a number of possible options that fit the mold so that at level 17 you have all of them. If you want to create your own version of Favored Terrain that has 47 different possible terrains because surviving in each has its own list of crap go for it.
This is just an alternative for someone who wants to use Favored Terrain over Deft Explorer and feel like the choice is more impactful.
Overall it does the job.
I am not gonna bother rebuffing most of your points because again, you apply your own rules and assumptions to the scenario so there is little point and I will simply respond to the last statement. Clearly most players don't agree with that "[o]verall it does the job" and the fact that Wizards didn't tweak it but abandoned it all together, but you are free to disagree.
Actually. you can't prove that most players actually don't agree that it does the job overall. You can only prove that the vocal minority... much of which is all about combat and min-maxing doesn't agree with it. Even this thread shows that you can't make that Most Players argument because there are many players over the length of this thread that do not think it is bad overall. Just that they don't get to use it much. Which is very different from what your trying to argue here. Particularly since there are a lot of varied reasons as to why they didn't get to do it much that range from player choice to DM choices, to different focuses in their campaigns. But your just going to ignore all that of course. Because those don't fit the personal bias your going for or your supposed efforts to make things better.
I think the fact that Wizards replaced it with Deft Explorer shows that a bulk of the audience didn't like Favored Terrain. Yeah, you can argue that people on this forum have defended it, myself included, but then ask those defenders how many have switched? I know I did. And again, what is this "personal bias" nonsense?
Saying that a feature being entirely replaced rather than tweaked or reworked is a sign that it was a feature a lot of players did not like isn't personal bias, it is acknowledging reality. I don't think they would have developed, play tested, and introduced a major change to a class if only "a vocal minority" was the one asking for it. Deft Explorer is going to become the default for most rangers and I would bet that when 6e comes out the Ranger will have some form of it and they will completely abandon Favored Terrain.
Except they didn't outright replace it. It's an option that lets you personalize your experience. If you're playing primarily in an urban campain or manufactured dungeons, then Natural Explorer isn't really helpful.
The big reason people complained about this and Favored Enemy is because they weren't obviously applicable to combat. That's it. It's not that they were bad or didn't work as intended. Far from it. No, it was a vocal subset of the playerbase that simply didn't care for it. They didn't want to meet it on it's terms. They threw up their hands and shouted because it wasn't what they wanted.
Nevermind that you still can't find someone who can properly articulate what they were hoping for, or what kind of fix they think the features need. They simply didn't live up to artificial expectations.
Yeah - you can say they didn't outright replace it, but it is an 'Option' the way multiclassing and feats are 'options' - 90% of tables are going to use it and basically treat it as the defacto norm.
That's because they are options. Not every table uses them, nor needs to. Just like how not everyone needs to allow flanking or play on a grid. Never mind all the variant rules, like equipment sizes, skills with different abilities, encumbrance, and even something different than your garden variety humans.
I don't allow multiclassing without a compelling story reason. Hell, I don't even like the artificer as a class. I don't like how the way it works says something about the world.
The game does not need these things to be successful. So, yes, it's all optional.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Quick note: there are only two Intelligence-based classes in the game, and neither of them are exactly skill monkeys. They both get only two skills from their classes (which means they have to work harder to match the Ranger and even harder than that to match Rogue and Bard,) and a lot of competition for those two slots. Plus, Wizards and Artificers are --by design-- going to focus more on their spells/item-crafts than on skills anyway.
Point being, Investigation isn't a definitive priority for the two Int classes.
Yes! And, the ranger has plenty of incentive to at least put some points into intelligence. History, investigation, and nature, all for natural explorer, and for any checks made with favored enemy (advantage on ALL intelligence checks). For the same reason a trap finding rogue might have a 12 or 14 in intelligence, so to might a ranger.
Rogues start with four skill proficiencies (six if you include their background), are proficient in Intelligence saving throws, and have a subclass that cares about Intelligence. Druids have the saving throw proficiency and three Intelligence skills. Eldritch Knights use it for their spellcasting, and the baseline fighter has a single Intelligence skill.
And Investigation is still an exploration skill that competes with Perception. Both can yield the same result; you just arrive there by different means. And your passive scores for both, along with Insight, are found on every character sheet on this website. It's only not a priority because the "meta" doesn't value Intelligence.
And, I'm sorry, but I just can't take seriously anyone who doesn't value intelligence.
100% agree.
Okay....I never said I didn't value Intelligence. All I said was that the two Intelligence-based classes in the game didn't necessarily have to prioritize the Investigation skill.
I can think of two reasons why someone would be interested in it: they're likely to have a high base modifier, and it's an exploration skill. Unless you're running a game that doesn't care about exploration at all, they're useful skills to have. It doesn't need to be a priority, nothing does, but the option is there and should not be dismissed.
Okay....but I'm not dismissing the Investigation skill. Or the value of it for exploration. All I'm saying is that Wizards and Artificers specifically aren't necessarily guaranteed to take it because they only get two skills and have a lot of competition for them.
You're putting words in my mouth. Please stop.
Agree...INT is a incredibly useful Ability
I never accused you of not valuing Intelligence. You said there were only two Intelligence-based classes in the game, and I offered up a rebuttal. And I agree that no one needs to prioritize any one skill. That's not how the game is designed. And in that context, saying something isn't a definitive priority for them is a meaningless statement. Artificers and Wizards have seven and six class skills, respectively, but they can only ever choose two each. And none of them are essential, not even Arcana or Perception.
Sorry if you think this is me putting words in your mouth, but that's not my intention.
i mean in general a lot of fighter subclasses will tend to use intelegence for whatever reason, it is also the core stat of psi-knights and arcane archers, battle masters from tasha's get to boost their intelegence (investigation) and intelegence (history) checks with it, rune knights were almost int-based before they changed it's stat to constiution instead. And the exact same applies to the rouge in a very different way, only the arcane trickster and to a lesser degree the Inquisitive actively reward investing in intelegence, but both Inquisitives and Masterminds are sort of encouraged to do so anyways thanks to the kinds of characters those two subclasses emulate.
However intelegence is still generally speaking a lot less valuable to people than other skills, unless you are specifically making a more gimmicy, professor-type ranger (using favoured enemy and canny together to gain a bunch of languages and expertise + advantage, possibly combined with a race that has int-based spellcasting like high elves and svirfneblin). It is not like pathfinder and a prior editions of dungeons and dragons where having a high intelegence modifier grants you additional skill proficiencies, unless your class features rely on int or you like the skills themselves becuase they fit what you want your character to be good at. Some rouges choose to excell at investigation mostly since they are only dependent on one abillity score, dexterity, and are thus more able to invest into stats with less mechanical weight while front-liners are expected to have decent constiution, and either strength or dex, and in the case of rangers wisdom for their spellcasting (you can of course deliberately choose spells with no spell attacks, saving throws or abillity score modifiers involved and thus dump wisdom completely if you are a very particular type of player and making a very particular build, but it is generally not recommended).
Like for the most part, rangers will have an int score of 8, 10 or 12, probably leaning towards the upper end if you are learning towards the archetypical ranger as Nature, Investigation as well as generally knowing the History of your favoured enemies are all seen as important facets of the ranger's fluff and being knowledgable about certain topics is the reason for your one and only exploration feature that sets you appart from other characters
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
The standard array is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. I can see a ranger dumping charisma WAAAY before dumping intelligence, and even dumping constitution or strength if the build is a ranged one. So assuming you put the 8 in charisma, at minimum you are looking at a 10 in intelligence, and more likely a 12 or 13 before racial modifiers.
I don't think it's fair to call it gimmicky. To use your example, if you wanted a "professorial" ranger, which is really just one knowledgeable about various beasts, monstrosities, plants is just someone who studies potential threats. To use your example of a high elf ranger, I could build that with point-buy at 12 16 12 14 14 8 and not shuffling around ASIs via Tasha's. So give them Animal Handling and Nature, and they'd still have Perception, out of six skills total.
While a much more diplomatic ranger, who serves as a bridge between several cultures, is going to want History, Insight, and some Charisma-based skills like Persuasion. So maybe pick a half-elf and have a spread of (12-8) 16 14 (8-12) 14 12. I don't think Intelligence shouldn't be too low, and I dislike negative scores where I'm proficient in a saving throw as a matter of principle, so maybe setting Strength and Intelligence to 10 each is the best option here.
First-level rangers, even if they have the same terrain set to Natural Explorer, can be incredibly diverse in how they specialize. And if they're specialized, then they can steer the party's activities. "Hey, I'm really good at this, so can we try it?" It's something not well-communicated to players, I'll give people that much. I find the PHB has several disappointments, including (but not limited to) not properly fleshing out exploration and social interaction pillars.
But the class doesn't suck.
I think the fact that Wizards replaced it with Deft Explorer shows that a bulk of the audience didn't like Favored Terrain. Yeah, you can argue that people on this forum have defended it, myself included, but then ask those defenders how many have switched? I know I did. And again, what is this "personal bias" nonsense?
Saying that a feature being entirely replaced rather than tweaked or reworked is a sign that it was a feature a lot of players did not like isn't personal bias, it is acknowledging reality. I don't think they would have developed, play tested, and introduced a major change to a class if only "a vocal minority" was the one asking for it. Deft Explorer is going to become the default for most rangers and I would bet that when 6e comes out the Ranger will have some form of it and they will completely abandon Favored Terrain.
Depending on the Race, a Rogue can start with 8 skills, mine did.
"And, I'm sorry, but I just can't take seriously anyone who doesn't value intelligence." - In what way? Int is one of the most dumped stats. I would say Charisma is the most, but then I would wager the Intelligence gets slot number 2 for dumped stat.
I would argue that anyone dumping Con in favor of Int is doing it wrong, even if they are ranged.
I used lower case, so I wasn't talking about the ability in that last sentence. There's a rampant strain of anti-intellectualism. People, even so-called political leaders, actively belittle intelligence and one's desire to learn more.
Now, from a purely mechanical standpoint, you need to prioritize your scores. Something is going to get the highest, and something else is going to get the lowest. But that doesn't mean there needs to be a "dump stat". If your particular vision for your character doesn't have a use for it, then fine. That's on you.
But I've lost track of how many guides say Intelligence is meaningless because the skills are all situational and/or crap and Perception is either the most-rolled or can to everything Investigation can; only better.
Screw those people. They're not fun.
Except they didn't outright replace it. It's an option that lets you personalize your experience. If you're playing primarily in an urban campain or manufactured dungeons, then Natural Explorer isn't really helpful.
The big reason people complained about this and Favored Enemy is because they weren't obviously applicable to combat. That's it. It's not that they were bad or didn't work as intended. Far from it. No, it was a vocal subset of the playerbase that simply didn't care for it. They didn't want to meet it on it's terms. They threw up their hands and shouted because it wasn't what they wanted.
Nevermind that you still can't find someone who can properly articulate what they were hoping for, or what kind of fix they think the features need. They simply didn't live up to artificial expectations.
Yeah - you can say they didn't outright replace it, but it is an 'Option' the way multiclassing and feats are 'options' - 90% of tables are going to use it and basically treat it as the defacto norm.
Options are options. The current meta game is player facing combat focused options galore. It will change and shift as it always has.
That's because they are options. Not every table uses them, nor needs to. Just like how not everyone needs to allow flanking or play on a grid. Never mind all the variant rules, like equipment sizes, skills with different abilities, encumbrance, and even something different than your garden variety humans.
I don't allow multiclassing without a compelling story reason. Hell, I don't even like the artificer as a class. I don't like how the way it works says something about the world.
The game does not need these things to be successful. So, yes, it's all optional.