Technically a creature has to use its action to eat a goodberry but most dms allow feeding 1 berry per action.
By technically do you mean by RAW?
This also doesn't answer what the feeding rule is.
Also, I'd like to go to the point where you talked about 70% of combat spells being verbal, even discounting healing I still don't see how it makes up 70%?
By raw the spell says a creature has to eat it themselves. Feeding rule is just "you can feed a goodberry to a unconscious creature for one action" Just like a potion.
as for the 70% I was a rounding. In one game (adventures league) my ranger never cast any spell except huntersmark or ensnaring stike up to level 4. I continued to play till level 7. Those spells + cross bow expert left me out damaging the rest of the party Up to level 4. At level 4 a ranger only has 3 spell slots if you have two or 3 combats per long rest 1 hunters mark per combat 1 of the three saved for back up healing. after 4 fights got harder and the party changed I had to heal slightly more often. We had 3 tables running AL in our local store for about three years. another ranger said the same. Zephyr strike and hunters mark were all he used then he multi-classed monk for some weirdness. We had another ranger female ranger near the end about season 6 and I was dm she only used one spell slot a session. When you have so few slots you tend to save them For huntersmark and emergency escape. When many of the spells can be duplicated by checks you tend to try those first. even if you have a poor stat you can use a spell to cover your weaknesses it but with a roll of a d20 there's always(within reason) a chance of success. some rangers dump int, some dump wis, some start with 12 dex(especially now tashas is out and wis ranger is viable) the spells are usually just there to cover the skill gaps if they come up.
By raw the spell says a creature has to eat it themselves. Feeding rule is just "you can feed a goodberry to a unconscious creature for one action" Just like a potion.
as for the 70% I was a rounding. In one game (adventures league) my ranger never cast any spell except huntersmark or ensnaring stike up to level 4. I continued to play till level 7. Those spells + cross bow expert left me out damaging the rest of the party Up to level 4. At level 4 a ranger only has 3 spell slots if you have two or 3 combats per long rest 1 hunters mark per combat 1 of the three saved for back up healing. after 4 fights got harder and the party changed I had to heal slightly more often. We had 3 tables running AL in our local store for about three years. another ranger said the same. Zephyr strike and hunters mark were all he used then he multi-classed monk for some weirdness. We had another ranger female ranger near the end about season 6 and I was dm she only used one spell slot a session. When you have so few slots you tend to save them For huntersmark and emergency escape. When many of the spells can be duplicated by checks you tend to try those first. even if you have a poor stat you can use a spell to cover your weaknesses it but with a roll of a d20 there's always(within reason) a chance of success. some rangers dump int, some dump wis, some start with 12 dex(especially now tashas is out and wis ranger is viable) the spells are usually just there to cover the skill gaps if they come up.
Rounding what? You mean, pulling numbers out of nowhere?
I think you're misconstruing a few things here. Tracking a goat and tracking a satyr are two different types of creatures and that's where Favored Enemy comes in. They might have similar, if not identical, hoofprints, but their gait would be different simply by virtue of being bipedal. Heck, variant tieflings (SCAG) can also have cloven feet, so there are at least three options. Having advantage is independent from doubling one's proficiency bonus.
What Natural Explorer does is...okay, here's an example. If you choose "forest" and are proficient in Religion, then you functionally have expertise in general forest deities and possibly those of the forest's denizens. If elves or goblins live there, then you're familiar with those as well. If you were proficient in History, then you'd stand a better chance of recalling lore about heraldry, battlefields, lost cities, or ancient beasties who nested there but terrorized the surrounding region hundreds of years ago. And you don't have to actually be in the chosen terrain for those benefits to kick in. You just get a host of other benefits if you also happen to be there.
If the chosen terrain was instead "the underdark" then you would be especially knowledgeable of drow and duergar religion and history, mind flayers, etc.
I don't consider the word "related" to be vague, at all. If anything, it's incredibly generous and easily applicable. So long as the ranger is proficient in a breadth of Intelligence or Wisdom skills, they reap ridiculously strong benefits. The more, the better.
That said, I could go down your questions, one-by-one, and answer them as I would at my table. But I also feel like they're, rather deliberately, geared towards not being helpful discussion.
Yes you are correct in that the double proficiency and the advantage are separate and should be applied independently but they can still both apply to the same skill. Its all dependent on your view of related which is used both in Favored enemy and favored terrain.
You pointed out that your knowledge of a forest society is beneficial but skipped some of the more frequently used skills. Investigation, Insight, perception and medicine. My knowledge of the satyr society would make me better at telling if its lying or read clues to anger, embarrassment, grief or excitement. How about medicine checks? A creature can be stabilized with a medicine check. No medicine kit needed. You could know common cures or treatments most likely to have the best affect on creatures in the area. In each medicine check both favored terrain and favored enemy need to be considered. A for Beasmaster ranger its extra important to be granted one or both FE and FT if you need to stabilize your pet.
This interaction makes the skilled feat more powerful for the ranger class than any other which many consider a feat to never take.
All This should be brought up in a discussion on ranger. A dm and a player need to be able to ask the right questions and process them. My questions were examples leading to a train of thought showing how easily its core abilities are dismissed by many. However there is both the overlap and separation of the two abilities. It also shows how some would just automatically not think one would apply when it should or when your first thought was Favored enemy when you should actually be considering the terrain bonus. Playing rangers change they way you think about skills. To me this is very poignant in a post about the definitive ranger Guide.
Yes, the skilled feat becomes much more powerful in the hands of a ranger. That should go without saying, and I'm disappointed (though not surprised) so many online guides ignore it. And the ones that don't ignore it also don't recognize it's usefulness to Natural Explorer, but I digress. Let's look at each of those skills, shall we?
Intelligence
Arcana: recall lore about magical creatures, like satyrs, that you might find in a forest, as well as magical locations like stone circles and portals to other planes like the feywild. A good, specific example might be the banshee, Agatha, in Neverwinter Wood; near Conyberry.
History: recall lore about civilizations that lived there at one point, such as the elven city of Sharandar in Neverwinter Wood.
Investigation: knowing how to read the terrain to discern what happened, much like Aragorn in The Two Towers when searching for Merry and Pippin.
Nature: recall lore about the plants, animals, and weather and climate patterns of the forest. A kind DM might also include monstrosities like owlbears.
Religion: recall lore about religions tied to the forest, such as different forest deities, and how to properly identify and venerate them.
Wisdom
Animal Handling: intuiting a native animal's intentions and possibly also guiding them to a desired course of action. But it's a social skill.
Insight: intuiting the intentions of intelligent beings. But, like Animal Handling, it's also a social skill.
Medicine: readily identifying plants that can be used to make poultices or otherwise aid an injured person.
Perception: your intimate knowledge of the terrain allows you to more easily know when something is out of place.
Survival: you're better at finding food and tracking targets through the terrain.
So, of those 10 skills, I think 8 are easily identifiable as applying to Natural Explorer. It shouldn't even be a question. And the two that are "iffy" are still on the ranger's skill list. Yes, some official guidance would be much appreciated. While I enjoy the freedom that was lacking in earlier editions, I do think WotC has been far too hands-off this time around. As a DM, I often feel left out in the lurch when it comes to having the tools to do what I want. Which forces me to convert and/or look up retro-clones, but I digress.
The player needs to say what they want to do, and the DM adjudicates what is rolled. This is true for every class and ability check or saving throw, no matter the class. The DM is even encouraged to mix and match skill proficiencies and the abilities used with them. And this is called out in the PHB, as well, which means the player knows it's a possibility. If the player makes a good case for it, the DM should allow it.
I don't expect the books to hold our hands. They rely on "natural language", so we should be able to intuit it ourselves. But I get the frustration.
Barkskin is not for the ranger anyways, it's to raise the ac of especially npc's.
A ranged ranger is far superior to sword+shield, and two weapon fighters. Seeing as the strongest defensive spell a ranger has, absorb elements, cannot be used unless you drop a feat into war caster.
Seeing as below level 10 rangers get 2 asi's with sharpshooter, alert, and dex increases being far higher priority to war caster, the melee ranger is severely handicapped.
Feats are optional rules. You only need one free hand to cast the spell as a reaction, and there are lots of ways to do this. Wielding a single weapon and no shield is one of them. If an Eldritch Knight can do it, then so can a ranger.
By raw the spell says a creature has to eat it themselves. Feeding rule is just "you can feed a goodberry to a unconscious creature for one action" Just like a potion.
as for the 70% I was a rounding. In one game (adventures league) my ranger never cast any spell except huntersmark or ensnaring stike up to level 4. I continued to play till level 7. Those spells + cross bow expert left me out damaging the rest of the party Up to level 4. At level 4 a ranger only has 3 spell slots if you have two or 3 combats per long rest 1 hunters mark per combat 1 of the three saved for back up healing. after 4 fights got harder and the party changed I had to heal slightly more often. We had 3 tables running AL in our local store for about three years. another ranger said the same. Zephyr strike and hunters mark were all he used then he multi-classed monk for some weirdness. We had another ranger female ranger near the end about season 6 and I was dm she only used one spell slot a session. When you have so few slots you tend to save them For huntersmark and emergency escape. When many of the spells can be duplicated by checks you tend to try those first. even if you have a poor stat you can use a spell to cover your weaknesses it but with a roll of a d20 there's always(within reason) a chance of success. some rangers dump int, some dump wis, some start with 12 dex(especially now tashas is out and wis ranger is viable) the spells are usually just there to cover the skill gaps if they come up.
Rounding what? You mean, pulling numbers out of nowhere?
2 out of 3 is 66%. 3 out of 4 is 75% Actual play numbers. for at least 3 rangers. different players. It seems to scale that way up to at least 10. 2 or 3 basic attack spells per utility. Assuming a well rounded party. I could try and go through my roll20 logs and try to check off every ranger spell used for a fourth character but he has ritual caster druid. The point is still the same. Hunters mark or and BA Damage spell will be used more often than utility. Not a huge data set but by 10 you only have 9 slots so other players can't be far off. Some rangers they can only cast verbal spells because they are always dual wielding making their Numbers closer to 100% some like beasmasters cast more healing but those still seem to average out.
There's nothing in the description of Favored Enemy that suggests the creatures of which you have special knowledge have to actually be your enemies (except the name). So... maybe you're just really into them. Maybe you have a special affinity. Maybe you've lived among them, and they're your allies.
Building a Drakewarden? Take dragons. Now you're an expert on dragons. You know tons of lore about them, you speak their language, you know where they live and how to find them. There's nothing that says you have to kill them. Your job might be specifically to try to work with them in some way, or to try to talk evil dragons into not destroying villages, or who knows what else? The one I built works for a draconid rescue organisation; they take in injured, sick, or elderly draconids and treat them, care for abandoned eggs and youngsters, &c. They love dragons.
Fey Wanderer? Same thing. You're familiar with their tricksy nature, you recognise signs of Fey handiwork, and you know how to talk to them. If your party finds itself dealing with a difficult Fey, you're well set to negotiate an outcome that's beneficial to both sides.
You could just as easily have started out as an anthropologist who lived among Goblinoids, studying their culture and craftsmanship, or an orphaned Gnome raised by Orcs, or a Dwarvish stonemason who's spent their career studying architecture among the Elves.
The difficulty some have mentioned of needing to find the favored "enemy" to make use of the feature is only difficult if the creature you choose doesn't appear much in your DM's world -- and the obvious solution to that is to talk to your DM ahead of time and make sure that the creatures you choose are ones your party will encounter reasonably often. It's no different than checking with your DM about what races or alignments may be a poor fit in their game. You should approach Natural Explorer the same way -- ask your DM what sort of environment you'll be spending the most time in, because that's the one you should take.
There's nothing in the description of Favored Enemy that suggests the creatures of which you have special knowledge have to actually be your enemies (except the name). So... maybe you're just really into them. Maybe you have a special affinity. Maybe you've lived among them, and they're your allies.
Building a Drakewarden? Take dragons. Now you're an expert on dragons. You know tons of lore about them, you speak their language, you know where they live and how to find them. There's nothing that says you have to kill them. Your job might be specifically to try to work with them in some way, or to try to talk evil dragons into not destroying villages, or who knows what else? The one I built works for a draconid rescue organisation; they take in injured, sick, or elderly draconids and treat them, care for abandoned eggs and youngsters, &c. They love dragons.
Fey Wanderer? Same thing. You're familiar with their tricksy nature, you recognise signs of Fey handiwork, and you know how to talk to them. If your party finds itself dealing with a difficult Fey, you're well set to negotiate an outcome that's beneficial to both sides.
You could just as easily have started out as an anthropologist who lived among Goblinoids, studying their culture and craftsmanship, or an orphaned Gnome raised by Orcs, or a Dwarvish stonemason who's spent their career studying architecture among the Elves.
The difficulty some have mentioned of needing to find the favored "enemy" to make use of the feature is only difficult if the creature you choose doesn't appear much in your DM's world -- and the obvious solution to that is to talk to your DM ahead of time and make sure that the creatures you choose are ones your party will encounter reasonably often. It's no different than checking with your DM about what races or alignments may be a poor fit in their game. You should approach Natural Explorer the same way -- ask your DM what sort of environment you'll be spending the most time in, because that's the one you should take.
This. I have suggested on several occasions that a beast master should take Favored enemy:beasts to use on his companions and mounts. So they will make it useful. Most people wouldn't believe this but I actually prefer to build a ranger before knowing the module or campaign setting. I don't believe the dm should cater to the ranger forcing FT-or-FE to be useful. The ranger should be seeking the opportunities to make it useful. a Beast master should always buy a spare chicken in town(Animal messanger or wolf food ..either work). Maybe a mule (only horse like mount a bm can use as a backup if my snake dies). I once walked into a poor town and paid the kids a silver each to bring me pets and bugs they were willing to sell. I then showed the kids how to Take care of the things they caught so the next time I came through they would have Better stuff to sell.
once walked into a poor town and paid the kids a silver each to bring me pets and bugs they were willing to sell. I then showed the kids how to Take care of the things they caught so the next time I came through they would have Better stuff to sell.
That's brilliant! I'm going to have to keep that idea in reserve, because I love playing Rangers.
Thematically the ranger is meant to be a master of the wilderness, fighting evil on the frontiers of civilization, in tune with nature and all its marvels, able to commune with beasts and plants alike, a master of stealth and a survivor par excellence. This sounds pretty awesome, actually, this is exactly why you should play the Ranger, because thematically the Ranger (in my incredibly biased opinion) is the absolute best class, the bee’s knees of D&D.
Not the best class objectively, but if it is for you, that's great. My personal favorite class thematically is either the Warlock, Sorcerer, or Artificer (currently leaning towards artificer).
Thematically is there an objective best class? I don't think we can determine that, so this one is entirely subjective, which is what I stated. Thematically the Warlock (for me) does absolutely nothing, and the Sorcerer and Artificer are not far behind. But that's the beauty of it all.
But, the Ranger's theme can be a problem as well, because quite often the Ranger evokes a feeling of being a tough loner. Someone who is off by themselves because the Ranger is so awesome, so good at what they do, that they don’t actually need anyone else. Why is this problematic? Because D&D at its core, in my opinion, is designed to be a social game. You always have at the back of your mind that classic party of four archetypes - Fighter (Ranger), Rogue (another Ranger), Cleric (Ranger with healing spells), and a Wizard (Ranger who has splashed out into 19 levels of Wizard). The classes don’t matter so much as the number four. This means that a lot of what the Ranger is thematically good at doesn't necessarily always translate into a party. I'm not by any means saying that they don't mechanically fit in, but they're often playing the role of forward scout and that silent brooding character in the corner who is wondering why they're caught up in this fiendish (if I have favoured enemy fiend can I destroy this faster?) hovel of a tavern and could the Paladin please stop waffling on about whatever righteous cause they're on about now, the bar staff really have better things to do like advance the damned plot. Sometimes you just might feel constrained by the boundaries of the party and the game. Yes, you can play solo or duo campaigns with a willing DM, but often you want your friends involved because you're human, and that's ok, you can't help that.
This is an issue that a couple other classes have, too. They cover such a large spectrum of the classic "class roles" that it makes it difficult to find characters equally as interesting and helpful to the party. Paladins fill the role of the Fighter (Smite! Smite! Smite! It's a paladin smite!), Cleric (they have more support/healing spells/features than rangers), and can fill part of the role of the Rogue if they focus on Dexterity (and of course can fill the role of the Wizards with a homebrew Arcane subclass or by multiclassing into wizard for some reason). Druids can fill the role of a Fighter (with either minions or through wild shape), cleric (with healing/resurrection spells), wizard (with summoning/transportation/evocation/control spells like Summon Beast/Fey, Transport Via Plants, Call Lightning, and Plant Growth). Artificers can fill the role of Fighter (as an Armorer or Battle Smith), Cleric (with healing and support spells/infusions, especially as an Alchemist/Battle Smith), Rogue (with thieves' tools, normally good dexterity, illusion spells, and homunculi), and wizards (through arcane magic, especially as an Artillerist).
Rangers aren't unique in the fact that they can/do cover a broad range of archetypes of play at the same time, but there aren't that many classes that can do this.
I assume that this was in regards to my party of 4 Rangers? That was meant to be a joke, but yes, there is a lot of overlap between class roles and the way you design/create a character can take them in different directions from someone else's, which is a good thing. Some classes are definitely more flexible than others, the Artificer can really fill a lot of roles.
Favoured Enemy
Favoured enemy allows one choice of favoured enemy (two specific choices if you're hating on humanoids {you probably should, they're terrible people}) at levels 1, 6, & 14. You get bonuses to tracking these enemies, bonuses to recalling information about them, and you learn a language. Thematically this is great, you grew up as a young bugbear where humans repeatedly attacked your home, murdering your loved ones, just because some unimaginative deity of the rules branded you Chaotic Evil. This lead your tribe deeper into the caves and tunnels in the mountains where you had to contest with the equally maligned orcs, so your formative years were spent studying humans and orcs, defending your peaceful tribe from their predations. As a result, you chose them as your favoured enemy, and you learnt to speak the orc language to better understand your enemies (you already knew common, the language of the prejudiced humans). At level 6 and 14 this doesn't stack up as well, but consider what you've been encountering in your adventures and you can easily justify new favoured enemies.
The problem with favoured enemy is that for a signature ability it is quite niche, and if you're not facing your enemies it doesn't do anything. It does require a DM who is conscious of the threats they're throwing at you to make it worthwhile. If you're playing a premade campaign mileage will vary, playing a campaign with a curious number of giants and you didn't take giant? Cheer up, there's always level 6. But if you did take giant, well now we're cooking with magic!
Probably one of the most overlooked aspects of this is the ability to eventually learn three languages, which can put you to the forefront of social aspects if no-one else is able to communicate, and can be excellent for listening to enemy plans or deciphering their maps/puzzles/traps.
Okay, let's break this down a bit:
YES! It is very, very thematic and cool, and make you 100% want to play a ranger as soon as you read the feature . . . 's title and fluff text. Once you read the mechanics, you're going to immediately think "that's it?!?!?!"
Again, that is correct, but I don't think you went into the feature's faults enough. Even if you are lucky enough to play in a campaign where you are regularly facing off against your favored enemies (which is extremely rare, IME), this feature grants you no benefit for fighting your favored enemies until level 20 (and even then it is only once a turn). Also, a DM should not have to spoil the enemies of the campaign or allow the ranger to choose the enemies of the campaign in order for one of its core class features to function. This is one of the core reasons why Favored Enemy is a problem and why it is one of the most poorly thought out and designed features in all of 5e.
In my experience with playing a ranger and playing alongside a ranger is that this is the most effective mechanical bonus that this whole feature gives you, and that's not saying much. Wizards have the ability to cast comprehend languages as a ritual at level 1, which would help with the deciphering aspect of this feature.
Overall, is this feature thematic and cool as hell? YES! Is it a good feature? No. Not even close. In most cases that I have seen, this feature has been effectively slightly more useful than Thieves' Cant/Druidic in a campaign.
Yes, I agree, once you read the ability you're underwhelmed.
I have been advised that I did not present the weaknesses perhaps as fully as I should, although the idea was to try to focus more on the positives. I totally agree that the DM shouldn't have to prime you beforehand, this ability should be good regardless of DM intervention, but it often isn't. The only part I disagree with is that it is a problem that it doesn't benefit you in combat until level 20 (more on that later), it shouldn't need to be, even though a lot of parties are combat focused, but it should be more useful more of the time.
It is a real shame isn't it? They put so many languages and options to learn languages in the game, but then there is an easily accessible spell that invalidates it all? The game may as well not have languages to be honest, but in a party where you don't have access to the spell this part of the feature is actually useful (sometimes).
It does vary in usage, and thankfully it is better than Thieves' Cant and Druidic, but I do agree this is not a well designed feature, or that exploration in D&D 5e is not very rewarding, take your pick.
Natural Explorer
Natural explorer allows you one choice of natural environment at levels 1, 6, & 10. You get bonuses when travelling within this environment to tracking other creatures, moving through difficult terrain, you can't get lost, you're always alert, you can find more food, and best of all when you're travelling alone you are able to be stealthy and not move at a crawl. Plus, when you're making certain checks related to your chosen environment your proficiency bonus is doubled. Once again this is thematically spot on for the Ranger because all that time you spent tracking and foraging in the underdark for your tribe as the humans laid waste to your ancestral home above ground actually has some real payoff. Even better is that the Ranger grows into other environments as they level, and it is a very natural flow on effect. You've left the underdark to claim back the mountains and now you get benefits when within them. Very neat.
Natural explorer does unfortunately suffer at being niche again, so it does need your DM to be aware of where you are. Just like favoured enemy if the campaign is in desert and you chose underdark, well you always have level 6. But if you already have it, you'll be indispensable to the party (you already are because you're a Ranger, but you'll be more indispensable).
Yes, like Favored Enemy, it's very thematic for the ranger. However, just like Favored Enemy, the niche parts of the feature will make the whole of it (and the Ranger class) much less appealing.
Again, like Favored Enemy, there is the big problem of the DM having to either tell the ranger where the campaign is taking place or basing the setting off of the character's choice of favored terrain. This a bit more acceptable, as it's much more likely and acceptable for the DM to tell the environment of the campaign before the game begins than to tell the main enemies of the campaign, but is still an issue for campaigns where you don't determine the setting until after the characters are made or if the campaign spans multiple different environments.
Overall, this feature is generally more useful than Favored Enemy in my experience, but still has the flaw of being way more campaign dependent than almost any other feature in the game. Divine Sense and Lay on Hands are way less campaign dependent than level one for a ranger. The same applies to the first level features of the Rogue, Fighter, Druid, and Monk classes, which are all similar in ways to this class.
Agreed.
For sure, and I think that even if you don't see your favoured terrain very often this feature is still better than favoured enemy.
Ranger features, through whatever design philosophy WotC used, tend to be overly niche. Maybe they rolled disadvantage when creating it?
Spellcasting
As if a fighting style wasn't enough you also manage to learn some spells at level 2, which is an amazing boon. I’m not going to go into spellcasting in depth but suffice to say a lot of your spells are nature related, which stands to reason, and there are some very cool picks in there. Your spellcasting ability is based on your wisdom score, so it is useful to keep in the back of the mind whilst creating the character.
Two things which are important to remember here though are the aforementioned dreaded 5e action economy (a lot of spells have a cast time of a bonus action, which prevents you from using other bonus action features you may have), and concentration (much like your bonus action spells, a lot of the “cooler” combat spells require concentration, and as we all know you can only concentrate on one spell/feature at a time). Your spell slots are limited, however, and you’re already a beast in combat, so take something fun and creative, don’t be constrained by the need to do that extra damage in combat. Play with utility in mind, and don’t be afraid to burn spell slots, often it is better to cast a spell than to hold onto it and at end of day still have spells remaining. Every spell slot uncast is a wasted opportunity.
Yes, this is a good feature (spellcasting rarely isn't), but has major flaws. The main one is that practically every cool ranger combat spell is concentration, and most often you're going to be ignoring the more cool ones in exchange for Hunter's Mark. (Favored ****ing Foe makes this even more of a problem.) The other main issue with this is that many of the spells are bonus action dependent, which interferes with a major archetypal fighting style of rangers, which is Two-Weapon Fighting.
Yep, I did mention both of those issues. I've always disliked that two-weapon fighting was seen as a major archetypal fighting style of Rangers because of one popular character, so I wasn't sad to see it go from that sense, but I was sad to see that something that was more unique to the Ranger got binned.
Primaeval Awareness
This ability is once again a niche ability which doesn’t see a huge amount of opportunity for use, and even when it is used it isn’t necessarily going to give you the answer you seek. However, it can be incredibly handy if used in the right situation, and may give you important information that you wouldn’t have garnered otherwise. The humans you’ve been stalking recently have been talking about a new threat, even greater than them, and you sensed something amiss but couldn’t quite put your finger on it. Using your connection with nature you sense something very unnatural, an aberration, in your domain. You know it is time to prepare for this newer, greater threat, time to track it, discover why it is here, and put an end to it.
This ability definitely reads underwhelmingly at first, but the more you use it and familiarise yourself with its intricacies (e.g., it lasts for a minute per spell slot used, so movement in this time changes the centre of the radius, which can narrow down the location of any stationary creatures) the better use you will get out of it.
It can be useful in certain circumstances, but in most campaigns that I've played in, it is never used (and when it is, it doesn't help at all and ends up just being a waste of spell slots). The huge range of it (which gets even larger in your difficult terrain to the disadvantage of the player) and it not letting you know where the enemies are or how many there are makes it infuriatingly useless. This is like a huge ranged Divine Sense, but it requires spell slots, gets worse in the places that it should be better for you, and tells you absolutely nothing useful about the creatures, other than that they are there. If this ability had a range of 60 or 120 feet, it would be way more useful than it currently is. At least that would let you know whether or not you could be in danger. As currently written, it's like a Fire Fighter asking a supercomputer if there were dangerous fires within 6 miles of them, where they are, and how many there are, and the computer replying "THERE IS FIRE WITHIN 6 MILES OF YOU". . . . That's just not useful in most circumstances. Like I said, it's "infuriatingly useless". (TCoE's replacement feature for this is way better, btw.)
My suggestion for the best use of this feature is to not use this feature and to replace it with Primal Awareness. It's way, way, way better, and actually lets you do ranger-y things without having to give up other less-vaguely ranger-y things.
It's infuriatingly useless, and I would not try to pretend otherwise. There are already spells like this that take spell slots and tell you basically the exact same thing, but this takes up the slot of a class feature. Just use Primal Awareness. It clears up any headaches for the DM and any disappointment/frustration from the player's side.
It is, unfortunately, somehow even more niche than FE and NE, which is impressive in itself.
This was focusing on PHB content, but yes, the Tasha's replacement blows this out of the water.
It is infuriating, and more often than not useless, but it can sometimes help in the right circumstances (just like FE and NE).
Land’s Stride
Land’s Stride, which you gain at level 8, allows you to ignore non-magical difficult terrain, move through plants, and avoid taking damage from plants. On top of that (if it needed more) you gain advantage on saves against magical plants created to impede movement. This is very in tune with the Ranger’s overall theme, you can move through the wilderness almost as if it wasn’t there, and you can easily escape the clutches of enemies in combat by using this terrain to your advantage. You quickly strike against the raider’s archers before dashing off into the undergrowth, the heavily armoured foes unable to catch you with their clumsy swings.
This feature is useful. I'm not saying it's not useful. However, if you compare it to any feature of a similar class of a similar level, it quickly becomes abundantly clear how underwhelming it is. Monks and Rogues get Evasion at level 7, which fits the theme of this class amazingly well and is instead put into an option inside of an option at a much later level (Hunter subclass level 15 ability). I mean, look at how amazingly useful Aura of Protection, Evasion, Indomitable, and Expertise are. Druids get to freaking turn into an CR 1 beast of their choice, including ones that have wings at this level, TWICE A SHORT REST! In comparison, this just isn't "all that". It's a nice boost that could have easily been moved to a subclass or feat and been just as useful (like Land Druids have an identical feature that they get at level 6).
It is still niche, still DM dependent, which is playing to the Ranger's strengths! I agree that if you compare it to other classes options around the same level it doesn't necessarily stack up, but compared to other features the Ranger has, this is a real winner. The biggest problem with comparing features across is that there are so many options to consider (including the Ranger having recently good frontloaded archetypes), which makes it harder to really judge. That said, the relative dearth of quality in other base Ranger abilities does impact judgement of this quite a bit. The fact that this is coupled with an ASI is a mark in its favour.
Hide in Plain Sight
At 10 level you gain the ability to hide in plain sight by pressing yourself up against a solid surface, such as a tree or a wall, provided prior to this you have spent a single minute camouflaging yourself. This gives you a significant bonus to stealth checks provided you do not move or take actions, once you do in order to hide this way again you need to spend another minute preparing again. After ambushing the orc patrol, you race through the tunnels to what you know is a dead end, but you quickly apply soot and dirt and press hard against the wall, as the last straggler passes, oblivious to your presence, you reach out and silence it for good before racing back down the other direction.
The boost here is significant, which means it will need some bad luck on your behalf and good luck on the enemy’s in order for you to fail. The interesting thing about this ability is it doesn’t specify how long after the camouflage is applied that you need to attempt to hide. I have seen some interpretations be very liberal with the timeframe, which means that in the right circumstances you can easily use this once in most combats provided you have spent a minute preparing sometime prior, however it will most likely be something you need to discuss with your DM (if there is an official ruling somewhere could you please point me to it).
This is another very thematic ability! Yay! Unfortunately, it's just as mechanically lacking as Favored Enemy, Favored Foe, Natural Explorer, and Primeval Awareness. BOO!
First, this ability encourages you to be a loner. This feature cannot be applied to your allies, only to you. Second, it holds just as much logic as this scene from the Hunger Games. How are you freaking camouflaging yourself when you can't see yourself to merge with your environment?!?! Third, you must hide, as the bonus to Stealth only applies if you take the Hide action to actually roll Stealth in the first place. Fourth, you must have access to materials to disguise yourself in the first place! Why can't it just be an illusion, goddammit?!?! That would fit the magical theme much better and actually make some bit of sense. Fifth, it grants you a bonus to Stealth that is probably going to be useless. Rangers are already highly encouraged to have high Dexterity and Stealth, so at this level if you designed your character competently, you should have at least a +9 bonus to Stealth (or +13 if you have Expertise).
Just take Nature's Veil. It at least can be used in combat and can get you out of hairy situations. It sucks that it doesn't allow you to at least attack before the invisibility wears off, but otherwise it's a very, very good replacement for this feature.
Yep, thematically the Ranger has very strong abilities, functionally it is not amazing, the everlasting curse of the 5e Ranger.
Yep, I touched on that a little in the theme section, the Ranger is often seen as a loner, and this is very much a loner ability, which is annoying because you're often playing in a party. I don't think this is as entirely useless as it seems depending on the looseness of your/your DMs interpretation of the ability (DM dependent, colour me surprised), and as it non-magical it can be better in some instances than say invisibility. Yes, it is a little redundant to most builds of the ranger, but it almost guarantees you won't be found unless rolling very poorly.
As above this was discussing PHB stuff, but I do agree that Nature's Veil is a better alternative.
Vanish
At 14 level you gain the ability to take the hide action as a bonus action, and you cannot be tracked by non-magical means (unless you choose to be able to). This is excellent for Rangers who choose to play a hit and run game from range in the right environments, or even fast-moving melee Rangers. You quickly throw some javelins at the raiders from the rubble, then with a burst of speed run to the nearby trees and disappear from view, the skilled trackers employed by the raiders are unable to find any trace of your passage, you’re simply gone.
Yes, Rogue’s do get an arguably better ability at level 2, but Rogues need something to make them appealing. This has far more roleplay possibility because you can’t be tracked by mundane means, not even another Ranger can track you now. The biggest issue this really faces is if you’re already heavily invested in bonus action economy you will not get the use out of this that deserves in combat.
Again, a very thematic feature for the ranger. It is also mechanically better than many of their other features. However, it is not without its faults. First, it competes with every other bonus action option that the ranger gets (which is a buttload of them. They seriously get more bonus action options than basically any other class). Second, it is slightly more than just 1/3rd of a level 2 feature that rogues get. That doesn't make it useless, but its very disappointing when compared to similar level features from other classes. Third, I do not recommend using javelins as a ranger.
Not arguably, it's objectively better. Also, rogues have a lot of things that make them appealing at those levels without Cunning Action (such as Sneak Attack and Expertise).
It's not a bad or useless feature, but again, compared to Blindsense, Reliable Talent, or Slippery Mind, Cleansing Touch, Tongue of the Sun and Moon, Diamond Soul, or Tireless Body, or even more uses of Indomitable, this feature just pales in comparison.
In my opinion, this level 14 feature should matter for this class a bit more than "YOU CAN HIDE QUIK AND CAN'T BE TRAKKED".
Which is exactly what I wrote, is it not? Also the javelin thing was a continuation of the story I was telling, sorry if that wasn't apparent.
From a roleplay perspective and the derided, discarded exploration pillar, arguably yes, functionally though for 99.99% of tables you are correct. Rogues do have a lot going for them, it is true, certainly more functional options.
It would have been nice if it also added the dash/disengage option to make it less of a farce comparatively, or something more. For level 14 you hope for a little bit more.
Feral Senses
At 18 level you gain Feral Senses, the ability to ignore disadvantage on attacks against enemies you’re unable to see, additionally you’re aware of any invisible creature within 30ft of you that isn’t hidden from you. Any foe that relies on invisibility, beware! This is great for the Ranger as it really hits home the theme that you’re a master hunter, even invisible enemies are no match for your skills or detection. The Alhoon tries to slip away from you by casting invisibility, but with your enhanced senses you track its movements and strike, there can be no escape from you.
This isn’t just a combat boon, but can be great for avoiding ambushes or even intrigue in a social setting, the ability to be aware of essentially most things within 30ft is amazing.
Yep, great feature, but Rogues get it earlier, it negates your Fighting Style if you chose Blind Fighting, and is a bit late and a bit too little to be giving rangers "the good stuff". At this level, a Paladin gets the range of all of their auras multiplied by 3 (unless they're the dumb Glory Paladin), Rogues are literally immune to attacks having advantage against them while they're incapacitated, Monks can use Astral Projection twice a short rest with no material components and can go invisible for 1 minute using only 4 ki points (Which gives them advantage on EVERYTHING and enemies disadvantage on EVERYTHING, as well as giving resistance to ALL DAMGE except for force), and Druids gain 10 times the life span that they had before and can cast spells while in the form of a ****ing brown bear.
Again, like Vanish, this feature is certainly not useless and is not horrible, but it's just annoyingly and disappointingly underwhelming when compared to other class features from similar classes at the same level. The moon druid gets to be a Giant Crocodile that shoots lasers out of its mouth, while you're just left with 30 feet of "I SEE INVISIBLE PEOPLES!!"
I also think that one argument against this is that a lot of tables will never hit 18, so whilst this feature is nice, most will never see it, coupled with the fact that you're likely better off multiclassing (there's simply too much frontloaded into most classes to bother not multiclassing).
Foe Slayer
This is it, the crowning achievement, the pinnacle of Rangerness, the final ability you earn on your 20-level path, Foe Slayer! You can add, once per turn, your wisdom modifier to an attack or damage roll against a favoured enemy before or after the roll is made, but before effects are applied. You’ve tracked the orcs through thick and thin, and despite their heavy armour and numerical superiority your intense training, your dedication to hunting them down, your fanatic devotion to studying them, has allowed you to through force of will alone land blows that would otherwise have missed, and deal more damage than would normally be possible.
This is, once again a niche ability, and it does, if you want the most out of it, push you towards using those ASIs on wisdom, which in itself is not a bad thing, but it won’t always be relevant. Unfortunately, purely combat focused which is a little disappointing as the Ranger has so much going for it in non-combat situations and it would have been nice to see further utility, but it is hardly the worst ability, just uninspired.
The game has some great capstone abilities (Druid, Artificer, Rogue, Barbarian, Fighter, Cleric, most Paladin capstones), and the game has some underwhelming capstone abilities (Bard, Monk, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard). This unfortunately fits into the crowd of the underwhelming ones.
Pre-Tasha's, this depended on fighting your Favored Enemies, which is ridiculously campaign dependent. With Tasha's, it requires you to give up your concentration in order to get a +5 bonus to an attack or damage roll once a turn (if you're lucky enough to have a 20 for Wisdom), +1d8 damage once a turn. This. . . sucks. More often than not, you're going to be better off using Hunter's Mark (A FIRST LEVEL SPELL!!!) than your freaking capstone ability.
I mean, imagine if Fighters got a capstone feature that let them make one attack as an action that dealt 4dweapon-damage-dice+STR/DEX-modifier instead of Extra Attack (3). It would be mechanically worse in most circumstances than using the action for Extra Attack (2). That's basically what this capstone ability does now.
Yep, that's why I called it uninspired. Worse abilities are out there, but as a capstone to focus further on your signature ability which is already overly niche was a terrible design blunder.
Once again though I was trying to focus on the positives, I didn't want to disregard the negatives but I didn't want this to be another negative thread about the Ranger, whether it is deserved or not, I wanted some positive discussion, it isn't all doom and gloom (especially with Tasha's options), and there are some redeeming features with some abilities, most of which I was initially very negative about upon first reading (I am not, nor have I ever been, a fan of Favoured Enemy mechanically, in AD&D, 3, 3.5, and probably 4e, although I don't really recall anything about 4e because it was not for me).
I appreciated the first post. It was gushing with praise, and it's nice to see that. I don't think we see enough positivity, in general, these days. That said, I don't get some of the above criticisms. I'll move tier-by-tier and try not to spend too much of your time on what I have to say.
###
I think the criticisms leveled against Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer are mostly spot-on. They're also features designed for the Exploration and Social Interaction pillars, and I know that's not everyone's cup of tea. I do think they require a certain degree of creativity and lateral thinking, and that's not for everyone. I have trouble playing an Illusionist because I can't wrap my head around their 6th-level feature, so I'm no exception. And a similar issue applies to special languages like Druidic and Thieves' Cant that don't come up often. Ranger also gets a host of hard mechanical bonuses when in their chosen terrains, so there's also plenty of crunch. Part of WotC's design philosophy seems to be that choices have consequences and having our choices matter. Both of these features are decision-points, so while they might not apply 100% all the time they're powerful when they do. If their alternates in Tasha's seem underwhelming, it's because there's no decision-making so they don't matter as much. But that doesn't make them bad, and I certainly don't blame anyone who wants them. In an urban campaign, I'd prefer Deft Explorer. And, after all that, Primal Awareness might be better than its PHB counterpart; if only because you don't have to spend a spell slot. Both are for gathering information, but they work very differently. Primeval Awareness gives the player raw data and allows them to draw their own conclusions. Primal Awareness requires the DM to answer specific questions. If shifts the burden, but I don't think it's an undue burden.
Land's Stride and Hide in Plain sight are, quite frankly, amazing. The former means dead bodies and stairs don't impede your movement; which is to say nothing of more traditional difficult terrain like underbrush or wading through waist-deep water. Don't forget that climbing and swimming both count as difficult terrain. And when magic terrain does come into play, you have advantage on saving throws. This is basically half of freedom of movement at no cost. And have you seen Predator (1987)? The finale with Dutch against the Predator is a quintessential example of camouflage one's self for battle. Other examples might include the urban camouflage suits from Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011) and Toulour's base-jumping suit from Ocean's 13 (2007). Hiding requires something to hide behind, so eliminating the need for cover frees some up for others. It stacks with pass without trace, and Truesight and see invisibility won't see through it. It's evocative, powerful, theatrical, and can be used to set up an ambush or to buy yourself a 1-round reprieve in combat. That said, Nature's Veil is good, too. It doesn't require set-up and is more obviously usable in combat, but it's magical.
Vanish is okay. It comes a little later than I'd like, but it also makes Hide in Plain Sight and Nature's Veil better.
As for Feral Senses, if the concern is it makes Blind Fighting useless, do I need to remind everyone that Blind Fighting is from Tasha's? If they're already using Tasha's, they can just use Martial Versatility one level later to change their Fighting Style to something else. And as for Foe Slayer, the ranger knows what they're getting into at 1st-level. That said, it does interact weirdly with Favored Foe. For example, you can't add your Wisdom modifier to the attack roll if you haven't hit yet to apply Favored Foe. This means you can't even get the full suite of the feature until the 2nd round. But by this point, you (the player) have had 2-3 years to...brace yourself for this possible disappointment, I guess. I wouldn't make that choice, and I don't have sympathy for people who do.
###
Like the bard and sorcerer, the ranger is a class where you make a lot of decisions. And that means justifying those decisions. All have multiple decision points in choosing their Favored Enemy, Magical Secrets, Metamagic, and Natural Explorer options. All have to carefully select their spells as they level. I talked about it a little earlier, but there really does seem to be a governing philosophy for these three classes. Bards, less so, but if that kind of decision-making matters to you, if you don't mind the...challenge? I'm drawing a blank on a better word. Restrictive nature, maybe. If you don't mind all that and want a class that absolutely excels at something, be it navigating the wilderness or manipulating magic in ways no one else can, then these are the classes for you.
My other issues with 5th edition D&D notwithstanding, the only hardcover campaign I don't think I'd want a PHB ranger in is Waterdeep. I can easily see them slotting in anywhere else.
Nicely said, I was trying to temper my earlier praise as some people have said it was perhaps misleading, and I guess in some ways it is. One can't, and I guess shouldn't try, to appease them all.
I really like the Predator mention as Hide in Plain Sight has always conjured for me the image of when Dutch goes into the river and then is invisible to the thermal vision whilst covered in mud, it is a very cool scene in the film and Hide in Plain Sight is very evocative of it.
Thematically the Ranger has great abilities, functionally it is at times too niche, which is probably my biggest problem with the Ranger. It doesn't stop me from playing one, especially as some of the archetypes are very appealing to me. It is actually (imo, of course) impossible to really judge the Ranger without considering the archetypes, but they add so many extra variables it is hard to consider all the options. It is unfair to really judge individual abilities without considering what other options there are. The only real problems I have with individual features in PHB Ranger are Favoured Enemy (despite its strong theming/backstory/roleplay opportunities), mostly because I have never liked it since I stumbled across D&D, Foe Slayer, because it is a continuation of FE, and Primaeval Awareness, but I'm coming around on it as I try to find more creative uses for it. gglibertine made an excellent comment about how you can discount the Enemy part of FE which was actually something I had never considered before and I will have to try. If it is any consolation I think that Favoured Enemy is (far) better than Favoured Foe.
All that said I do like that you mention that it does require a lot of decisions, which is a good thing as really that's what role playing games are all about, aren't they? Maybe sometimes you'll feel trapped by your decisions, but at least they'll be yours.
Rangers get a lot of flack for this kind of stuff. Why is it ok for other classes and subclasses? And if the counterpoint is "a ranger's ability is useless outside of their favored terrain" I really don't care as that has been covered already. I'm talking about the "DM fiat", "DM reliance", and "meta game to be useful" points.
That's not what Rangers get a lot of flack for, they get flack for their reliance on metagaming to bring out the best in them, especially early.
Let's have a look at level 1 PHB (Tasha's for Artificer) abilities for classes and their dependence on metagaming
Artificer - Magical Tinkering, Spellcasting: Neither of these need metagaming to be applicable in a campaign. Yes there are probably bad spell choices you can make, but you can change the prepared spell list after one long rest.
Barbarian - Rage, Unarmoured Defence: If you are expecting to see 0 combat, these are bad, although Rage could be good for advantage on strength checks outside of combat. No choice.
Bard: Bardic Inspiration, Spellcasting: Bardic Inspiration is always on the table as an option. Spellcasting if you make bad choices might be less applicable, but it is unlikely. Gain a level and change a spell.
Cleric: Spellcasting, Divine Domain: Spellcasting again, and a large set of choices which may or may not be highly applicable in your campaign, but likely to be useful at most stages.
Druid: Druidic, Spellcasting: Druidic highly niche, but spellcasting makes you useful.
Fighter: Fighting Style, Second Wind: As per barbarian useless if you see no combat. Very little choice.
Monk: Unarmoured Defence, Martial Arts: As per barbarian useless if you see no combat. No choice.
Paladin: Divine Sense, Lay on Hands: Divine Sense is niche, no doubt, so is DM dependent. Lay on Hands useful in combat and has some niche applications out of combat.
Rogue: Expertise, Thieves' Cant, Sneak Attack: Your choices of skills to take expertise in may be useless depending on campaign, if there is no combat Sneak Attack is useless, Thieves' Cant is almost as good as Druidic, the best ability in the game :P
Sorcerer: Spellcasting, Sorcerous Origin: Spells again, and an origin which is likely going to applicable at some stage.
Warlock: Otherworldly Patron, Pact Magic: A patron choice which may or may not be beneficial, Spells which may or may not be beneficial.
Wizard: Spellcasting, Arcane Recovery: Spells, and more spells.
Now let us look at the Ranger, who has Natural Explorer and Favoured Enemy. Natural Explorer you choose from one of eight options, and if you don't get it right half of this ability will serve no use, and the other half may also no apply. Favoured Enemy gives you 13+X options, of which you choose one, or two if you went X, which is drilling down further, and then a language option. If you don't get these right then they give you exactly 0 advantage. If your choices were not metagamed (you choices were desert and dragon/draconic and you ended up facing aberrations in the Underdark) you can "rectify" these decisions at level 6 (until your DM transports you to the coast facing pirates).
The whole point isn't that people give Rangers flack for metagaming, it is simply that the two biggest choices with the most reliance on metagaming at level one for any class are both from Ranger abilities. Personally I don't mind, the backstory is more important to me than eventual effectiveness, and if you have a good DM they can adapt for you so it can be mitigated. But a lot of people don't have a good DM, and a lot of pre-made adventures might not necessarily allow the wiggle room for a DM to make your choices valid anyway.
TL;DR: Ranger's require more choice at level 1 and are most aided by metagaming these choices and most hindered by not doing so, so the flack is not aimed at Ranger's doing it, it is aimed at their reliance on it.
That's not what Rangers get a lot of flack for, they get flack for their reliance on metagaming to bring out the best in them, especially early.
Let's have a look at level 1 PHB (Tasha's for Artificer) abilities for classes and their dependence on metagaming
...
Now let us look at the Ranger, who has Natural Explorer and Favoured Enemy. Natural Explorer you choose from one of eight options, and if you don't get it right half of this ability will serve no use, and the other half may also no apply. Favoured Enemy gives you 13+X options, of which you choose one, or two if you went X, which is drilling down further., and then a language option. If you don't get these right then they give you exactly 0 advantage. If your choices were not metagamed (you choices were desert and dragon/draconic and you ended up facing aberrations in the Underdark) you can "rectify" these decisions at level 6 (until your DM transports you to the coast facing pirates).
The whole point isn't that people give Rangers flack for metagaming, it is simply that the two biggest choices with the most reliance on metagaming at level one for any class are both from Ranger abilities. Personally I don't mind, the backstory is more important to me than eventual effectiveness, and if you have a good DM they can adapt for you so it can be mitigated. But a lot of people don't have a good DM, and a lot of pre-made adventures might not necessarily allow the wiggle room for a DM to make your choices valid anyway.
TL;DR: Ranger's require more choice at level 1 and are most aided by metagaming these choices and most hindered by not doing so, so the flack is not aimed at Ranger's doing it, it is aimed at their reliance on it.
Do you play a lot of games where you go in blind, not knowing what to expect? Metagaming is when your character acts on information the player does not. So, I ask you, is it reasonable for your character to have a favored enemy and terrain suitable for where the campaign is starting out?
It makes perfect sense for a ranger's favored enemy and terrain to reflect where the campaign starts off. And even if it doesn't match, like with the first part of Out of the Abyss, you can always adapt and pick it up later. In that module, you head back into the Underdark about when you'd learn your next tier anyway. So, strictly from a roleplaying perspective, it can work either way.
Do you play a lot of games where you go in blind, not knowing what to expect? Metagaming is when your character acts on information the player does not. So, I ask you, is it reasonable for your character to have a favoured enemy and terrain suitable for where the campaign is starting out?
It makes perfect sense for a ranger's favoured enemy and terrain to reflect where the campaign starts off. And even if it doesn't match, like with the first part of Out of the Abyss, you can always adapt and pick it up later. In that module, you head back into the Underdark about when you'd learn your next tier anyway. So, strictly from a roleplaying perspective, it can work either way.
Personally, yes, I prefer making my characters without any pre-existing knowledge of the campaign, but that's just my preference, I have no issue with people making informed decisions if that's what they want. I enjoy making characters, it is fun, if they don't fit the campaign perfectly then that's fine because working around the limitations is fun. Some people don't like having to do that, especially beginners in my experience, but my experience is by no means comprehensive.
That's not what Rangers get a lot of flack for, they get flack for their reliance on metagaming to bring out the best in them, especially early.
Let's have a look at level 1 PHB (Tasha's for Artificer) abilities for classes and their dependence on metagaming
Artificer - Magical Tinkering, Spellcasting: Neither of these need metagaming to be applicable in a campaign. Yes there are probably bad spell choices you can make, but you can change the prepared spell list after one long rest.
Barbarian - Rage, Unarmoured Defence: If you are expecting to see 0 combat, these are bad, although Rage could be good for advantage on strength checks outside of combat. No choice.
Bard: Bardic Inspiration, Spellcasting: Bardic Inspiration is always on the table as an option. Spellcasting if you make bad choices might be less applicable, but it is unlikely. Gain a level and change a spell.
Cleric: Spellcasting, Divine Domain: Spellcasting again, and a large set of choices which may or may not be highly applicable in your campaign, but likely to be useful at most stages.
Druid: Druidic, Spellcasting: Druidic highly niche, but spellcasting makes you useful.
Fighter: Fighting Style, Second Wind: As per barbarian useless if you see no combat. Very little choice.
Monk: Unarmoured Defence, Martial Arts: As per barbarian useless if you see no combat. No choice.
Paladin: Divine Sense, Lay on Hands: Divine Sense is niche, no doubt, so is DM dependent. Lay on Hands useful in combat and has some niche applications out of combat.
Rogue: Expertise, Thieves' Cant, Sneak Attack: Your choices of skills to take expertise in may be useless depending on campaign, if there is no combat Sneak Attack is useless, Thieves' Cant is almost as good as Druidic, the best ability in the game :P
Sorcerer: Spellcasting, Sorcerous Origin: Spells again, and an origin which is likely going to applicable at some stage.
Warlock: Otherworldly Patron, Pact Magic: A patron choice which may or may not be beneficial, Spells which may or may not be beneficial.
Wizard: Spellcasting, Arcane Recovery: Spells, and more spells.
Now let us look at the Ranger, who has Natural Explorer and Favoured Enemy. Natural Explorer you choose from one of eight options, and if you don't get it right half of this ability will serve no use, and the other half may also no apply. Favoured Enemy gives you 13+X options, of which you choose one, or two if you went X, which is drilling down further, and then a language option. If you don't get these right then they give you exactly 0 advantage. If your choices were not metagamed (you choices were desert and dragon/draconic and you ended up facing aberrations in the Underdark) you can "rectify" these decisions at level 6 (until your DM transports you to the coast facing pirates).
The whole point isn't that people give Rangers flack for metagaming, it is simply that the two biggest choices with the most reliance on metagaming at level one for any class are both from Ranger abilities. Personally I don't mind, the backstory is more important to me than eventual effectiveness, and if you have a good DM they can adapt for you so it can be mitigated. But a lot of people don't have a good DM, and a lot of pre-made adventures might not necessarily allow the wiggle room for a DM to make your choices valid anyway.
TL;DR: Ranger's require more choice at level 1 and are most aided by metagaming these choices and most hindered by not doing so, so the flack is not aimed at Ranger's doing it, it is aimed at their reliance on it.
I really look at all of these low level class abilities as I do spell slots and spell levels. Casters get more low level spell slots sooner and in greater number than they do high level spell slots. Low level spells are cast more frequently and in more situations as there are more of them, less costly, and more broadly applicable. Rangers get an ability that is everything everyone says it is, eg., DM/campaign reliant, niche, if not chosen correctly it is almost useless, etc. However, when it is used it is very powerful! Very powerful and completely unrivaled or duplicated by any other class, subclass, background, ability, feat, or spell. (Well, maybe some crazy combination of a bunch of those. But then you might as well play a ranger.) Rangers get a wider scope of this ability and it’s use as the game goes on, 3 before tier 3, and that is just the second half of the ability that is directly reliant on traveling in the specific terrain. So just like high level spell slots, at higher character levels this powerful ability becomes more and more useful and used more frequently.
In a strange analogy I also see these low level class abilities in the same way someone (if they do at all) gamble (I don't). Do you sit at the quarter slots? Winning more often, but for smaller amounts. Do you play poker? Having a bit more strategic impact on the game, in exchange for a high possible take. Do you put everything on red for the big payout? An all or nothing style, that is amazing when you win. Class abilities for most classes are used more frequently than the ranger's. But they are less impactful (in my opinion) then the ranger's, when the ranger's is used. Tasha's changed the game for players that want to take that option, in that they now have less powerful abilities but with a higher frequency of use.
Do you play a lot of games where you go in blind, not knowing what to expect? Metagaming is when your character acts on information the player does not. So, I ask you, is it reasonable for your character to have a favoured enemy and terrain suitable for where the campaign is starting out?
It makes perfect sense for a ranger's favoured enemy and terrain to reflect where the campaign starts off. And even if it doesn't match, like with the first part of Out of the Abyss, you can always adapt and pick it up later. In that module, you head back into the Underdark about when you'd learn your next tier anyway. So, strictly from a roleplaying perspective, it can work either way.
Personally, yes, I prefer making my characters without any pre-existing knowledge of the campaign, but that's just my preference, I have no issue with people making informed decisions if that's what they want. I enjoy making characters, it is fun, if they don't fit the campaign perfectly then that's fine because working around the limitations is fun. Some people don't like having to do that, especially beginners in my experience, but my experience is by no means comprehensive.
Yes.
If you prefer to go into games blind, then you're not interesting in learning about the world you'll be playing in. That's an indictment of you, as a player, and not of the class. Which doesn't actually require metagaming, just so we're clear. That's a lazy criticism.
I also find it interesting how you went from glowing praise to...this. But, whatever, you do you.
I still don't think any ranger needs to rely on "Campaign or module Metagame" to select their Favored Enemy. The pc chooses how to interact with their abilities. In a campaign if no daemons show up Knowledge of them can still be useful. Using it for forgeries or misdirection or intimidation. Walking into a temple and speaking celestial and showing off your knowledge may earn the priest's respect even if you are not a follower. Same situation with druids and sylvan. The similar things can be done with favored terrain.
There is also the guaranteed interaction in any campaign. Beasts are even in Avernus (see hellwasp Grub). Beasts is also a thematic fit for a starting ranger. Purchased mounts and summoning spells guarantee the ranger will be able to interact with certain types. Not to mention the other party members Are also options FE for starting out. Having the related bonus on your own teammates provides certain benefits.
Even if you never interact with your favored enemy or favored Terrain the impact on combat is minimal. They can continue to be affective in combat and not fall behind.
I've seen bards never use their "default Bardic inspiration" or "jack of all trades" or "counter charm" or "song of rest" and no one complained about their effectiveness but a ranger is clearly held to a higher standard.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
By technically do you mean by RAW?
This also doesn't answer what the feeding rule is.
Also, I'd like to go to the point where you talked about 70% of combat spells being verbal, even discounting healing I still don't see how it makes up 70%?
By raw the spell says a creature has to eat it themselves. Feeding rule is just "you can feed a goodberry to a unconscious creature for one action" Just like a potion.
as for the 70% I was a rounding. In one game (adventures league) my ranger never cast any spell except huntersmark or ensnaring stike up to level 4. I continued to play till level 7. Those spells + cross bow expert left me out damaging the rest of the party Up to level 4. At level 4 a ranger only has 3 spell slots if you have two or 3 combats per long rest 1 hunters mark per combat 1 of the three saved for back up healing. after 4 fights got harder and the party changed I had to heal slightly more often. We had 3 tables running AL in our local store for about three years. another ranger said the same. Zephyr strike and hunters mark were all he used then he multi-classed monk for some weirdness. We had another ranger female ranger near the end about season 6 and I was dm she only used one spell slot a session. When you have so few slots you tend to save them For huntersmark and emergency escape. When many of the spells can be duplicated by checks you tend to try those first. even if you have a poor stat you can use a spell to cover your weaknesses it but with a roll of a d20 there's always(within reason) a chance of success. some rangers dump int, some dump wis, some start with 12 dex(especially now tashas is out and wis ranger is viable) the spells are usually just there to cover the skill gaps if they come up.
Rounding what? You mean, pulling numbers out of nowhere?
Yes, the skilled feat becomes much more powerful in the hands of a ranger. That should go without saying, and I'm disappointed (though not surprised) so many online guides ignore it. And the ones that don't ignore it also don't recognize it's usefulness to Natural Explorer, but I digress. Let's look at each of those skills, shall we?
So, of those 10 skills, I think 8 are easily identifiable as applying to Natural Explorer. It shouldn't even be a question. And the two that are "iffy" are still on the ranger's skill list. Yes, some official guidance would be much appreciated. While I enjoy the freedom that was lacking in earlier editions, I do think WotC has been far too hands-off this time around. As a DM, I often feel left out in the lurch when it comes to having the tools to do what I want. Which forces me to convert and/or look up retro-clones, but I digress.
The player needs to say what they want to do, and the DM adjudicates what is rolled. This is true for every class and ability check or saving throw, no matter the class. The DM is even encouraged to mix and match skill proficiencies and the abilities used with them. And this is called out in the PHB, as well, which means the player knows it's a possibility. If the player makes a good case for it, the DM should allow it.
I don't expect the books to hold our hands. They rely on "natural language", so we should be able to intuit it ourselves. But I get the frustration.
Feats are optional rules. You only need one free hand to cast the spell as a reaction, and there are lots of ways to do this. Wielding a single weapon and no shield is one of them. If an Eldritch Knight can do it, then so can a ranger.
2 out of 3 is 66%. 3 out of 4 is 75% Actual play numbers. for at least 3 rangers. different players. It seems to scale that way up to at least 10. 2 or 3 basic attack spells per utility. Assuming a well rounded party. I could try and go through my roll20 logs and try to check off every ranger spell used for a fourth character but he has ritual caster druid. The point is still the same. Hunters mark or and BA Damage spell will be used more often than utility. Not a huge data set but by 10 you only have 9 slots so other players can't be far off. Some rangers they can only cast verbal spells because they are always dual wielding making their Numbers closer to 100% some like beasmasters cast more healing but those still seem to average out.
There's nothing in the description of Favored Enemy that suggests the creatures of which you have special knowledge have to actually be your enemies (except the name). So... maybe you're just really into them. Maybe you have a special affinity. Maybe you've lived among them, and they're your allies.
Building a Drakewarden? Take dragons. Now you're an expert on dragons. You know tons of lore about them, you speak their language, you know where they live and how to find them. There's nothing that says you have to kill them. Your job might be specifically to try to work with them in some way, or to try to talk evil dragons into not destroying villages, or who knows what else? The one I built works for a draconid rescue organisation; they take in injured, sick, or elderly draconids and treat them, care for abandoned eggs and youngsters, &c. They love dragons.
Fey Wanderer? Same thing. You're familiar with their tricksy nature, you recognise signs of Fey handiwork, and you know how to talk to them. If your party finds itself dealing with a difficult Fey, you're well set to negotiate an outcome that's beneficial to both sides.
You could just as easily have started out as an anthropologist who lived among Goblinoids, studying their culture and craftsmanship, or an orphaned Gnome raised by Orcs, or a Dwarvish stonemason who's spent their career studying architecture among the Elves.
The difficulty some have mentioned of needing to find the favored "enemy" to make use of the feature is only difficult if the creature you choose doesn't appear much in your DM's world -- and the obvious solution to that is to talk to your DM ahead of time and make sure that the creatures you choose are ones your party will encounter reasonably often. It's no different than checking with your DM about what races or alignments may be a poor fit in their game. You should approach Natural Explorer the same way -- ask your DM what sort of environment you'll be spending the most time in, because that's the one you should take.
This. I have suggested on several occasions that a beast master should take Favored enemy:beasts to use on his companions and mounts. So they will make it useful. Most people wouldn't believe this but I actually prefer to build a ranger before knowing the module or campaign setting. I don't believe the dm should cater to the ranger forcing FT-or-FE to be useful. The ranger should be seeking the opportunities to make it useful. a Beast master should always buy a spare chicken in town(Animal messanger or wolf food ..either work). Maybe a mule (only horse like mount a bm can use as a backup if my snake dies). I once walked into a poor town and paid the kids a silver each to bring me pets and bugs they were willing to sell. I then showed the kids how to Take care of the things they caught so the next time I came through they would have Better stuff to sell.
That's brilliant! I'm going to have to keep that idea in reserve, because I love playing Rangers.
Thematically is there an objective best class? I don't think we can determine that, so this one is entirely subjective, which is what I stated. Thematically the Warlock (for me) does absolutely nothing, and the Sorcerer and Artificer are not far behind. But that's the beauty of it all.
I assume that this was in regards to my party of 4 Rangers? That was meant to be a joke, but yes, there is a lot of overlap between class roles and the way you design/create a character can take them in different directions from someone else's, which is a good thing. Some classes are definitely more flexible than others, the Artificer can really fill a lot of roles.
It does vary in usage, and thankfully it is better than Thieves' Cant and Druidic, but I do agree this is not a well designed feature, or that exploration in D&D 5e is not very rewarding, take your pick.
Ranger features, through whatever design philosophy WotC used, tend to be overly niche. Maybe they rolled disadvantage when creating it?
Yep, I did mention both of those issues. I've always disliked that two-weapon fighting was seen as a major archetypal fighting style of Rangers because of one popular character, so I wasn't sad to see it go from that sense, but I was sad to see that something that was more unique to the Ranger got binned.
It is infuriating, and more often than not useless, but it can sometimes help in the right circumstances (just like FE and NE).
It is still niche, still DM dependent, which is playing to the Ranger's strengths! I agree that if you compare it to other classes options around the same level it doesn't necessarily stack up, but compared to other features the Ranger has, this is a real winner. The biggest problem with comparing features across is that there are so many options to consider (including the Ranger having recently good frontloaded archetypes), which makes it harder to really judge. That said, the relative dearth of quality in other base Ranger abilities does impact judgement of this quite a bit. The fact that this is coupled with an ASI is a mark in its favour.
As above this was discussing PHB stuff, but I do agree that Nature's Veil is a better alternative.
It would have been nice if it also added the dash/disengage option to make it less of a farce comparatively, or something more. For level 14 you hope for a little bit more.
I also think that one argument against this is that a lot of tables will never hit 18, so whilst this feature is nice, most will never see it, coupled with the fact that you're likely better off multiclassing (there's simply too much frontloaded into most classes to bother not multiclassing).
Yep, that's why I called it uninspired. Worse abilities are out there, but as a capstone to focus further on your signature ability which is already overly niche was a terrible design blunder.
Once again though I was trying to focus on the positives, I didn't want to disregard the negatives but I didn't want this to be another negative thread about the Ranger, whether it is deserved or not, I wanted some positive discussion, it isn't all doom and gloom (especially with Tasha's options), and there are some redeeming features with some abilities, most of which I was initially very negative about upon first reading (I am not, nor have I ever been, a fan of Favoured Enemy mechanically, in AD&D, 3, 3.5, and probably 4e, although I don't really recall anything about 4e because it was not for me).
Cheers.
I appreciated the first post. It was gushing with praise, and it's nice to see that. I don't think we see enough positivity, in general, these days. That said, I don't get some of the above criticisms. I'll move tier-by-tier and try not to spend too much of your time on what I have to say.
###
I think the criticisms leveled against Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer are mostly spot-on. They're also features designed for the Exploration and Social Interaction pillars, and I know that's not everyone's cup of tea. I do think they require a certain degree of creativity and lateral thinking, and that's not for everyone. I have trouble playing an Illusionist because I can't wrap my head around their 6th-level feature, so I'm no exception. And a similar issue applies to special languages like Druidic and Thieves' Cant that don't come up often. Ranger also gets a host of hard mechanical bonuses when in their chosen terrains, so there's also plenty of crunch. Part of WotC's design philosophy seems to be that choices have consequences and having our choices matter. Both of these features are decision-points, so while they might not apply 100% all the time they're powerful when they do. If their alternates in Tasha's seem underwhelming, it's because there's no decision-making so they don't matter as much. But that doesn't make them bad, and I certainly don't blame anyone who wants them. In an urban campaign, I'd prefer Deft Explorer. And, after all that, Primal Awareness might be better than its PHB counterpart; if only because you don't have to spend a spell slot. Both are for gathering information, but they work very differently. Primeval Awareness gives the player raw data and allows them to draw their own conclusions. Primal Awareness requires the DM to answer specific questions. If shifts the burden, but I don't think it's an undue burden.
Land's Stride and Hide in Plain sight are, quite frankly, amazing. The former means dead bodies and stairs don't impede your movement; which is to say nothing of more traditional difficult terrain like underbrush or wading through waist-deep water. Don't forget that climbing and swimming both count as difficult terrain. And when magic terrain does come into play, you have advantage on saving throws. This is basically half of freedom of movement at no cost. And have you seen Predator (1987)? The finale with Dutch against the Predator is a quintessential example of camouflage one's self for battle. Other examples might include the urban camouflage suits from Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011) and Toulour's base-jumping suit from Ocean's 13 (2007). Hiding requires something to hide behind, so eliminating the need for cover frees some up for others. It stacks with pass without trace, and Truesight and see invisibility won't see through it. It's evocative, powerful, theatrical, and can be used to set up an ambush or to buy yourself a 1-round reprieve in combat. That said, Nature's Veil is good, too. It doesn't require set-up and is more obviously usable in combat, but it's magical.
Vanish is okay. It comes a little later than I'd like, but it also makes Hide in Plain Sight and Nature's Veil better.
As for Feral Senses, if the concern is it makes Blind Fighting useless, do I need to remind everyone that Blind Fighting is from Tasha's? If they're already using Tasha's, they can just use Martial Versatility one level later to change their Fighting Style to something else. And as for Foe Slayer, the ranger knows what they're getting into at 1st-level. That said, it does interact weirdly with Favored Foe. For example, you can't add your Wisdom modifier to the attack roll if you haven't hit yet to apply Favored Foe. This means you can't even get the full suite of the feature until the 2nd round. But by this point, you (the player) have had 2-3 years to...brace yourself for this possible disappointment, I guess. I wouldn't make that choice, and I don't have sympathy for people who do.
###
Like the bard and sorcerer, the ranger is a class where you make a lot of decisions. And that means justifying those decisions. All have multiple decision points in choosing their Favored Enemy, Magical Secrets, Metamagic, and Natural Explorer options. All have to carefully select their spells as they level. I talked about it a little earlier, but there really does seem to be a governing philosophy for these three classes. Bards, less so, but if that kind of decision-making matters to you, if you don't mind the...challenge? I'm drawing a blank on a better word. Restrictive nature, maybe. If you don't mind all that and want a class that absolutely excels at something, be it navigating the wilderness or manipulating magic in ways no one else can, then these are the classes for you.
My other issues with 5th edition D&D notwithstanding, the only hardcover campaign I don't think I'd want a PHB ranger in is Waterdeep. I can easily see them slotting in anywhere else.
Nicely said, I was trying to temper my earlier praise as some people have said it was perhaps misleading, and I guess in some ways it is. One can't, and I guess shouldn't try, to appease them all.
I really like the Predator mention as Hide in Plain Sight has always conjured for me the image of when Dutch goes into the river and then is invisible to the thermal vision whilst covered in mud, it is a very cool scene in the film and Hide in Plain Sight is very evocative of it.
Thematically the Ranger has great abilities, functionally it is at times too niche, which is probably my biggest problem with the Ranger. It doesn't stop me from playing one, especially as some of the archetypes are very appealing to me. It is actually (imo, of course) impossible to really judge the Ranger without considering the archetypes, but they add so many extra variables it is hard to consider all the options. It is unfair to really judge individual abilities without considering what other options there are. The only real problems I have with individual features in PHB Ranger are Favoured Enemy (despite its strong theming/backstory/roleplay opportunities), mostly because I have never liked it since I stumbled across D&D, Foe Slayer, because it is a continuation of FE, and Primaeval Awareness, but I'm coming around on it as I try to find more creative uses for it. gglibertine made an excellent comment about how you can discount the Enemy part of FE which was actually something I had never considered before and I will have to try. If it is any consolation I think that Favoured Enemy is (far) better than Favoured Foe.
All that said I do like that you mention that it does require a lot of decisions, which is a good thing as really that's what role playing games are all about, aren't they? Maybe sometimes you'll feel trapped by your decisions, but at least they'll be yours.
Here is a bunch of folks on the internet literally metagaming their character choice for a book of adventures.
Rangers get a lot of flack for this kind of stuff. Why is it ok for other classes and subclasses? And if the counterpoint is "a ranger's ability is useless outside of their favored terrain" I really don't care as that has been covered already. I'm talking about the "DM fiat", "DM reliance", and "meta game to be useful" points.
That's not what Rangers get a lot of flack for, they get flack for their reliance on metagaming to bring out the best in them, especially early.
Let's have a look at level 1 PHB (Tasha's for Artificer) abilities for classes and their dependence on metagaming
Now let us look at the Ranger, who has Natural Explorer and Favoured Enemy. Natural Explorer you choose from one of eight options, and if you don't get it right half of this ability will serve no use, and the other half may also no apply. Favoured Enemy gives you 13+X options, of which you choose one, or two if you went X, which is drilling down further, and then a language option. If you don't get these right then they give you exactly 0 advantage. If your choices were not metagamed (you choices were desert and dragon/draconic and you ended up facing aberrations in the Underdark) you can "rectify" these decisions at level 6 (until your DM transports you to the coast facing pirates).
The whole point isn't that people give Rangers flack for metagaming, it is simply that the two biggest choices with the most reliance on metagaming at level one for any class are both from Ranger abilities. Personally I don't mind, the backstory is more important to me than eventual effectiveness, and if you have a good DM they can adapt for you so it can be mitigated. But a lot of people don't have a good DM, and a lot of pre-made adventures might not necessarily allow the wiggle room for a DM to make your choices valid anyway.
TL;DR: Ranger's require more choice at level 1 and are most aided by metagaming these choices and most hindered by not doing so, so the flack is not aimed at Ranger's doing it, it is aimed at their reliance on it.
Do you play a lot of games where you go in blind, not knowing what to expect? Metagaming is when your character acts on information the player does not. So, I ask you, is it reasonable for your character to have a favored enemy and terrain suitable for where the campaign is starting out?
It makes perfect sense for a ranger's favored enemy and terrain to reflect where the campaign starts off. And even if it doesn't match, like with the first part of Out of the Abyss, you can always adapt and pick it up later. In that module, you head back into the Underdark about when you'd learn your next tier anyway. So, strictly from a roleplaying perspective, it can work either way.
Personally, yes, I prefer making my characters without any pre-existing knowledge of the campaign, but that's just my preference, I have no issue with people making informed decisions if that's what they want. I enjoy making characters, it is fun, if they don't fit the campaign perfectly then that's fine because working around the limitations is fun. Some people don't like having to do that, especially beginners in my experience, but my experience is by no means comprehensive.
Yes.
I really look at all of these low level class abilities as I do spell slots and spell levels. Casters get more low level spell slots sooner and in greater number than they do high level spell slots. Low level spells are cast more frequently and in more situations as there are more of them, less costly, and more broadly applicable. Rangers get an ability that is everything everyone says it is, eg., DM/campaign reliant, niche, if not chosen correctly it is almost useless, etc. However, when it is used it is very powerful! Very powerful and completely unrivaled or duplicated by any other class, subclass, background, ability, feat, or spell. (Well, maybe some crazy combination of a bunch of those. But then you might as well play a ranger.) Rangers get a wider scope of this ability and it’s use as the game goes on, 3 before tier 3, and that is just the second half of the ability that is directly reliant on traveling in the specific terrain. So just like high level spell slots, at higher character levels this powerful ability becomes more and more useful and used more frequently.
In a strange analogy I also see these low level class abilities in the same way someone (if they do at all) gamble (I don't). Do you sit at the quarter slots? Winning more often, but for smaller amounts. Do you play poker? Having a bit more strategic impact on the game, in exchange for a high possible take. Do you put everything on red for the big payout? An all or nothing style, that is amazing when you win. Class abilities for most classes are used more frequently than the ranger's. But they are less impactful (in my opinion) then the ranger's, when the ranger's is used. Tasha's changed the game for players that want to take that option, in that they now have less powerful abilities but with a higher frequency of use.
If you prefer to go into games blind, then you're not interesting in learning about the world you'll be playing in. That's an indictment of you, as a player, and not of the class. Which doesn't actually require metagaming, just so we're clear. That's a lazy criticism.
I also find it interesting how you went from glowing praise to...this. But, whatever, you do you.
I still don't think any ranger needs to rely on "Campaign or module Metagame" to select their Favored Enemy. The pc chooses how to interact with their abilities. In a campaign if no daemons show up Knowledge of them can still be useful. Using it for forgeries or misdirection or intimidation. Walking into a temple and speaking celestial and showing off your knowledge may earn the priest's respect even if you are not a follower. Same situation with druids and sylvan. The similar things can be done with favored terrain.
There is also the guaranteed interaction in any campaign. Beasts are even in Avernus (see hellwasp Grub). Beasts is also a thematic fit for a starting ranger. Purchased mounts and summoning spells guarantee the ranger will be able to interact with certain types. Not to mention the other party members Are also options FE for starting out. Having the related bonus on your own teammates provides certain benefits.
Even if you never interact with your favored enemy or favored Terrain the impact on combat is minimal. They can continue to be affective in combat and not fall behind.
I've seen bards never use their "default Bardic inspiration" or "jack of all trades" or "counter charm" or "song of rest" and no one complained about their effectiveness but a ranger is clearly held to a higher standard.