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.
90% of Tables aren't going to use it. The reality is that about 50% of tables at best are going to use it. Your giving a percentage that you grabbed out of thin air based upon your bias. Not upon anything in reality.
Jounichi is actually right. Even When they are given other options people are still complaining. Your even arguing for fixes in this thread And changes to things even while your at the same time argueing that it's completely replaced and won't ever being used. Your showing your own inability to be satisfied even with the replacement and need to switch it up more because all you seem to want is change and no real direction in what that change is other than "better" and "More."
The Complaints are not the majority of the player base. As many times as it has been brought up in these forums and elsewhere the split seems to be about 50/50 at best. But people advocating for change are much louder and almost always spout numbers that make it seem like anybody that doesn't want it is some kind of unique anomoly when they aren't. Anybody willing to open their eyes and pay attention and track things that are said are going to notice the difference. The Loud Minority is just getting away with this kind of behavior because few bother to do that because they either don't care, don't have the problem the minority does, or Just simply have better things to do. That's reality.
Many tables are never going to bother to use Tasha's... And plenty of tables that do are going to mix and match heavily to their benefit. It's only going to be a small group that is going to throw out everything old for everything in Tasha's.
I am not arguing for fixes, I have switched to Deft Explorer. The fix I listed is from over a year ago, I was simply pointing out that when it way the only option, I homebrewed a solution to make it more useful. I also added a poll about Tasha's so we can wait and see on that.
I wish everyone the best with their ranger. WotC has been gracious enough to give us so many options that now anyone can have and play just the ranger they want, no matter how screwed up that idea may be (it's a joke). Fighters will fight, wizards and druids will cast spells, paladins will wear armor and smite, and rogues will sneak attack and use skills, and all the while everyone will go on and on debating what it is a ranger should do, does, and can do.
I wish everyone the best with their ranger. WotC has been gracious enough to give us so many options that now anyone can have and play just the ranger they want, no matter how screwed up that idea may be (it's a joke). Fighters will fight, wizards and druids will cast spells, paladins will wear armor and smite, and rogues will sneak attack and use skills, and all the while everyone will go on and on debating what it is a ranger should do, does, and can do.
Here is the interesting bit. Many ranger players are saying that if you look into it there are missed opportunities. These are people who probably rate High on the big5 openness scale. The staunch defenders of "ranger is flawed" seem to be resistant to consider their experience as missing anything OR hold to specific rules justifying that it will not work. (IE. no Campaign knowledge, dms rules first, Hard class comparisons ) These players seem to be low on the openness scale. They are particular on wording and strict on outside applications such as using favored terrain on creatures or using favored enemy to provide bonus on Region based checks. Neither view is bad but PHB Ranger fits better for one rather than the other.
The new Tasha's option seems to deliberately appeal to those with Low openness while the old ranger seems to appeal to high openness. When your too high or too low problems can occur in an RPG setting. I think we need good mix but fun ranger play seems to be in the mid to high range. Too high in openness can lead to many shenanigans in rpgs where there is abuse of certain skills. (see Familiar debates, or tiny hut abuse) . However, when a ranger is so restricted its useless the problem is generally "not giving it enough openness " Open interpretation usually being better is especially true because most FE and FT skills will not affect combat unless its also strategic play or tactical preparation.
Definition
Openness to experience, or simply openness, is a basic personality trait denoting receptivity to new ideas and new experiences. It is one of the five core personality dimensions that drive behavior—known as the five-factor model of personality, or the Big 5. People with high levels of openness are more likely to seek out a variety of experiences, be comfortable with the unfamiliar, and pay attention to their inner feelings more than those who are less open to novelty. They tend to exhibit high levels of curiosity and often enjoy being surprised. People with low levels of openness prefer familiar routines, people, and ideas; they can be perceived as closed-minded.
I wish everyone the best with their ranger. WotC has been gracious enough to give us so many options that now anyone can have and play just the ranger they want, no matter how screwed up that idea may be (it's a joke). Fighters will fight, wizards and druids will cast spells, paladins will wear armor and smite, and rogues will sneak attack and use skills, and all the while everyone will go on and on debating what it is a ranger should do, does, and can do.
Yup, that we can be sure on, lol
i'll dissagree here in that assesment (not the assesment that people cannot agree on what a ranger is but rather on the assesment that the options available covers most or all niches), across the options in tasha's and the PHB there are not too much diversity in the types of ranger you can play, either you get the Natural Explorer feature who leans on exploration but is tied to a certain context in the game world or you get Deft Explorer whose primary benefit is in combat with much more limited exploration utillity, either you get a medeocre interaction/ exploration feature in favoured enemy or you get a mediocre combat feature in favoured foe, at 3rd level you always get a feature that let's you magically gain information, whether it would be the primeval awareness feature or the primal awareness feature, at 10th level you gain some kind of feature that let's you remain unseen when in plain view, and it is either a combat feature or an exploration feature depending on your choice. (yes the expertise can be handy and tireless more or less negates all your needs for food/ drink/ sleep/ comfortable temperatures and there might be non-combat encounters where climbing or swimming faster could help but it is not much)
Like yes most classes typically do not gain meaningful decisions about their class outside of subclass, the ranger is now probably the second most customizable class after the warlock, but this is far from accomodating all the ideas of what a ranger would be and what everyone wants it to be.
If you for whatever reason want a ranger who does not cast spells (not my personal taste but the primary two fictional rangers apparently do not use em and it seems there is some minority of players who do) there is not much you can do except either multiclass into other classes or reflavor your spells as not really being spells like an artificer. Or maybe you want features much like the ones from Natural Explorer but do not want them to be terrain-specific becuase either the DM is making a campaign that would take place in a single terrain or you just do not wanna be tied to certain terrain types. Maybe you wanna be the best at tracking other creatures, no matter the terrain, no matter the creature, not "expertise in survival and the locate creature spell" but a proper class feature that truly sets you apart as a master of tracking. Maybe instead of favoured enemy/ terrain giving you the same benefits when dealing with them directly you might want minor features themed around the terrain type/ creature type and the threats and obstacles they typically provide. Maybe you want the more stealth focused 10th and 14th level features to come a bit earlier, or not come at all, or maybe you just think that both the invisibillity and the Hide in Plain sight features are a bit ridiculous/ silly to you/ does not fit the ranger you want to play. Maybe you want an proper animal companion without having to give up your subclass to do so (this can be achieved via the sidekick rules so easily that it need not be brought up but it does require extra cooperation and work from the DM) Maybe you just want slightly broader categories for favored enemy/ terrain, such as "woodlands" covering swamps, forests and any areas with big tree density and maybe "unholy creatures" as a favoured enemy choice that includes abberations, fiends and undead. There are an neigh infinite number of rangers who are simply not catered to by these rules.
Would i expect wizards of the coast to put the effort into making all these variants and then putting them in a sourcebook somewhere? no, it would be way too much time spent catering to a single class and ever-smaller demographics of people who like to play that specific class (this is why we have homebrew after all, to fill in the gaps of what we want to play), but acting as if these few possibillities cover everything or even most things you would want this class to do is a bit of an overstatement. Deft explorer did a good job making the ranger and it's themes fit a bit better into the typical, more popular dungeons and dragons game where exploration and getting from point-to-point is mostly glossed over and where combat, skill use and interaction are more important and makes the class accessible enough, that is all it needs to do. It is a good amount of customization that covers the demands of most players, but perhaps not the kinds of players who will debate what a ranger even is
Unlike every other base class in the game, ask 100 people what a ranger is or should be and you will get 100 answers. THAT is the core defining issue with the class in 5E. THAT is why we have all been talking in this forum and others like it since the beginning.
"Rangers should be a fighter subclass."
"Rangers are druid/fighters."
"Rangers are rogue/druids."
"Rangers are fighter/rogues."
"Rangers should cast spells."
"Rangers shouldn't cast spells."
"Rangers should be stealthy."
"Rangers should be the best at ______________."
"Rangers should be a jack-of-all trades."
"Rangers should be outdoor experts."
"Rangers should be combat skirmishers."
It goes on and on and on. The contentment and satisfactory rating with players will never be any higher than it is with just one set of rules. Please one group, piss off the other groups. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. The best solution to the issue is what the came up with in the end, and that is the build-a-bear build-your-own-ranger set of optional class ability swaps. Even then it won't work completely because we all still don't agree what a ranger is at it's core.
Paladin? Armor, smite, and heal.
Rogue? Sneak attack and skills.
Wizard? Spells, books, and options through magic.
like you said yourself there is not much concensus on what the core of the ranger even is, like saying the two extremes that still covers the same vague thematic ground at the same levels will make all those groups happy seems inaccurate, it would in fact not be that "now anyone can have and play just the ranger they want, no matter how screwed up that idea may be"
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
Here is the interesting bit. Many ranger players are saying that if you look into it there are missed opportunities. These are people who probably rate High on the big5 openness scale. The staunch defenders of "ranger is flawed" seem to be resistant to consider their experience as missing anything OR hold to specific rules justifying that it will not work. (IE. no Campaign knowledge, dms rules first, Hard class comparisons ) These players seem to be low on the openness scale. They are particular on wording and strict on outside applications such as using favored terrain on creatures or using favored enemy to provide bonus on Region based checks. Neither view is bad but PHB Ranger fits better for one rather than the other.
The new Tasha's option seems to deliberately appeal to those with Low openness while the old ranger seems to appeal to high openness. When your too high or too low problems can occur in an RPG setting. I think we need good mix but fun ranger play seems to be in the mid to high range. Too high in openness can lead to many shenanigans in rpgs where there is abuse of certain skills. (see Familiar debates, or tiny hut abuse) . However, when a ranger is so restricted its useless the problem is generally "not giving it enough openness " Open interpretation usually being better is especially true because most FE and FT skills will not affect combat unless its also strategic play or tactical preparation.
Definition
Openness to experience, or simply openness, is a basic personality trait denoting receptivity to new ideas and new experiences. It is one of the five core personality dimensions that drive behavior—known as the five-factor model of personality, or the Big 5. People with high levels of openness are more likely to seek out a variety of experiences, be comfortable with the unfamiliar, and pay attention to their inner feelings more than those who are less open to novelty. They tend to exhibit high levels of curiosity and often enjoy being surprised. People with low levels of openness prefer familiar routines, people, and ideas; they can be perceived as closed-minded.
Can you provide an example of what you mean by "using favored terrain on creatures or using favored enemy to provide bonus on Region based checks"?
I wish everyone the best with their ranger. WotC has been gracious enough to give us so many options that now anyone can have and play just the ranger they want, no matter how screwed up that idea may be (it's a joke). Fighters will fight, wizards and druids will cast spells, paladins will wear armor and smite, and rogues will sneak attack and use skills, and all the while everyone will go on and on debating what it is a ranger should do, does, and can do.
Yup, that we can be sure on, lol
i'll dissagree here in that assesment (not the assesment that people cannot agree on what a ranger is but rather on the assesment that the options available covers most or all niches), across the options in tasha's and the PHB there are not too much diversity in the types of ranger you can play, either you get the Natural Explorer feature who leans on exploration but is tied to a certain context in the game world or you get Deft Explorer whose primary benefit is in combat with much more limited exploration utillity, either you get a medeocre interaction/ exploration feature in favoured enemy or you get a mediocre combat feature in favoured foe, at 3rd level you always get a feature that let's you magically gain information, whether it would be the primeval awareness feature or the primal awareness feature, at 10th level you gain some kind of feature that let's you remain unseen when in plain view, and it is either a combat feature or an exploration feature depending on your choice. (yes the expertise can be handy and tireless more or less negates all your needs for food/ drink/ sleep/ comfortable temperatures and there might be non-combat encounters where climbing or swimming faster could help but it is not much)
Like yes most classes typically do not gain meaningful decisions about their class outside of subclass, the ranger is now probably the second most customizable class after the warlock, but this is far from accomodating all the ideas of what a ranger would be and what everyone wants it to be.
If you for whatever reason want a ranger who does not cast spells (not my personal taste but the primary two fictional rangers apparently do not use em and it seems there is some minority of players who do) there is not much you can do except either multiclass into other classes or reflavor your spells as not really being spells like an artificer. Or maybe you want features much like the ones from Natural Explorer but do not want them to be terrain-specific becuase either the DM is making a campaign that would take place in a single terrain or you just do not wanna be tied to certain terrain types. Maybe you wanna be the best at tracking other creatures, no matter the terrain, no matter the creature, not "expertise in survival and the locate creature spell" but a proper class feature that truly sets you apart as a master of tracking. Maybe instead of favoured enemy/ terrain giving you the same benefits when dealing with them directly you might want minor features themed around the terrain type/ creature type and the threats and obstacles they typically provide. Maybe you want the more stealth focused 10th and 14th level features to come a bit earlier, or not come at all, or maybe you just think that both the invisibillity and the Hide in Plain sight features are a bit ridiculous/ silly to you/ does not fit the ranger you want to play. Maybe you want an proper animal companion without having to give up your subclass to do so (this can be achieved via the sidekick rules so easily that it need not be brought up but it does require extra cooperation and work from the DM) Maybe you just want slightly broader categories for favored enemy/ terrain, such as "woodlands" covering swamps, forests and any areas with big tree density and maybe "unholy creatures" as a favoured enemy choice that includes abberations, fiends and undead. There are an neigh infinite number of rangers who are simply not catered to by these rules.
Would i expect wizards of the coast to put the effort into making all these variants and then putting them in a sourcebook somewhere? no, it would be way too much time spent catering to a single class and ever-smaller demographics of people who like to play that specific class (this is why we have homebrew after all, to fill in the gaps of what we want to play), but acting as if these few possibillities cover everything or even most things you would want this class to do is a bit of an overstatement. Deft explorer did a good job making the ranger and it's themes fit a bit better into the typical, more popular dungeons and dragons game where exploration and getting from point-to-point is mostly glossed over and where combat, skill use and interaction are more important and makes the class accessible enough, that is all it needs to do. It is a good amount of customization that covers the demands of most players, but perhaps not the kinds of players who will debate what a ranger even is
Unlike every other base class in the game, ask 100 people what a ranger is or should be and you will get 100 answers. THAT is the core defining issue with the class in 5E. THAT is why we have all been talking in this forum and others like it since the beginning.
"Rangers should be a fighter subclass."
"Rangers are druid/fighters."
"Rangers are rogue/druids."
"Rangers are fighter/rogues."
"Rangers should cast spells."
"Rangers shouldn't cast spells."
"Rangers should be stealthy."
"Rangers should be the best at ______________."
"Rangers should be a jack-of-all trades."
"Rangers should be outdoor experts."
"Rangers should be combat skirmishers."
It goes on and on and on. The contentment and satisfactory rating with players will never be any higher than it is with just one set of rules. Please one group, piss off the other groups. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. The best solution to the issue is what the came up with in the end, and that is the build-a-bear build-your-own-ranger set of optional class ability swaps. Even then it won't work completely because we all still don't agree what a ranger is at it's core.
Paladin? Armor, smite, and heal.
Rogue? Sneak attack and skills.
Wizard? Spells, books, and options through magic.
like you said yourself there is not much concensus on what the core of the ranger even is, like saying the two extremes that still covers the same vague thematic ground at the same levels will make all those groups happy seems inaccurate, it would in fact not be that "now anyone can have and play just the ranger they want, no matter how screwed up that idea may be"
That's one small step for rangers, one giant leap for ranger players.
They should release a new set of optional variants for the ranger with every book! Maybe that is the ranger's "thing" now.
I wish everyone the best with their ranger. WotC has been gracious enough to give us so many options that now anyone can have and play just the ranger they want, no matter how screwed up that idea may be (it's a joke). Fighters will fight, wizards and druids will cast spells, paladins will wear armor and smite, and rogues will sneak attack and use skills, and all the while everyone will go on and on debating what it is a ranger should do, does, and can do.
Yup, that we can be sure on, lol
i'll dissagree here in that assesment (not the assesment that people cannot agree on what a ranger is but rather on the assesment that the options available covers most or all niches), across the options in tasha's and the PHB there are not too much diversity in the types of ranger you can play, either you get the Natural Explorer feature who leans on exploration but is tied to a certain context in the game world or you get Deft Explorer whose primary benefit is in combat with much more limited exploration utillity, either you get a medeocre interaction/ exploration feature in favoured enemy or you get a mediocre combat feature in favoured foe, at 3rd level you always get a feature that let's you magically gain information, whether it would be the primeval awareness feature or the primal awareness feature, at 10th level you gain some kind of feature that let's you remain unseen when in plain view, and it is either a combat feature or an exploration feature depending on your choice. (yes the expertise can be handy and tireless more or less negates all your needs for food/ drink/ sleep/ comfortable temperatures and there might be non-combat encounters where climbing or swimming faster could help but it is not much)
Like yes most classes typically do not gain meaningful decisions about their class outside of subclass, the ranger is now probably the second most customizable class after the warlock, but this is far from accomodating all the ideas of what a ranger would be and what everyone wants it to be.
If you for whatever reason want a ranger who does not cast spells (not my personal taste but the primary two fictional rangers apparently do not use em and it seems there is some minority of players who do) there is not much you can do except either multiclass into other classes or reflavor your spells as not really being spells like an artificer. Or maybe you want features much like the ones from Natural Explorer but do not want them to be terrain-specific becuase either the DM is making a campaign that would take place in a single terrain or you just do not wanna be tied to certain terrain types. Maybe you wanna be the best at tracking other creatures, no matter the terrain, no matter the creature, not "expertise in survival and the locate creature spell" but a proper class feature that truly sets you apart as a master of tracking. Maybe instead of favoured enemy/ terrain giving you the same benefits when dealing with them directly you might want minor features themed around the terrain type/ creature type and the threats and obstacles they typically provide. Maybe you want the more stealth focused 10th and 14th level features to come a bit earlier, or not come at all, or maybe you just think that both the invisibillity and the Hide in Plain sight features are a bit ridiculous/ silly to you/ does not fit the ranger you want to play. Maybe you want an proper animal companion without having to give up your subclass to do so (this can be achieved via the sidekick rules so easily that it need not be brought up but it does require extra cooperation and work from the DM) Maybe you just want slightly broader categories for favored enemy/ terrain, such as "woodlands" covering swamps, forests and any areas with big tree density and maybe "unholy creatures" as a favoured enemy choice that includes abberations, fiends and undead. There are an neigh infinite number of rangers who are simply not catered to by these rules.
Would i expect wizards of the coast to put the effort into making all these variants and then putting them in a sourcebook somewhere? no, it would be way too much time spent catering to a single class and ever-smaller demographics of people who like to play that specific class (this is why we have homebrew after all, to fill in the gaps of what we want to play), but acting as if these few possibillities cover everything or even most things you would want this class to do is a bit of an overstatement. Deft explorer did a good job making the ranger and it's themes fit a bit better into the typical, more popular dungeons and dragons game where exploration and getting from point-to-point is mostly glossed over and where combat, skill use and interaction are more important and makes the class accessible enough, that is all it needs to do. It is a good amount of customization that covers the demands of most players, but perhaps not the kinds of players who will debate what a ranger even is
Unlike every other base class in the game, ask 100 people what a ranger is or should be and you will get 100 answers. THAT is the core defining issue with the class in 5E. THAT is why we have all been talking in this forum and others like it since the beginning.
"Rangers should be a fighter subclass."
"Rangers are druid/fighters."
"Rangers are rogue/druids."
"Rangers are fighter/rogues."
"Rangers should cast spells."
"Rangers shouldn't cast spells."
"Rangers should be stealthy."
"Rangers should be the best at ______________."
"Rangers should be a jack-of-all trades."
"Rangers should be outdoor experts."
"Rangers should be combat skirmishers."
It goes on and on and on. The contentment and satisfactory rating with players will never be any higher than it is with just one set of rules. Please one group, piss off the other groups. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. The best solution to the issue is what the came up with in the end, and that is the build-a-bear build-your-own-ranger set of optional class ability swaps. Even then it won't work completely because we all still don't agree what a ranger is at it's core.
Paladin? Armor, smite, and heal.
Rogue? Sneak attack and skills.
Wizard? Spells, books, and options through magic.
like you said yourself there is not much concensus on what the core of the ranger even is, like saying the two extremes that still covers the same vague thematic ground at the same levels will make all those groups happy seems inaccurate, it would in fact not be that "now anyone can have and play just the ranger they want, no matter how screwed up that idea may be"
That's one small step for rangers, one giant leap for ranger players.
They should release a new set of optional variants for the ranger with every book! Maybe that is the ranger's "thing" now.
I mean there has been alternatives to ranger features since the very early days so its always kinda been its thing....
Here is the interesting bit. Many ranger players are saying that if you look into it there are missed opportunities. These are people who probably rate High on the big5 openness scale. The staunch defenders of "ranger is flawed" seem to be resistant to consider their experience as missing anything OR hold to specific rules justifying that it will not work. (IE. no Campaign knowledge, dms rules first, Hard class comparisons ) These players seem to be low on the openness scale. They are particular on wording and strict on outside applications such as using favored terrain on creatures or using favored enemy to provide bonus on Region based checks. Neither view is bad but PHB Ranger fits better for one rather than the other.
The new Tasha's option seems to deliberately appeal to those with Low openness while the old ranger seems to appeal to high openness. When your too high or too low problems can occur in an RPG setting. I think we need good mix but fun ranger play seems to be in the mid to high range. Too high in openness can lead to many shenanigans in rpgs where there is abuse of certain skills. (see Familiar debates, or tiny hut abuse) . However, when a ranger is so restricted its useless the problem is generally "not giving it enough openness " Open interpretation usually being better is especially true because most FE and FT skills will not affect combat unless its also strategic play or tactical preparation.
Definition
Openness to experience, or simply openness, is a basic personality trait denoting receptivity to new ideas and new experiences. It is one of the five core personality dimensions that drive behavior—known as the five-factor model of personality, or the Big 5. People with high levels of openness are more likely to seek out a variety of experiences, be comfortable with the unfamiliar, and pay attention to their inner feelings more than those who are less open to novelty. They tend to exhibit high levels of curiosity and often enjoy being surprised. People with low levels of openness prefer familiar routines, people, and ideas; they can be perceived as closed-minded.
Can you provide an example of what you mean by "using favored terrain on creatures or using favored enemy to provide bonus on Region based checks"?
Using favored terrain on creatures.
example 1 poison(venom) harvesting from a creature living in the area. Desert ranger- Scorpions. underdark- Spiders. Forests- flying snake.
example two Tracking out side the terrain. A polar bear gets loose from the zoo. a artic Ranger would know its habits and be better able to predict where it would go even if he dose not have beasts for favored enemy.
A ranger from the forests might smell burning meat and realize its a deer because that's what is commonly cooked in the area they are from.
A forest ranger Might be better able to recognize an arrow from a tribe of goblins because they use clay instead of obsidian for their arrows.
Using Favored enemy on terrain.
A beast ranger would know about diets and things smells that attract creatures. Ranger Has studied cats so he also learned about catnip (growing locations, smells, Other uses) . ranger has studied deer so he knows about mint (growing locations, smells, Other uses) .
Favored enemey Fey. would know about all plants that might be harvested to Provide protection against charm.
Favored enemy Celestial would know about Elysiums different layers.
Favored enemy Fiends. Might know the location of silver mines for weapons and Holy water creation.
favored enemy elementals might be able to understand a cave structure integrity near a volcano even if he's never been in one. Why? because he's seen what a fire or stone elemental passing through rocks does to the cave structure.
I wish everyone the best with their ranger. WotC has been gracious enough to give us so many options that now anyone can have and play just the ranger they want, no matter how screwed up that idea may be (it's a joke). Fighters will fight, wizards and druids will cast spells, paladins will wear armor and smite, and rogues will sneak attack and use skills, and all the while everyone will go on and on debating what it is a ranger should do, does, and can do.
Yup, that we can be sure on, lol
i'll dissagree here in that assesment (not the assesment that people cannot agree on what a ranger is but rather on the assesment that the options available covers most or all niches), across the options in tasha's and the PHB there are not too much diversity in the types of ranger you can play, either you get the Natural Explorer feature who leans on exploration but is tied to a certain context in the game world or you get Deft Explorer whose primary benefit is in combat with much more limited exploration utillity, either you get a medeocre interaction/ exploration feature in favoured enemy or you get a mediocre combat feature in favoured foe, at 3rd level you always get a feature that let's you magically gain information, whether it would be the primeval awareness feature or the primal awareness feature, at 10th level you gain some kind of feature that let's you remain unseen when in plain view, and it is either a combat feature or an exploration feature depending on your choice. (yes the expertise can be handy and tireless more or less negates all your needs for food/ drink/ sleep/ comfortable temperatures and there might be non-combat encounters where climbing or swimming faster could help but it is not much)
Like yes most classes typically do not gain meaningful decisions about their class outside of subclass, the ranger is now probably the second most customizable class after the warlock, but this is far from accomodating all the ideas of what a ranger would be and what everyone wants it to be.
If you for whatever reason want a ranger who does not cast spells (not my personal taste but the primary two fictional rangers apparently do not use em and it seems there is some minority of players who do) there is not much you can do except either multiclass into other classes or reflavor your spells as not really being spells like an artificer. Or maybe you want features much like the ones from Natural Explorer but do not want them to be terrain-specific becuase either the DM is making a campaign that would take place in a single terrain or you just do not wanna be tied to certain terrain types. Maybe you wanna be the best at tracking other creatures, no matter the terrain, no matter the creature, not "expertise in survival and the locate creature spell" but a proper class feature that truly sets you apart as a master of tracking. Maybe instead of favoured enemy/ terrain giving you the same benefits when dealing with them directly you might want minor features themed around the terrain type/ creature type and the threats and obstacles they typically provide. Maybe you want the more stealth focused 10th and 14th level features to come a bit earlier, or not come at all, or maybe you just think that both the invisibillity and the Hide in Plain sight features are a bit ridiculous/ silly to you/ does not fit the ranger you want to play. Maybe you want an proper animal companion without having to give up your subclass to do so (this can be achieved via the sidekick rules so easily that it need not be brought up but it does require extra cooperation and work from the DM) Maybe you just want slightly broader categories for favored enemy/ terrain, such as "woodlands" covering swamps, forests and any areas with big tree density and maybe "unholy creatures" as a favoured enemy choice that includes abberations, fiends and undead. There are an neigh infinite number of rangers who are simply not catered to by these rules.
Would i expect wizards of the coast to put the effort into making all these variants and then putting them in a sourcebook somewhere? no, it would be way too much time spent catering to a single class and ever-smaller demographics of people who like to play that specific class (this is why we have homebrew after all, to fill in the gaps of what we want to play), but acting as if these few possibillities cover everything or even most things you would want this class to do is a bit of an overstatement. Deft explorer did a good job making the ranger and it's themes fit a bit better into the typical, more popular dungeons and dragons game where exploration and getting from point-to-point is mostly glossed over and where combat, skill use and interaction are more important and makes the class accessible enough, that is all it needs to do. It is a good amount of customization that covers the demands of most players, but perhaps not the kinds of players who will debate what a ranger even is
Unlike every other base class in the game, ask 100 people what a ranger is or should be and you will get 100 answers. THAT is the core defining issue with the class in 5E. THAT is why we have all been talking in this forum and others like it since the beginning.
"Rangers should be a fighter subclass."
"Rangers are druid/fighters."
"Rangers are rogue/druids."
"Rangers are fighter/rogues."
"Rangers should cast spells."
"Rangers shouldn't cast spells."
"Rangers should be stealthy."
"Rangers should be the best at ______________."
"Rangers should be a jack-of-all trades."
"Rangers should be outdoor experts."
"Rangers should be combat skirmishers."
It goes on and on and on. The contentment and satisfactory rating with players will never be any higher than it is with just one set of rules. Please one group, piss off the other groups. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. The best solution to the issue is what the came up with in the end, and that is the build-a-bear build-your-own-ranger set of optional class ability swaps. Even then it won't work completely because we all still don't agree what a ranger is at it's core.
Paladin? Armor, smite, and heal.
Rogue? Sneak attack and skills.
Wizard? Spells, books, and options through magic.
like you said yourself there is not much concensus on what the core of the ranger even is, like saying the two extremes that still covers the same vague thematic ground at the same levels will make all those groups happy seems inaccurate, it would in fact not be that "now anyone can have and play just the ranger they want, no matter how screwed up that idea may be"
That's one small step for rangers, one giant leap for ranger players.
They should release a new set of optional variants for the ranger with every book! Maybe that is the ranger's "thing" now.
I mean there has been alternatives to ranger features since the very early days so its always kinda been its thing....
there have been variants for other classes too (at least in 3e and especially 3.5e with any book that would contain a ranger variant, and i did not see any ranger variants in all the 2e books i "borrowed")
also frank you do realize that adding more ranger variants each sourcebook would be insane? You know that the designers probably are not personally interested in doing that? you know that it would cost a lot of money for the amount of profits you would get out of it? What reason would wizards of the coast have to add more and more variants in all these books? The only option i can see here is some kind of future 6e edition that is way way way more modular in it's design and where variants are built in from the start instead of an afterthought *. It has been "fixed" in the eyes of most people, we will not keep seeing new things for it, this is probably as far as it will go (as fun as it would be, have at least one or two natural explorer variants myself)
(* sort of like pathfinder 2e's class feats where most things that would traditionally be a core class feature is now an optional feat you can pick, so you could adapt your playstyle based on what exact set of abillities you want, if you do not want spellcasting you do not need it, if you do not want to be sneaky you dont need to, if you dont wanna use the weird snare thing you dont need to, if you don't want a pet you dont need to, but you could do all of em, i sure do try and bring up pathfinder a lot but it is becuase i think it might be one of the best ways forward in terms of high customization but not in like the 4e way where the only thing different is the exact manner you use to kill things)
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
Not to throw more gasoline on this fire (today), but for the "natural explorer = only works 3/8 of the time" argument, please keep in mind that anywhere that a skill check DC above a 10 or 12 would be like the arctic, desert, forest, mountain, swamp, or the Underdark. In terms of doing anything that uses skills like nature, survival, and perception IN THE TERRIAN. And it would have to be the harshest of conditions those terrains have to offer for there to be much need of expertise over plain proficiency. Here is a map...
Not to throw more gasoline on this fire (today), but for the "natural explorer = only works 3/8 of the time" argument, please keep in mind that anywhere that a skill check DC above a 10 or 12 would be like the arctic, desert, forest, mountain, swamp, or the Underdark. In terms of doing anything that uses skills like nature, survival, and perception IN THE TERRIAN. And it would have to be the harshest of conditions those terrains have to offer for there to be much need of expertise over plain proficiency. Here is a map...
I wish everyone the best with their ranger. WotC has been gracious enough to give us so many options that now anyone can have and play just the ranger they want, no matter how screwed up that idea may be (it's a joke). Fighters will fight, wizards and druids will cast spells, paladins will wear armor and smite, and rogues will sneak attack and use skills, and all the while everyone will go on and on debating what it is a ranger should do, does, and can do.
Yup, that we can be sure on, lol
i'll dissagree here in that assesment (not the assesment that people cannot agree on what a ranger is but rather on the assesment that the options available covers most or all niches), across the options in tasha's and the PHB there are not too much diversity in the types of ranger you can play, either you get the Natural Explorer feature who leans on exploration but is tied to a certain context in the game world or you get Deft Explorer whose primary benefit is in combat with much more limited exploration utillity, either you get a medeocre interaction/ exploration feature in favoured enemy or you get a mediocre combat feature in favoured foe, at 3rd level you always get a feature that let's you magically gain information, whether it would be the primeval awareness feature or the primal awareness feature, at 10th level you gain some kind of feature that let's you remain unseen when in plain view, and it is either a combat feature or an exploration feature depending on your choice. (yes the expertise can be handy and tireless more or less negates all your needs for food/ drink/ sleep/ comfortable temperatures and there might be non-combat encounters where climbing or swimming faster could help but it is not much)
Like yes most classes typically do not gain meaningful decisions about their class outside of subclass, the ranger is now probably the second most customizable class after the warlock, but this is far from accomodating all the ideas of what a ranger would be and what everyone wants it to be.
If you for whatever reason want a ranger who does not cast spells (not my personal taste but the primary two fictional rangers apparently do not use em and it seems there is some minority of players who do) there is not much you can do except either multiclass into other classes or reflavor your spells as not really being spells like an artificer. Or maybe you want features much like the ones from Natural Explorer but do not want them to be terrain-specific becuase either the DM is making a campaign that would take place in a single terrain or you just do not wanna be tied to certain terrain types. Maybe you wanna be the best at tracking other creatures, no matter the terrain, no matter the creature, not "expertise in survival and the locate creature spell" but a proper class feature that truly sets you apart as a master of tracking. Maybe instead of favoured enemy/ terrain giving you the same benefits when dealing with them directly you might want minor features themed around the terrain type/ creature type and the threats and obstacles they typically provide. Maybe you want the more stealth focused 10th and 14th level features to come a bit earlier, or not come at all, or maybe you just think that both the invisibillity and the Hide in Plain sight features are a bit ridiculous/ silly to you/ does not fit the ranger you want to play. Maybe you want an proper animal companion without having to give up your subclass to do so (this can be achieved via the sidekick rules so easily that it need not be brought up but it does require extra cooperation and work from the DM) Maybe you just want slightly broader categories for favored enemy/ terrain, such as "woodlands" covering swamps, forests and any areas with big tree density and maybe "unholy creatures" as a favoured enemy choice that includes abberations, fiends and undead. There are an neigh infinite number of rangers who are simply not catered to by these rules.
Would i expect wizards of the coast to put the effort into making all these variants and then putting them in a sourcebook somewhere? no, it would be way too much time spent catering to a single class and ever-smaller demographics of people who like to play that specific class (this is why we have homebrew after all, to fill in the gaps of what we want to play), but acting as if these few possibillities cover everything or even most things you would want this class to do is a bit of an overstatement. Deft explorer did a good job making the ranger and it's themes fit a bit better into the typical, more popular dungeons and dragons game where exploration and getting from point-to-point is mostly glossed over and where combat, skill use and interaction are more important and makes the class accessible enough, that is all it needs to do. It is a good amount of customization that covers the demands of most players, but perhaps not the kinds of players who will debate what a ranger even is
Unlike every other base class in the game, ask 100 people what a ranger is or should be and you will get 100 answers. THAT is the core defining issue with the class in 5E. THAT is why we have all been talking in this forum and others like it since the beginning.
"Rangers should be a fighter subclass."
"Rangers are druid/fighters."
"Rangers are rogue/druids."
"Rangers are fighter/rogues."
"Rangers should cast spells."
"Rangers shouldn't cast spells."
"Rangers should be stealthy."
"Rangers should be the best at ______________."
"Rangers should be a jack-of-all trades."
"Rangers should be outdoor experts."
"Rangers should be combat skirmishers."
It goes on and on and on. The contentment and satisfactory rating with players will never be any higher than it is with just one set of rules. Please one group, piss off the other groups. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. The best solution to the issue is what the came up with in the end, and that is the build-a-bear build-your-own-ranger set of optional class ability swaps. Even then it won't work completely because we all still don't agree what a ranger is at it's core.
Paladin? Armor, smite, and heal.
Rogue? Sneak attack and skills.
Wizard? Spells, books, and options through magic.
like you said yourself there is not much concensus on what the core of the ranger even is, like saying the two extremes that still covers the same vague thematic ground at the same levels will make all those groups happy seems inaccurate, it would in fact not be that "now anyone can have and play just the ranger they want, no matter how screwed up that idea may be"
That's one small step for rangers, one giant leap for ranger players.
They should release a new set of optional variants for the ranger with every book! Maybe that is the ranger's "thing" now.
I mean there has been alternatives to ranger features since the very early days so its always kinda been its thing....
there have been variants for other classes too (at least in 3e and especially 3.5e with any book that would contain a ranger variant, and i did not see any ranger variants in all the 2e books i "borrowed")
also frank you do realize that adding more ranger variants each sourcebook would be insane? You know that the designers probably are not personally interested in doing that? you know that it would cost a lot of money for the amount of profits you would get out of it? What reason would wizards of the coast have to add more and more variants in all these books? The only option i can see here is some kind of future 6e edition that is way way way more modular in it's design and where variants are built in from the start instead of an afterthought *. It has been "fixed" in the eyes of most people, we will not keep seeing new things for it, this is probably as far as it will go (as fun as it would be, have at least one or two natural explorer variants myself)
(* sort of like pathfinder 2e's class feats where most things that would traditionally be a core class feature is now an optional feat you can pick, so you could adapt your playstyle based on what exact set of abillities you want, if you do not want spellcasting you do not need it, if you do not want to be sneaky you dont need to, if you dont wanna use the weird snare thing you dont need to, if you don't want a pet you dont need to, but you could do all of em, i sure do try and bring up pathfinder a lot but it is becuase i think it might be one of the best ways forward in terms of high customization but not in like the 4e way where the only thing different is the exact manner you use to kill things)
There has been 6 different WotC versions of Ranger shared at one time or another.
Fighter has had 0 variants from a "replace this with this" stand point.
So Ranger has for sure gotten a lot more attention for "Fixes"
also frank you do realize that adding more ranger variants each sourcebook would be insane? You know that the designers probably are not personally interested in doing that? you know that it would cost a lot of money for the amount of profits you would get out of it? What reason would wizards of the coast have to add more and more variants in all these books? The only option i can see here is some kind of future 6e edition that is way way way more modular in it's design and where variants are built in from the start instead of an afterthought *. It has been "fixed" in the eyes of most people, we will not keep seeing new things for it, this is probably as far as it will go (as fun as it would be, have at least one or two natural explorer variants myself)
Yes.
I apologize as I don't know the internet appropriate way to convey sarcasm.
6E is coming. My money is around the big 50th anniversary year.
also frank you do realize that adding more ranger variants each sourcebook would be insane? You know that the designers probably are not personally interested in doing that? you know that it would cost a lot of money for the amount of profits you would get out of it? What reason would wizards of the coast have to add more and more variants in all these books? The only option i can see here is some kind of future 6e edition that is way way way more modular in it's design and where variants are built in from the start instead of an afterthought *. It has been "fixed" in the eyes of most people, we will not keep seeing new things for it, this is probably as far as it will go (as fun as it would be, have at least one or two natural explorer variants myself)
Yes.
I apologize as I don't know the internet appropriate way to convey sarcasm.
6E is coming. My money is around the big 50th anniversary year.
People have been claiming to various degree's that 6th Edition is an imminent thing for 5 years. I don't think so. I think we have at least 3 to 5 years more to go. Longer if they can. Which they probably can if we're realistic.
The release of a new edition inevitably has to happen. The overcomplication of the game via book bloat is unavoidable as long as we the player base keep rewarding them so handsomely for producing new material. They've managed to stave it off much better this edition thanks to a more disciplined approach to releasing material. 5E will get too big, eventually, and that's when 6E will start rearing its head.
also frank you do realize that adding more ranger variants each sourcebook would be insane? You know that the designers probably are not personally interested in doing that? you know that it would cost a lot of money for the amount of profits you would get out of it? What reason would wizards of the coast have to add more and more variants in all these books? The only option i can see here is some kind of future 6e edition that is way way way more modular in it's design and where variants are built in from the start instead of an afterthought *. It has been "fixed" in the eyes of most people, we will not keep seeing new things for it, this is probably as far as it will go (as fun as it would be, have at least one or two natural explorer variants myself)
Yes.
I apologize as I don't know the internet appropriate way to convey sarcasm.
6E is coming. My money is around the big 50th anniversary year.
People have been claiming to various degree's that 6th Edition is an imminent thing for 5 years. I don't think so. I think we have at least 3 to 5 years more to go. Longer if they can. Which they probably can if we're realistic.
Yes, 6e is inevitable. The best guess and most logical release would be for the 50th anniversary in 2024. A new edition doesn't mean that the game will be wildly different. It can be just a refinement of the system, a chance to reset everything with all the errata added in, rebalance features and abilities of PHB with the new more robust subclasses, etc.
Now that being said, there are two possibilities, one we see 5.5 released for the 50th in 2024 and 6e is released on the 60th anniversary in 2034 or two (waaaay more likely) we see them go to 6e as 3.5 is the only time they have ever done a half step and the timing seems right as a release in 2024 would be the longest stretch between editions since AD&D to AD&D 2e.
Looking at historical timelines: Original DnD 4 years (1974-1977) AD&D 13 years (1977-1989) AD&D 2e 7 years (1989-1995) D&D 3e 4 years (2000-2003) D&D 3.5 6 years (2003-2008) [D&D 3/3.5 9 years] D&D 4e 7 years (2008-2014) D&D 5e 11 years (2014-2024)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am not arguing for fixes, I have switched to Deft Explorer. The fix I listed is from over a year ago, I was simply pointing out that when it way the only option, I homebrewed a solution to make it more useful. I also added a poll about Tasha's so we can wait and see on that.
I can't imagine many people ignoring Tasha's when it seems like most people like having more options vs less when it comes to customization.
I wish everyone the best with their ranger. WotC has been gracious enough to give us so many options that now anyone can have and play just the ranger they want, no matter how screwed up that idea may be (it's a joke). Fighters will fight, wizards and druids will cast spells, paladins will wear armor and smite, and rogues will sneak attack and use skills, and all the while everyone will go on and on debating what it is a ranger should do, does, and can do.
Yup, that we can be sure on, lol
Here is the interesting bit. Many ranger players are saying that if you look into it there are missed opportunities. These are people who probably rate High on the big5 openness scale. The staunch defenders of "ranger is flawed" seem to be resistant to consider their experience as missing anything OR hold to specific rules justifying that it will not work. (IE. no Campaign knowledge, dms rules first, Hard class comparisons ) These players seem to be low on the openness scale. They are particular on wording and strict on outside applications such as using favored terrain on creatures or using favored enemy to provide bonus on Region based checks. Neither view is bad but PHB Ranger fits better for one rather than the other.
The new Tasha's option seems to deliberately appeal to those with Low openness while the old ranger seems to appeal to high openness. When your too high or too low problems can occur in an RPG setting. I think we need good mix but fun ranger play seems to be in the mid to high range. Too high in openness can lead to many shenanigans in rpgs where there is abuse of certain skills. (see Familiar debates, or tiny hut abuse) . However, when a ranger is so restricted its useless the problem is generally "not giving it enough openness " Open interpretation usually being better is especially true because most FE and FT skills will not affect combat unless its also strategic play or tactical preparation.
Definition
Openness to experience, or simply openness, is a basic personality trait denoting receptivity to new ideas and new experiences. It is one of the five core personality dimensions that drive behavior—known as the five-factor model of personality, or the Big 5. People with high levels of openness are more likely to seek out a variety of experiences, be comfortable with the unfamiliar, and pay attention to their inner feelings more than those who are less open to novelty. They tend to exhibit high levels of curiosity and often enjoy being surprised. People with low levels of openness prefer familiar routines, people, and ideas; they can be perceived as closed-minded.
i'll dissagree here in that assesment (not the assesment that people cannot agree on what a ranger is but rather on the assesment that the options available covers most or all niches), across the options in tasha's and the PHB there are not too much diversity in the types of ranger you can play, either you get the Natural Explorer feature who leans on exploration but is tied to a certain context in the game world or you get Deft Explorer whose primary benefit is in combat with much more limited exploration utillity, either you get a medeocre interaction/ exploration feature in favoured enemy or you get a mediocre combat feature in favoured foe, at 3rd level you always get a feature that let's you magically gain information, whether it would be the primeval awareness feature or the primal awareness feature, at 10th level you gain some kind of feature that let's you remain unseen when in plain view, and it is either a combat feature or an exploration feature depending on your choice. (yes the expertise can be handy and tireless more or less negates all your needs for food/ drink/ sleep/ comfortable temperatures and there might be non-combat encounters where climbing or swimming faster could help but it is not much)
Like yes most classes typically do not gain meaningful decisions about their class outside of subclass, the ranger is now probably the second most customizable class after the warlock, but this is far from accomodating all the ideas of what a ranger would be and what everyone wants it to be.
If you for whatever reason want a ranger who does not cast spells (not my personal taste but the primary two fictional rangers apparently do not use em and it seems there is some minority of players who do) there is not much you can do except either multiclass into other classes or reflavor your spells as not really being spells like an artificer.
Or maybe you want features much like the ones from Natural Explorer but do not want them to be terrain-specific becuase either the DM is making a campaign that would take place in a single terrain or you just do not wanna be tied to certain terrain types.
Maybe you wanna be the best at tracking other creatures, no matter the terrain, no matter the creature, not "expertise in survival and the locate creature spell" but a proper class feature that truly sets you apart as a master of tracking.
Maybe instead of favoured enemy/ terrain giving you the same benefits when dealing with them directly you might want minor features themed around the terrain type/ creature type and the threats and obstacles they typically provide.
Maybe you want the more stealth focused 10th and 14th level features to come a bit earlier, or not come at all, or maybe you just think that both the invisibillity and the Hide in Plain sight features are a bit ridiculous/ silly to you/ does not fit the ranger you want to play.
Maybe you want an proper animal companion without having to give up your subclass to do so (this can be achieved via the sidekick rules so easily that it need not be brought up but it does require extra cooperation and work from the DM)
Maybe you just want slightly broader categories for favored enemy/ terrain, such as "woodlands" covering swamps, forests and any areas with big tree density and maybe "unholy creatures" as a favoured enemy choice that includes abberations, fiends and undead.
There are an neigh infinite number of rangers who are simply not catered to by these rules.
Would i expect wizards of the coast to put the effort into making all these variants and then putting them in a sourcebook somewhere? no, it would be way too much time spent catering to a single class and ever-smaller demographics of people who like to play that specific class (this is why we have homebrew after all, to fill in the gaps of what we want to play), but acting as if these few possibillities cover everything or even most things you would want this class to do is a bit of an overstatement. Deft explorer did a good job making the ranger and it's themes fit a bit better into the typical, more popular dungeons and dragons game where exploration and getting from point-to-point is mostly glossed over and where combat, skill use and interaction are more important and makes the class accessible enough, that is all it needs to do. It is a good amount of customization that covers the demands of most players, but perhaps not the kinds of players who will debate what a ranger even is
like you said yourself there is not much concensus on what the core of the ranger even is, like saying the two extremes that still covers the same vague thematic ground at the same levels will make all those groups happy seems inaccurate, it would in fact not be that "now anyone can have and play just the ranger they want, no matter how screwed up that idea may be"
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
Can you provide an example of what you mean by "using favored terrain on creatures or using favored enemy to provide bonus on Region based checks"?
That's one small step for rangers, one giant leap for ranger players.
They should release a new set of optional variants for the ranger with every book! Maybe that is the ranger's "thing" now.
I mean there has been alternatives to ranger features since the very early days so its always kinda been its thing....
Using favored terrain on creatures.
Using Favored enemy on terrain.
there have been variants for other classes too (at least in 3e and especially 3.5e with any book that would contain a ranger variant, and i did not see any ranger variants in all the 2e books i "borrowed")
also frank you do realize that adding more ranger variants each sourcebook would be insane? You know that the designers probably are not personally interested in doing that? you know that it would cost a lot of money for the amount of profits you would get out of it? What reason would wizards of the coast have to add more and more variants in all these books? The only option i can see here is some kind of future 6e edition that is way way way more modular in it's design and where variants are built in from the start instead of an afterthought *. It has been "fixed" in the eyes of most people, we will not keep seeing new things for it, this is probably as far as it will go (as fun as it would be, have at least one or two natural explorer variants myself)
(* sort of like pathfinder 2e's class feats where most things that would traditionally be a core class feature is now an optional feat you can pick, so you could adapt your playstyle based on what exact set of abillities you want, if you do not want spellcasting you do not need it, if you do not want to be sneaky you dont need to, if you dont wanna use the weird snare thing you dont need to, if you don't want a pet you dont need to, but you could do all of em, i sure do try and bring up pathfinder a lot but it is becuase i think it might be one of the best ways forward in terms of high customization but not in like the 4e way where the only thing different is the exact manner you use to kill things)
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
Not to throw more gasoline on this fire (today), but for the "natural explorer = only works 3/8 of the time" argument, please keep in mind that anywhere that a skill check DC above a 10 or 12 would be like the arctic, desert, forest, mountain, swamp, or the Underdark. In terms of doing anything that uses skills like nature, survival, and perception IN THE TERRIAN. And it would have to be the harshest of conditions those terrains have to offer for there to be much need of expertise over plain proficiency. Here is a map...
https://media.wizards.com/2015/images/dnd/resources/Sword-Coast-Map_HighRes.jpg
Arctic is like 2% of that map...if that.
Desert is at best 5% and thats being generous
Mountains are like at best 10%
Plains and Forrest are like 30% a piece I would guess.
Underdark is 0% of that map (there is an underdark map though)
Swamp is hard to tell....but I would guess like 10% or so.
Coast line is also hard as how far out do you count coast? There is a lot on this map due it being the Sword Coast and all....Probably like 20% or so?
Overall its worse for some types than others.
There has been 6 different WotC versions of Ranger shared at one time or another.
Fighter has had 0 variants from a "replace this with this" stand point.
So Ranger has for sure gotten a lot more attention for "Fixes"
Yes.
I apologize as I don't know the internet appropriate way to convey sarcasm.
6E is coming. My money is around the big 50th anniversary year.
People have been claiming to various degree's that 6th Edition is an imminent thing for 5 years. I don't think so. I think we have at least 3 to 5 years more to go. Longer if they can. Which they probably can if we're realistic.
I've only ever played 5e, so still kind of a newb to the D&D world.
Aside from making more money by releasing a new edition, what's the point of continuously doing so? lol Especially when 5e is as well received as is?
Because they will for as long as DnD is a thing eventually make a new edition. It just makes sense.
The release of a new edition inevitably has to happen. The overcomplication of the game via book bloat is unavoidable as long as we the player base keep rewarding them so handsomely for producing new material. They've managed to stave it off much better this edition thanks to a more disciplined approach to releasing material. 5E will get too big, eventually, and that's when 6E will start rearing its head.
Yes, 6e is inevitable. The best guess and most logical release would be for the 50th anniversary in 2024. A new edition doesn't mean that the game will be wildly different. It can be just a refinement of the system, a chance to reset everything with all the errata added in, rebalance features and abilities of PHB with the new more robust subclasses, etc.
Now that being said, there are two possibilities, one we see 5.5 released for the 50th in 2024 and 6e is released on the 60th anniversary in 2034 or two (waaaay more likely) we see them go to 6e as 3.5 is the only time they have ever done a half step and the timing seems right as a release in 2024 would be the longest stretch between editions since AD&D to AD&D 2e.
Looking at historical timelines:
Original DnD 4 years (1974-1977)
AD&D 13 years (1977-1989)
AD&D 2e 7 years (1989-1995)
D&D 3e 4 years (2000-2003)
D&D 3.5 6 years (2003-2008)
[D&D 3/3.5 9 years]
D&D 4e 7 years (2008-2014)
D&D 5e 11 years (2014-2024)