I like the fact that its slightly less valuable than hunter's mark but almost as useful. It might even be better in limited circumstances. It means each ranger can decide which trade offs to make. Dont want HM you have an option. Running out of spells slots, you have an option. Don't need favored foe then Get favored enemy. At one point wizards said they didn't want overshadow old choices. I think it achieved a Decent ballance.
If they said they don't want to overshadow old choices, they are complete ******* liars. Look at any of Tasha's Sorcerer subclasses and you'll see why. Or, just compare any PHB ranger subclass to any non-PHB ranger subclass.
I would be perfectly fine if they chose to overshadow Favored Enemy with Favored Foe. That feature is stupidly niche and oftentimes useless.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I like the fact that its slightly less valuable than hunter's mark but almost as useful. It might even be better in limited circumstances. It means each ranger can decide which trade offs to make. Dont want HM you have an option. Running out of spells slots, you have an option. Don't need favored foe then Get favored enemy. At one point wizards said they didn't want overshadow old choices. I think it achieved a Decent ballance.
If they said they don't want to overshadow old choices, they are complete ****ing liars. Look at any of Tasha's Sorcerer subclasses and you'll see why. Or, just compare any PHB ranger subclass to any non-PHB ranger subclass.
I would be perfectly fine if they chose to overshadow Favored Enemy with Favored Foe. That feature is stupidly niche and oftentimes useless.
That was the original opinion but later stated "we won't let old choices inform the new ones" (which sometimes undermines the original opinion about over shadowing). Unfortunately I don't have direct quotes because it was in dragon talk or tod talks or some other YouTube videos With JC . If any one does have the direct quotes I would be grateful.
I think the original PHB classes could be updated easily with spell additions, class restricted magic items and Decent 1/4 Beasts (druids and rangers) to match the power creep of other classes without actually making complicated extra rules. The beachmaster death issues could have been fixed by a ranger specific resurrections spell for only natural born beasts. Of course they kind of tried this with healing spirit but there was a huge outcry against it.
I like the fact that its slightly less valuable than hunter's mark but almost as useful. It might even be better in limited circumstances. It means each ranger can decide which trade offs to make. Dont want HM you have an option. Running out of spells slots, you have an option. Don't need favored foe then Get favored enemy. At one point wizards said they didn't want overshadow old choices. I think it achieved a Decent ballance.
If they said they don't want to overshadow old choices, they are complete ****ing liars. Look at any of Tasha's Sorcerer subclasses and you'll see why. Or, just compare any PHB ranger subclass to any non-PHB ranger subclass.
I would be perfectly fine if they chose to overshadow Favored Enemy with Favored Foe. That feature is stupidly niche and oftentimes useless.
That was the original opinion but later stated "we won't let old choices inform the new ones" (which sometimes undermines the original opinion about over shadowing). Unfortunately I don't have direct quotes because it was in dragon talk or tod talks or some other YouTube videos With JC . If any one does have the direct quotes I would be grateful.
I think the original PHB classes could be updated easily with spell additions, class restricted magic items and Decent 1/4 Beasts (druids and rangers) to match the power creep of other classes without actually making complicated extra rules. The beachmaster death issues could have been fixed by a ranger specific resurrections spell for only natural born beasts. Of course they kind of tried this with healing spirit but there was a huge outcry against it.
Yeah it's been their way to simply say "y'all can fix it" and basically let homebrew fix their issues.
Healing spirit was just broken as they admitted they didn't expect it to be as potent as it was. They simply didn't see the issue until after print but it took the community a day to see how broken it was.
Overall they need to improve their own in house procedures but they don't seem to want to
I would be perfectly fine if they chose to overshadow Favored Enemy with Favored Foe. That feature is stupidly niche and oftentimes useless.
It seems odd they didn't just come up with a enhancement to those features rather than complete replacement. As it stands now I doubt giving a ranger both Favored Foe and favored enemy would brake anything same for natural explorer and deft explorer.
As most people know I think phb ranger was fine but IMO ...The problems with Favored enemy and favored terrain (and ranger in general )are:
1. Expectation bias. some people feel mislead because the actual abilities don't reflect the idea some people have in their heads. Some people stick to trap options OR some people are told its bad or unusable so they believe it.
2. Its similar to illusions. dm adjudication makes or breaks it for many people even then creativity is a must have. (I've played an illusionist and a ranger with a super strict dm and made it work but its not easy. I also had no table fights either. I just asked "can I use this here?" yes or no. Then move on and try something else)
3. 5e is usually simple and straight forward. Rangers are not. They are difficult to figure out how to use to full potential. Every time someone quotes/ uses an ability you need to review the full text or you'll probably make a mistake or miss a potential benefit.
As most people know I think phb ranger was fine but IMO ...The problems with Favored enemy and favored terrain (and ranger in general )are:
1. Expectation bias. some people feel mislead because the actual abilities don't reflect the idea some people have in their heads. Some people stick to trap options OR some people are told its bad or unusable so they believe it.
2. Its similar to illusions. dm adjudication makes or breaks it for many people even then creativity is a must have. (I've played an illusionist and a ranger with a super strict dm and made it work but its not easy. I also had no table fights either. I just asked "can I use this here?" yes or no. Then move on and try something else)
3. 5e is usually simple and straight forward. Rangers are not. They are difficult to figure out how to use to full potential. Every time someone quotes/ uses an ability you need to review the full text or you'll probably make a mistake or miss a potential benefit.
As most people know I think phb ranger was fine but IMO ...The problems with Favored enemy and favored terrain (and ranger in general )are:
1. Expectation bias. some people feel mislead because the actual abilities don't reflect the idea some people have in their heads. Some people stick to trap options OR some people are told its bad or unusable so they believe it.
2. Its similar to illusions. dm adjudication makes or breaks it for many people even then creativity is a must have. (I've played an illusionist and a ranger with a super strict dm and made it work but its not easy. I also had no table fights either. I just asked "can I use this here?" yes or no. Then move on and try something else)
3. 5e is usually simple and straight forward. Rangers are not. They are difficult to figure out how to use to full potential. Every time someone quotes/ uses an ability you need to review the full text or you'll probably make a mistake or miss a potential benefit.
2 and 3 only proves that it's bad design for the game....
If your main thing can be completely dismissed so easily or is a pain to use then it's not a good fit for the system.
1 is basically true because PHB ranger sells you a faulty bill of goods... To someone who is new it seems interesting but it's ultimately it's not.
As most people know I think phb ranger was fine but IMO ...The problems with Favored enemy and favored terrain (and ranger in general )are:
1. Expectation bias. some people feel mislead because the actual abilities don't reflect the idea some people have in their heads. Some people stick to trap options OR some people are told its bad or unusable so they believe it.
2. Its similar to illusions. dm adjudication makes or breaks it for many people even then creativity is a must have. (I've played an illusionist and a ranger with a super strict dm and made it work but its not easy. I also had no table fights either. I just asked "can I use this here?" yes or no. Then move on and try something else)
3. 5e is usually simple and straight forward. Rangers are not. They are difficult to figure out how to use to full potential. Every time someone quotes/ uses an ability you need to review the full text or you'll probably make a mistake or miss a potential benefit.
1. I agree with the Dungeon Dudes in their ranking system (not always how they rank things, though). They rank a feature/class/subclass lower if it has "trap options", and even lower scores for the more trap options it has. A class/subclass feature is bad if it has more potential to be useless than useful. Favored Enemy is more often useless than useful, and thus is objectively bad. Natural Explorer is more often useless than useful, thus making it an objectively bad feature. Sure, there are situations where the features can be very, very helpful, but more often than not, it's not going to be useful.
2. Illusionists are much more useful overall than Favored Enemy or Natural Explorer. Sure, a lot of their mechanics are open to DM interpretation, but no DM is going to stop you from using phantasmal force from damaging an enemy, as it's literally in the description of the spell. However, most DMs would stop a lot of the things ranger characters want to cheese out of their class mechanics.
3. That makes them bad. If it isn't "straightforward" at how to effectively play the class, it's objectively bad when compared to other classes in 5e.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
As most people know I think phb ranger was fine but IMO ...The problems with Favored enemy and favored terrain (and ranger in general )are:
1. Expectation bias. some people feel mislead because the actual abilities don't reflect the idea some people have in their heads. Some people stick to trap options OR some people are told its bad or unusable so they believe it.
2. Its similar to illusions. dm adjudication makes or breaks it for many people even then creativity is a must have. (I've played an illusionist and a ranger with a super strict dm and made it work but its not easy. I also had no table fights either. I just asked "can I use this here?" yes or no. Then move on and try something else)
3. 5e is usually simple and straight forward. Rangers are not. They are difficult to figure out how to use to full potential. Every time someone quotes/ uses an ability you need to review the full text or you'll probably make a mistake or miss a potential benefit.
1. I agree with the Dungeon Dudes in their ranking system (not always how they rank things, though). They rank a feature/class/subclass lower if it has "trap options", and even lower scores for the more trap options it has. A class/subclass feature is bad if it has more potential to be useless than useful. Favored Enemy is more often useless than useful, and thus is objectively bad. Natural Explorer is more often useless than useful, thus making it an objectively bad feature. Sure, there are situations where the features can be very, very helpful, but more often than not, it's not going to be useful.
2. Illusionists are much more useful overall than Favored Enemy or Natural Explorer. Sure, a lot of their mechanics are open to DM interpretation, but no DM is going to stop you from using phantasmal force from damaging an enemy, as it's literally in the description of the spell. However, most DMs would stop a lot of the things ranger characters want to cheese out of their class mechanics.
3. That makes them bad. If it isn't "straightforward" at how to effectively play the class, it's objectively bad when compared to other classes in 5e.
1. I call bull on traps. Most classes have trap choices. dungeon dudes are ok but not always right and rankings are usually exaggerated for views. plenty of people call those abilities useful enough to call your comment about it being objectively incorrect.
2.One illusionist spell does not make them all great most are just as vague
3. Opinion some people want a little more complexity.
1. I call bull on traps. Most classes have trap choices. dungeon dudes are ok but not always right.
2.One illusionist spell dose not make them all great most are just as vague
3. Opinion
1. That's a statement with no evidence/examples to support it. Most (if not all) classes have some trap options, but rangers have more than almost all of the others. The third statement is literally what I stated in my first post. I don't agree with all of their statements or rankings, but it is correct to say that something with more trap options is objectively worse than something with less/no trap options.
3. No, it's not. 5e's design philosophy is that things should be simple. If something is complex enough that in order to use its full potential you need to figure out how the complex class works, it's objectively badly designed for 5e.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
1. Options are only trap options if the option doesn’t work for anything. DPR combat and a hawk or rat beast aren’t good together. But wilderness scouting is good with a hawk and urban scouting is good for a rat. Perspective.
2. I hate that the internet fears “DM fiat” and “DM adjudication”. Why does everyone have mean adversarial dungeon masters?
3. Perhaps the ranger class is open ended to match the open ended design of exploration in 5E. Perhaps many of the others classes are simple to match the simple and streamlined design of combat in 5E.
1. Options are only trap options if the option doesn’t work for anything. DPR combat and a hawk or rat beast aren’t good together. But wilderness scouting is good with a hawk and urban scouting is good for a rat. Perspective.
2. I hate that the internet fears “DM fiat” and “DM adjudication”. Why does everyone have mean adversarial dungeon masters?
3. Perhaps the ranger class is open ended to match the open ended design of exploration in 5E. Perhaps many of the others classes are simple to match the simple and streamlined design of combat in 5E.
1. No, that is incorrect. Options are trap options if they present themselves as good alternatives to other options, but are actively worse than alternative options. Having your Beast Companion be a axe beak is a trap, as it's on average going to be objectively worse than having a wolf, giant poisonous snake or fastieth Beast Companion.
2. Why don't you have mean Dungeon Masters? I don't know, but they're out there, so it's important to make sure core features don't depend on the DMs interpretations on the rule, or how often they allow a certain feature to be used.
3. Who knows their intentions but WotC? You don't get to speak for them. Warlocks are certainly more complex than almost every other class, and their complexity doesn't make them bad. However, I cannot truthfully say that rangers don't have bad complexity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
1. Maybe. I can see that being a real bummer for a player. It does seem you are still only comparing combat abilities, however. That’s fine. Most people look more at combat than anything. I guess the other players or DM would have a zero chance of helping a new unsuspecting player choose a better option before the game begins. Or, if the trap option was already chosen, I guess there is a zero chance the DM would just tell the player to pick a better option perhaps with some suggestions.
2. That would be ideal. Yes. In my experience, communicating and working with the DM in and for the game has been some of the most enjoyment I’ve gotten out of the games I’ve played, no matter which class I was playing.
3. I honestly don’t think it’s bad or complex. I think it’s open ended and doesn’t pigeon hole the player into only A, B, or C choices. It’s open to creativity. But, I can see how that could be abused, again with a combative DM. I haven’t had the displeasure yet.
1. What else would there be to consider except combat abilities in the thing I mentioned? The Fastieth is objectively better at combat than the Axe Beak. There's no "non-combat abilities" to consider here, really. That's the problem with trap options. They present themselves as good alternatives, but are actually bad in comparison. That's why the new Beast Master stat blocks in Tasha's are much better. They are about equally good in combat, and none of the options are traps. They just have different strengths, that are about equal in comparison. (Also, 5e is balanced around combat features. Comparing an exploration feature to a combat feature in terms of balance is literally like trying to replace the Paladin's apples with Ranger oranges. Sure, maybe oranges can be better in some circumstances, but you cannot balance them against each other. It does not work.)
2. And that is why the Ranger is bad compared to many other classes. If they have features that are more dependent on the DM than other features for other classes, they're objectively worse. The PHB should not be balanced around DM rulings. DM rulings should be dependent on the balance of the PHB. I know DMs that consider the Alchemist Artificer and 4-Elements Monks overpowered, and nerf them into even more of an oblivion that they already were in. The PHB doesn't need to give these DMs more opportunities for nerfing already vulnerable classes/subclasses.
3. And that biases you. You haven't had a bad experience with the Ranger class's mechanics yet, because your DM has been good/allowed you to use your features in the campaign. That makes you feel good about the class, while people who have had bad experiences with the class have the opposite opinion. I've seen you say that people who feel that the Ranger class is bad "is playing it incorrectly". What you don't understand about those people is that they most likely have had a bad experience with the class because they're either new to the game and fell into the trap options or their DM didn't allow for them to properly use their features (or, god forbid, both of these things at once), which made them feel useless and bad.
You haven't had the displeasure of playing in a campaign where your ranger felt useless in comparison to the party's Scout Rogue, Druid, or Paladin. That doesn't mean that there aren't people who have had that experience, and it doesn't mean that their opinion on the class is discredited by your positive experience with the class.
It's great and amazing that you like the class, I like the theme of it too, but you're allowing your biases and positive experiences become a part of your argument. That's fallacious and a bad way of debating. I will direct you to this thread to explain why it's bad to use your personal anecdotes and emotions to argue in the behalf of a class/subclass/any other feature in the game. It ends up making people think you don't care about how they feel, you just care about your experiences, causing them to think you're myopic and don't have empathy for other people's experiences. I'm not accusing you of anything, I just want you to understand why other people do dislike the Ranger class, and why these optional features on Tasha's, while they feel unnecessary to you, are not unnecessary or useless for many 5e tables.
Have a good day, and I'm glad that this discussion has been civil and respectful. I hope you can see my point of view.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
You haven't had the displeasure of playing in a campaign where your ranger felt useless in comparison to the party's Scout Rogue, Druid, or Paladin. That doesn't mean that there aren't people who have had that experience, and it doesn't mean that their opinion on the class is discredited by your positive experience with the class.
It's great and amazing that you like the class, I like the theme of it too, but you're allowing your biases and positive experiences become a part of your argument. That's fallacious and a bad way of debating. I will direct you to this thread to explain why it's bad to use your personal anecdotes and emotions to argue in the behalf of a class/subclass/any other feature in the game. It ends up making people think you don't care about how they feel, you just care about your experiences, causing them to think you're myopic and don't have empathy for other people's experiences. I'm not accusing you of anything, I just want you to understand why other people do dislike the Ranger class, and why these optional features on Tasha's, while they feel unnecessary to you, are not unnecessary or useless for many 5e tables.
Have a good day, and I'm glad that this discussion has been civil and respectful. I hope you can see my point of view.
The same could be said of your negative experiences. You aren't taking into account which options are actually the extremes or are outliers. The average dm makes FE and FT work fine.
I have a dm (LVL5 right now) that wouldn't say a spider was within 5 miles of and underdark dwarven city (using detect creatures). He wouldn't let me use beast sense on a wild shaped druid. He modified fog cloud so all creatures have disadvantage period and must roll randomly to move. I ended up having to roll on a table to see what pet i could find in the forest when a beast companion died(it was a firebeatle generally considered one of the worst options). He wouldn't let my variant human take lucky or magic initiate for find familiar. He has narrative restrictions on multiclassing(wont let me take a Forge cleric level even when Smithing and burring bodies have been part of the character all along. He also has a natural oriented code of ethics that is quotable. That's better than some paladins and clerics I've played with). ..........But I still find away to use Favored enemy or favored terrain every game and I sill find ways to make the animal companion useful even when he rarely attacks.
The same could be said of your negative experiences. You aren't taking into account which options are actually the extremes or are outliers. The average dm makes FE and FT work fine.
Yeah, no. People typically uphold negative experiences more than positive experiences. Imagine if they did it the other way around! Then people would be like "This Radium water only gives some people cancer, so if we just ignore the negative experiences with it, it's perfectly fine to drink!" or "I don't experience racism/sexism, so it must not exist!" (That last one actually does happen, and is a big problem.)
Negative experiences overrule positive ones, especially when the negative experiences are so plentiful.
I have a dm (LVL5 right now) that wouldn't say a spider was within 5 miles of and underdark dwarven city (using detect creatures). He wouldn't let me use beast sense on a wild shaped druid. He modified fog cloud so all creatures have disadvantage period and must roll randomly to move. I ended up having to roll on a table to see what pet i could find in the forest when a beast companion died(it was a firebeatle generally considered one of the worst options). He wouldn't let my variant human take lucky or magic initiate for find familiar. He has narrative restrictions on multiclassing(wont let me take a Forge cleric level even when Smithing and burring bodies have been part of the character all along. He also has a natural oriented code of ethics that is quotable. That's better than some paladins and clerics I've played with). ..........But I still find away to use Favored enemy or favored terrain every game and I sill find ways to make the animal companion useful even when he rarely attacks.
I don't see any feature that should allow you to sense specifically spiders in the game. Beast Sense should work on a wild shaped druid, fog cloud does give disadvantage on attack rolls most of the time due to blindness, but wouldn't do the movement thing. The roll for a pet is fair using the PHB beastmaster (I wouldn't do it, but could see why he did). Restricting certain feats is well within the DMs rights, but I would have allowed Magic Initiate. It's also within his rights to restrict multiclassing, but if you made it a part of your backstory I would have allowed it.
This is all anecdotal experiences that proves my point. DMs rule things weirdly/differently sometimes, and this is even more of a reason why the core ranger features (Natural Explorer, Favored Enemy, Primeval Awareness) should be less open to DM interpretation and less dependent on campaign.
Lay on Hands isn't campaign dependent, it's useful in any campaign where a creature gets hurt (all of them). Divine Sense is partially campaign dependent, but is typically very useful in any campaign with Fiends, Celestials, or Undead (most of them). Divine Health is typically not that useful, but certainly more useful than Primeval Awareness (as it gives a real mechanical benefit, instead of just a "you know something vague" benefit). Second Wind, Action Surge, and all other fighter features are not campaign dependent. Sneak Attack, Cunning Action, Uncanny Dodge, and other Rogue features are not campaign dependent.
The ranger has the most campaign/DM dependent features in the game, which is a huge issue in a lot of campaigns.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
"Yeah, no. People typically uphold negative experiences more than positive experiences."
"Negative experiences overrule positive ones, especially when the negative experiences are so plentiful."
I will respectfully disagree with these above statements. Personal experiences either count and factor in bias not, or they don't and it's all hard math.
The same could be said of your negative experiences. You aren't taking into account which options are actually the extremes or are outliers. The average dm makes FE and FT work fine.
Yeah, no. People typically uphold negative experiences more than positive experiences. Imagine if they did it the other way around! Then people would be like "This Radium water only gives some people cancer, so if we just ignore the negative experiences with it, it's perfectly fine to drink!" or "I don't experience racism/sexism, so it must not exist!" (That last one actually does happen, and is a big problem.)
Negative experiences overrule positive ones, especially when the negative experiences are so plentiful.
I have a dm (LVL5 right now) that wouldn't say a spider was within 5 miles of and underdark dwarven city (using detect creatures). He wouldn't let me use beast sense on a wild shaped druid. He modified fog cloud so all creatures have disadvantage period and must roll randomly to move. I ended up having to roll on a table to see what pet i could find in the forest when a beast companion died(it was a firebeatle generally considered one of the worst options). He wouldn't let my variant human take lucky or magic initiate for find familiar. He has narrative restrictions on multiclassing(wont let me take a Forge cleric level even when Smithing and burring bodies have been part of the character all along. He also has a natural oriented code of ethics that is quotable. That's better than some paladins and clerics I've played with). ..........But I still find away to use Favored enemy or favored terrain every game and I sill find ways to make the animal companion useful even when he rarely attacks.
I don't see any feature that should allow you to sense specifically spiders in the game. Beast Sense should work on a wild shaped druid, fog cloud does give disadvantage on attack rolls most of the time due to blindness, but wouldn't do the movement thing. The roll for a pet is fair using the PHB beastmaster (I wouldn't do it, but could see why he did). Restricting certain feats is well within the DMs rights, but I would have allowed Magic Initiate. It's also within his rights to restrict multiclassing, but if you made it a part of your backstory I would have allowed it.
This is all anecdotal experiences that proves my point. DMs rule things weirdly/differently sometimes, and this is even more of a reason why the core ranger features (Natural Explorer, Favored Enemy, Primeval Awareness) should be less open to DM interpretation and less dependent on campaign.
Lay on Hands isn't campaign dependent, it's useful in any campaign where a creature gets hurt (all of them). Divine Sense is partially campaign dependent, but is typically very useful in any campaign with Fiends, Celestials, or Undead (most of them). Divine Health is typically not that useful, but certainly more useful than Primeval Awareness (as it gives a real mechanical benefit, instead of just a "you know something vague" benefit). Second Wind, Action Surge, and all other fighter features are not campaign dependent. Sneak Attack, Cunning Action, Uncanny Dodge, and other Rogue features are not campaign dependent.
The ranger has the most campaign/DM dependent features in the game, which is a huge issue in a lot of campaigns.
My point was even a super strict dm doesn't treat it as useless and in that situation I still have a working ranger. Mostly because the unique spell casting is a big part of the core ranger. Hunters mark as a prime example (since this is a hunters mark/ Favored Foe thread).
Even then you shouldn't blame the class if your playing with a bad dm that you can't work with. I agree that less open to interpretation would help but when the game (DMG environment lists) specifically call out what terrain creatures belong to people say Favored terrain doesn't apply. In case it wasn't clear, IMO favored terrain and favored enemy are really meant to work together and taking favored foe makes you miss out on that synergy. but if you just can't work with a reasonable dm take FF and DE instead.
Side points
A. I just googled "spiders per square foot" . Earth got an average of 131 Per Square meter sometimes reaching 1000. When I cast "locate animals or plants" (five miles) a single spider should show up.
B. On the fog cloud issue . Most of the time Person A can't see the Person b they are attacking so disadvantage on the attack. Person b Cant see the attack coming so Advantage. Advantage and disadvantage cancel out. making fog cloud useful if you want to take away advantage Or if you have blindsight(Pre-tashas only rangers and druids had reliable blind sight as a class option)
Roscoeivan, you just made an absolute statement based on your personal expereince in "even a super strict DM doesn't treat it as useless". You may have accidentally written this, but that's not true in many cases, it just is for yours. I've had/seen strict DMs that treat it as basically useless.
An effect that relies on the campaign is overall going to be inferior to mechanics that don't rely on the campaign as much. This is objectively true. Magic Missile is going to be useful in every campaign (unless all enemies have at will shield and never use their reaction for anything else), but Favored Enemy won't be useful in every campaign. Thus, Magic Missile is overall superior to Favored Enemy.
Favored Foe works way better than Favored Enemy, even if I hate to admit it, as the capstone ability, which use to be super campaign dependent, is now actually potentially useful in every campaign. However, the main downside to it is that it takes your Concentration, so unlike a level 20 Ranger that has Favored Enemy and is fighting a Favored Enemy, you can't use your capstone ability and Hunter's Mark at the same time.
A. Ah, you mentioned the wrong spell. That should have worked, unless there was a strange effect that killed all spiders in this radius. Even in the Underdark where there are limited resources there probably should have been quite a few spiders.
B. Yes, that is correct. If they ruled automatic advantage on all attacks for creatures without blindsight/truesight/tremorsense, that was an incorrect ruling by RAW. (P.S. Rogues also get blindsight.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
"Yeah, no. People typically uphold negative experiences more than positive experiences."
"Negative experiences overrule positive ones, especially when the negative experiences are so plentiful."
I will respectfully disagree with these above statements. Personal experiences either count and factor in bias not, or they don't and it's all hard math.
No. Like I showed above, a negative experience that takes from the fun of the game overrides an experience that makes the game be fun, in general circumstances. Black people's experience with racism overrides a white person not having experienced it. One person eating a food without listed ingredients and being fine is overridden by a person who was unknowingly allergic to that food eating it. More often than not, negative experiences are more important for system balance and game design than positive experiences.
If they said they don't want to overshadow old choices, they are complete ******* liars. Look at any of Tasha's Sorcerer subclasses and you'll see why. Or, just compare any PHB ranger subclass to any non-PHB ranger subclass.
I would be perfectly fine if they chose to overshadow Favored Enemy with Favored Foe. That feature is stupidly niche and oftentimes useless.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
That was the original opinion but later stated "we won't let old choices inform the new ones" (which sometimes undermines the original opinion about over shadowing). Unfortunately I don't have direct quotes because it was in dragon talk or tod talks or some other YouTube videos With JC . If any one does have the direct quotes I would be grateful.
I think the original PHB classes could be updated easily with spell additions, class restricted magic items and Decent 1/4 Beasts (druids and rangers) to match the power creep of other classes without actually making complicated extra rules. The beachmaster death issues could have been fixed by a ranger specific resurrections spell for only natural born beasts. Of course they kind of tried this with healing spirit but there was a huge outcry against it.
Yeah it's been their way to simply say "y'all can fix it" and basically let homebrew fix their issues.
Healing spirit was just broken as they admitted they didn't expect it to be as potent as it was. They simply didn't see the issue until after print but it took the community a day to see how broken it was.
Overall they need to improve their own in house procedures but they don't seem to want to
It seems odd they didn't just come up with a enhancement to those features rather than complete replacement. As it stands now I doubt giving a ranger both Favored Foe and favored enemy would brake anything same for natural explorer and deft explorer.
As most people know I think phb ranger was fine but IMO ...The problems with Favored enemy and favored terrain (and ranger in general )are:
1. Expectation bias. some people feel mislead because the actual abilities don't reflect the idea some people have in their heads. Some people stick to trap options OR some people are told its bad or unusable so they believe it.
2. Its similar to illusions. dm adjudication makes or breaks it for many people even then creativity is a must have. (I've played an illusionist and a ranger with a super strict dm and made it work but its not easy. I also had no table fights either. I just asked "can I use this here?" yes or no. Then move on and try something else)
3. 5e is usually simple and straight forward. Rangers are not. They are difficult to figure out how to use to full potential. Every time someone quotes/ uses an ability you need to review the full text or you'll probably make a mistake or miss a potential benefit.
This post 100%.
2 and 3 only proves that it's bad design for the game....
If your main thing can be completely dismissed so easily or is a pain to use then it's not a good fit for the system.
1 is basically true because PHB ranger sells you a faulty bill of goods... To someone who is new it seems interesting but it's ultimately it's not.
1. I agree with the Dungeon Dudes in their ranking system (not always how they rank things, though). They rank a feature/class/subclass lower if it has "trap options", and even lower scores for the more trap options it has. A class/subclass feature is bad if it has more potential to be useless than useful. Favored Enemy is more often useless than useful, and thus is objectively bad. Natural Explorer is more often useless than useful, thus making it an objectively bad feature. Sure, there are situations where the features can be very, very helpful, but more often than not, it's not going to be useful.
2. Illusionists are much more useful overall than Favored Enemy or Natural Explorer. Sure, a lot of their mechanics are open to DM interpretation, but no DM is going to stop you from using phantasmal force from damaging an enemy, as it's literally in the description of the spell. However, most DMs would stop a lot of the things ranger characters want to cheese out of their class mechanics.
3. That makes them bad. If it isn't "straightforward" at how to effectively play the class, it's objectively bad when compared to other classes in 5e.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
1. I call bull on traps. Most classes have trap choices. dungeon dudes are ok but not always right and rankings are usually exaggerated for views. plenty of people call those abilities useful enough to call your comment about it being objectively incorrect.
2.One illusionist spell does not make them all great most are just as vague
3. Opinion some people want a little more complexity.
1. That's a statement with no evidence/examples to support it. Most (if not all) classes have some trap options, but rangers have more than almost all of the others. The third statement is literally what I stated in my first post. I don't agree with all of their statements or rankings, but it is correct to say that something with more trap options is objectively worse than something with less/no trap options.
2. That was just an example. Do I need to list all of the options that make illusionists great? (distort value, disguise self, mirror image, fear, hypnotic pattern, phantom steed, greater invisibility, phantasmal killer, mental prison, simulacrum, and illusory dragon are all very good, objectively useful illusion spells, mostly not open to DM interpretation.)
3. No, it's not. 5e's design philosophy is that things should be simple. If something is complex enough that in order to use its full potential you need to figure out how the complex class works, it's objectively badly designed for 5e.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
1. Options are only trap options if the option doesn’t work for anything. DPR combat and a hawk or rat beast aren’t good together. But wilderness scouting is good with a hawk and urban scouting is good for a rat. Perspective.
2. I hate that the internet fears “DM fiat” and “DM adjudication”. Why does everyone have mean adversarial dungeon masters?
3. Perhaps the ranger class is open ended to match the open ended design of exploration in 5E. Perhaps many of the others classes are simple to match the simple and streamlined design of combat in 5E.
1. No, that is incorrect. Options are trap options if they present themselves as good alternatives to other options, but are actively worse than alternative options. Having your Beast Companion be a axe beak is a trap, as it's on average going to be objectively worse than having a wolf, giant poisonous snake or fastieth Beast Companion.
2. Why don't you have mean Dungeon Masters? I don't know, but they're out there, so it's important to make sure core features don't depend on the DMs interpretations on the rule, or how often they allow a certain feature to be used.
3. Who knows their intentions but WotC? You don't get to speak for them. Warlocks are certainly more complex than almost every other class, and their complexity doesn't make them bad. However, I cannot truthfully say that rangers don't have bad complexity.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
1. Maybe. I can see that being a real bummer for a player. It does seem you are still only comparing combat abilities, however. That’s fine. Most people look more at combat than anything. I guess the other players or DM would have a zero chance of helping a new unsuspecting player choose a better option before the game begins. Or, if the trap option was already chosen, I guess there is a zero chance the DM would just tell the player to pick a better option perhaps with some suggestions.
2. That would be ideal. Yes. In my experience, communicating and working with the DM in and for the game has been some of the most enjoyment I’ve gotten out of the games I’ve played, no matter which class I was playing.
3. I honestly don’t think it’s bad or complex. I think it’s open ended and doesn’t pigeon hole the player into only A, B, or C choices. It’s open to creativity. But, I can see how that could be abused, again with a combative DM. I haven’t had the displeasure yet.
1. What else would there be to consider except combat abilities in the thing I mentioned? The Fastieth is objectively better at combat than the Axe Beak. There's no "non-combat abilities" to consider here, really. That's the problem with trap options. They present themselves as good alternatives, but are actually bad in comparison. That's why the new Beast Master stat blocks in Tasha's are much better. They are about equally good in combat, and none of the options are traps. They just have different strengths, that are about equal in comparison.
(Also, 5e is balanced around combat features. Comparing an exploration feature to a combat feature in terms of balance is literally like trying to replace the Paladin's apples with Ranger oranges. Sure, maybe oranges can be better in some circumstances, but you cannot balance them against each other. It does not work.)
2. And that is why the Ranger is bad compared to many other classes. If they have features that are more dependent on the DM than other features for other classes, they're objectively worse. The PHB should not be balanced around DM rulings. DM rulings should be dependent on the balance of the PHB. I know DMs that consider the Alchemist Artificer and 4-Elements Monks overpowered, and nerf them into even more of an oblivion that they already were in. The PHB doesn't need to give these DMs more opportunities for nerfing already vulnerable classes/subclasses.
3. And that biases you. You haven't had a bad experience with the Ranger class's mechanics yet, because your DM has been good/allowed you to use your features in the campaign. That makes you feel good about the class, while people who have had bad experiences with the class have the opposite opinion. I've seen you say that people who feel that the Ranger class is bad "is playing it incorrectly". What you don't understand about those people is that they most likely have had a bad experience with the class because they're either new to the game and fell into the trap options or their DM didn't allow for them to properly use their features (or, god forbid, both of these things at once), which made them feel useless and bad.
You haven't had the displeasure of playing in a campaign where your ranger felt useless in comparison to the party's Scout Rogue, Druid, or Paladin. That doesn't mean that there aren't people who have had that experience, and it doesn't mean that their opinion on the class is discredited by your positive experience with the class.
It's great and amazing that you like the class, I like the theme of it too, but you're allowing your biases and positive experiences become a part of your argument. That's fallacious and a bad way of debating. I will direct you to this thread to explain why it's bad to use your personal anecdotes and emotions to argue in the behalf of a class/subclass/any other feature in the game. It ends up making people think you don't care about how they feel, you just care about your experiences, causing them to think you're myopic and don't have empathy for other people's experiences. I'm not accusing you of anything, I just want you to understand why other people do dislike the Ranger class, and why these optional features on Tasha's, while they feel unnecessary to you, are not unnecessary or useless for many 5e tables.
Have a good day, and I'm glad that this discussion has been civil and respectful. I hope you can see my point of view.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The same could be said of your negative experiences. You aren't taking into account which options are actually the extremes or are outliers. The average dm makes FE and FT work fine.
I have a dm (LVL5 right now) that wouldn't say a spider was within 5 miles of and underdark dwarven city (using detect creatures). He wouldn't let me use beast sense on a wild shaped druid. He modified fog cloud so all creatures have disadvantage period and must roll randomly to move. I ended up having to roll on a table to see what pet i could find in the forest when a beast companion died(it was a firebeatle generally considered one of the worst options). He wouldn't let my variant human take lucky or magic initiate for find familiar. He has narrative restrictions on multiclassing(wont let me take a Forge cleric level even when Smithing and burring bodies have been part of the character all along. He also has a natural oriented code of ethics that is quotable. That's better than some paladins and clerics I've played with). ..........But I still find away to use Favored enemy or favored terrain every game and I sill find ways to make the animal companion useful even when he rarely attacks.
Yeah, no. People typically uphold negative experiences more than positive experiences. Imagine if they did it the other way around! Then people would be like "This Radium water only gives some people cancer, so if we just ignore the negative experiences with it, it's perfectly fine to drink!" or "I don't experience racism/sexism, so it must not exist!" (That last one actually does happen, and is a big problem.)
Negative experiences overrule positive ones, especially when the negative experiences are so plentiful.
I don't see any feature that should allow you to sense specifically spiders in the game. Beast Sense should work on a wild shaped druid, fog cloud does give disadvantage on attack rolls most of the time due to blindness, but wouldn't do the movement thing. The roll for a pet is fair using the PHB beastmaster (I wouldn't do it, but could see why he did). Restricting certain feats is well within the DMs rights, but I would have allowed Magic Initiate. It's also within his rights to restrict multiclassing, but if you made it a part of your backstory I would have allowed it.
This is all anecdotal experiences that proves my point. DMs rule things weirdly/differently sometimes, and this is even more of a reason why the core ranger features (Natural Explorer, Favored Enemy, Primeval Awareness) should be less open to DM interpretation and less dependent on campaign.
Lay on Hands isn't campaign dependent, it's useful in any campaign where a creature gets hurt (all of them). Divine Sense is partially campaign dependent, but is typically very useful in any campaign with Fiends, Celestials, or Undead (most of them). Divine Health is typically not that useful, but certainly more useful than Primeval Awareness (as it gives a real mechanical benefit, instead of just a "you know something vague" benefit). Second Wind, Action Surge, and all other fighter features are not campaign dependent. Sneak Attack, Cunning Action, Uncanny Dodge, and other Rogue features are not campaign dependent.
The ranger has the most campaign/DM dependent features in the game, which is a huge issue in a lot of campaigns.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
"Yeah, no. People typically uphold negative experiences more than positive experiences."
"Negative experiences overrule positive ones, especially when the negative experiences are so plentiful."
I will respectfully disagree with these above statements. Personal experiences either count and factor in bias not, or they don't and it's all hard math.
My point was even a super strict dm doesn't treat it as useless and in that situation I still have a working ranger. Mostly because the unique spell casting is a big part of the core ranger. Hunters mark as a prime example (since this is a hunters mark/ Favored Foe thread).
Even then you shouldn't blame the class if your playing with a bad dm that you can't work with. I agree that less open to interpretation would help but when the game (DMG environment lists) specifically call out what terrain creatures belong to people say Favored terrain doesn't apply. In case it wasn't clear, IMO favored terrain and favored enemy are really meant to work together and taking favored foe makes you miss out on that synergy. but if you just can't work with a reasonable dm take FF and DE instead.
Side points
A. I just googled "spiders per square foot" . Earth got an average of 131 Per Square meter sometimes reaching 1000. When I cast "locate animals or plants" (five miles) a single spider should show up.
B. On the fog cloud issue . Most of the time Person A can't see the Person b they are attacking so disadvantage on the attack. Person b Cant see the attack coming so Advantage. Advantage and disadvantage cancel out. making fog cloud useful if you want to take away advantage Or if you have blindsight(Pre-tashas only rangers and druids had reliable blind sight as a class option)
Roscoeivan, you just made an absolute statement based on your personal expereince in "even a super strict DM doesn't treat it as useless". You may have accidentally written this, but that's not true in many cases, it just is for yours. I've had/seen strict DMs that treat it as basically useless.
An effect that relies on the campaign is overall going to be inferior to mechanics that don't rely on the campaign as much. This is objectively true. Magic Missile is going to be useful in every campaign (unless all enemies have at will shield and never use their reaction for anything else), but Favored Enemy won't be useful in every campaign. Thus, Magic Missile is overall superior to Favored Enemy.
Favored Foe works way better than Favored Enemy, even if I hate to admit it, as the capstone ability, which use to be super campaign dependent, is now actually potentially useful in every campaign. However, the main downside to it is that it takes your Concentration, so unlike a level 20 Ranger that has Favored Enemy and is fighting a Favored Enemy, you can't use your capstone ability and Hunter's Mark at the same time.
A. Ah, you mentioned the wrong spell. That should have worked, unless there was a strange effect that killed all spiders in this radius. Even in the Underdark where there are limited resources there probably should have been quite a few spiders.
B. Yes, that is correct. If they ruled automatic advantage on all attacks for creatures without blindsight/truesight/tremorsense, that was an incorrect ruling by RAW. (P.S. Rogues also get blindsight.)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
No. Like I showed above, a negative experience that takes from the fun of the game overrides an experience that makes the game be fun, in general circumstances. Black people's experience with racism overrides a white person not having experienced it. One person eating a food without listed ingredients and being fine is overridden by a person who was unknowingly allergic to that food eating it. More often than not, negative experiences are more important for system balance and game design than positive experiences.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms