On the topic of Natural Explorer versus Deft Explorer.... Sadly, the choice is insanely game dependent. I'm going to use the same examples that I did way back - the Princes of the Apocalypse versus Out of the Abyss.
Now, PotA is a story about hunting down the Elememtal Evil cult and stopping them. This covers a wide variety of terrains - lots of plains and mountains, but you also hit forests and, given the water at times, I'd argue for coastal land as well. Its pretty inconsistent when you'll be encountering the different terrains, so Natural Explorer is kind of crap. Interestingly, though, Favored Enemy really shines - most of the cult includes humans, so taking "human" as your foe gives you lots of bonuses related to the cult and to tracking said cult. Get Elementals when you get to a higher level.
Meanwhile, OotA is a game in the Underdark - take that terrain with Natural Explorer, and you're consistently getting better bonuses than Deft Explorer. Effective expertise in at least three skills (perception, survival, nature), maybe more depending, some stealth bonuses and movement bonuses through difficult terrain. Which is pretty solid. Meanwhile, Favored Enemy is crap - there's so much variety in what you face that any choice you take is good for maybe two sessions, and then worthless. Even taking "demon" is pretty bad, and they're kind of the core of the plot.
In PotA, the choice of Natural versus Deft is a no-brainer, imho. The bonuses are more consistent with Deft, and there's plenty of parts of Natural that just never see use. Meanwhile, OotA? Natural is the superior choice, given the plot. More expertise dealing with immediately relevant skills.
Well said. Options are great. And this is great proof that people’s individual valuation of the ranger and their abilities is reliant on the game they are playing. An example would be natural explorer would still be a poor choice in OotA if the dungeon master didn’t use any exploration or travel and just skipped ahead to battles and such. Defy explorer would be good in that case. Natural explorer would be great in PotA if the party had two ranger, taking different environments. And why wouldn’t you, if you were traveling across the world so much.
The terrain choices are arctic, coast, desert, forest, grassland, mountain, swamp, or the Underdark. I’m reality the ranger should probably be choosing the more dangerous or deadly terrains. The party probably won’t have any trouble traveling or surviving in the coast, grassland, or forest. And underdark is very niche and not likely to come up. So that leaves arctic, desert, mountain, and swamp. These terrains offer challenges for both survival and navigation, and are more valuable to the party when it does come up.
The terrain choices are arctic, coast, desert, forest, grassland, mountain, swamp, or the Underdark. I’m reality the ranger should probably be choosing the more dangerous or deadly terrains. The party probably won’t have any trouble traveling or surviving in the coast, grassland, or forest. And underdark is very niche and not likely to come up. So that leaves arctic, desert, mountain, and swamp. These terrains offer challenges for both survival and navigation, and are more valuable to the party when it does come up.
The big thing with grasslands, mountains and forests and that those three are the most common terrain types you encounter. I assume that mountains include caves so popular for small dungeons. Grasslands are the most popular terrain when when you travel. Forests are a bit of a middle ground between the other two, and often include elves or druid conclaves to visit. A stereotypical D&D game will only include these three terrains.
Underdark, coast, artic and desert are what I consider to be "campaign specific" terrains. There's several campaigns that take place entirely in the Underdark, while stories that take place in, say, Icewind Dale or Al-Qadim pretty much use artic and desert exclusively. Same with any "age of sails" game and coast. Outside these specific settings, the terrain won't come up.
Swamps... I don't think they've ever come up in a game I've played.
The terrain choices are arctic, coast, desert, forest, grassland, mountain, swamp, or the Underdark. I’m reality the ranger should probably be choosing the more dangerous or deadly terrains. The party probably won’t have any trouble traveling or surviving in the coast, grassland, or forest. And underdark is very niche and not likely to come up. So that leaves arctic, desert, mountain, and swamp. These terrains offer challenges for both survival and navigation, and are more valuable to the party when it does come up.
The big thing with grasslands, mountains and forests and that those three are the most common terrain types you encounter. I assume that mountains include caves so popular for small dungeons. Grasslands are the most popular terrain when when you travel. Forests are a bit of a middle ground between the other two, and often include elves or druid conclaves to visit. A stereotypical D&D game will only include these three terrains.
Underdark, coast, artic and desert are what I consider to be "campaign specific" terrains. There's several campaigns that take place entirely in the Underdark, while stories that take place in, say, Icewind Dale or Al-Qadim pretty much use artic and desert exclusively. Same with any "age of sails" game and coast. Outside these specific settings, the terrain won't come up.
Swamps... I don't think they've ever come up in a game I've played.
Swamps are usually fairly small but distinct. The rest are all things that can actually cover entire regions so even a bit of talking with the DM should be able to help you match them up for a fair part of the game. Even one that goes to various locations. There is often some basic area that you primarily work within. But there is more to it than that. Some of these terrains can actually overlap. Mountains and Forests actually being one of the most common combinations. But Forest with grasslands, mountains with grasslands, and grasslands with coast all being relatively common as well. Which is something that often gets overlooked with the kind of oversimplified but massive overall classifications of most of the terrains offered. Really the only major terrain that can be come across regularly or dominate the general setting of a game is that of the urban environment. Which i wonder if it was an oversight or if it was intentional.
The choice between favored foe and favored species (I hate the term favored enemy) is ranger dependent as it is campaign dependent. A hunter ranger, as several have pointed out already, especially a longbow using one, would be crazy not to use hunters mark and would benefit greatly from favored species as it would help them hunt whatever it is they hunt. A two weapon fighting front line and/or urban ranger would benefit greatly from favored foe. Favored foe would be nice on a campaign that isn’t, either because of the campaign, player, or DM, going to bother much with tracking, using any languages besides common, or knowledge checks. In that case you might as well trade it in for a little extra resource. Favored foe plus hunter’s mark will have you being able to fight very effectively for long hours between long rests.
Favored Enemy is generally pretty bad as tracking is rarely a thing that is required in a game and since lore recall is an INT based skill even with ADV you will be better off letting the wizard do it.
Now if you could swap enemies on a long rest it would be a lot better.
Same with the Terrian...if you could swap from forest to swamp after spending a day in the bayou it would be a lot better as you can adapt.
The abilites were written in a way that hamstrings you so much....even tracking humans in a city is completely outclassed eventually by magic. I think that the other martial abilties ( Action Surge, Cunning Action, Rage, Divine Smite, Etc...) all end up being very good throughout your lifespan as an adventurer where the features mentioned here are completely outclassed by magic pretty quickly.
Enhance Ability, Expertise, etc... make your ADV on lore/survival checks a joke and you can just see where someone is eventually with magic like Scrying.
Where as replicating the other abilities are much harder.
Really the only major terrain that can be come across regularly or dominate the general setting of a game is that of the urban environment. Which i wonder if it was an oversight or if it was intentional.
I think its intentional, but for one of two reasons.
The tracking abilities you need to find someone in a city are vastly different from ones you use in the wild. Too crowded, too many distracting scents and sights, etc. Rangers specialize in being lone adventurer/hunter types as their class fantasy. So, its entirely possible not having urban environments is deliberate.
The second possibility, and the one I personally subscribe to, is that "urban" is actually tied into the normal environment. I don't know anyone who would argue that a dwarven city doesn't count as a mountain terrain, nor the same for elven cities and forest terrain, nor lizardfolk and their wetland homes. Why should grassland-based human cities be different? Would you really argue that a coastal city isn't part of the coast terrain?
Really the only major terrain that can be come across regularly or dominate the general setting of a game is that of the urban environment. Which i wonder if it was an oversight or if it was intentional.
I think its intentional, but for one of two reasons.
The tracking abilities you need to find someone in a city are vastly different from ones you use in the wild. Too crowded, too many distracting scents and sights, etc. Rangers specialize in being lone adventurer/hunter types as their class fantasy. So, its entirely possible not having urban environments is deliberate.
The second possibility, and the one I personally subscribe to, is that "urban" is actually tied into the normal environment. I don't know anyone who would argue that a dwarven city doesn't count as a mountain terrain, nor the same for elven cities and forest terrain, nor lizardfolk and their wetland homes. Why should grassland-based human cities be different? Would you really argue that a coastal city isn't part of the coast terrain?
Yeah then you run in the issue of only being able to track people well in Dwarf cities and such.
Really the only major terrain that can be come across regularly or dominate the general setting of a game is that of the urban environment. Which i wonder if it was an oversight or if it was intentional.
I think its intentional, but for one of two reasons.
The tracking abilities you need to find someone in a city are vastly different from ones you use in the wild. Too crowded, too many distracting scents and sights, etc. Rangers specialize in being lone adventurer/hunter types as their class fantasy. So, its entirely possible not having urban environments is deliberate.
The second possibility, and the one I personally subscribe to, is that "urban" is actually tied into the normal environment. I don't know anyone who would argue that a dwarven city doesn't count as a mountain terrain, nor the same for elven cities and forest terrain, nor lizardfolk and their wetland homes. Why should grassland-based human cities be different? Would you really argue that a coastal city isn't part of the coast terrain?
I think it's the former. Rangers serve as a bulwark between civilization and the wilderness. If we include cities as part of that terrain, then we're saying cities are also part of the wilderness.
Or, to put this another way, plenty of cities are situated along the coast. And the coast can have all kinds of terrain specific to it: beaches, cliffs, plains, and so forth. A city, depending on how it's laid out and integrates with the surrounding landscape, could potentially count as a selectable terrain from Natural Explorer. But you're not tracking footprints or scents over busy cobblestone streets.
most real world environments aren't divided in to the options given way. We have things like mountain deserts and mountain tundra.
What about Chult? does the adventure give any guidance?
I haven't played it but I think most of the terrain is both swamp and forest at the same time. The benefit should be determined for each individual check instance which is why they needed a vague term like related. same with cities a city is in the terrain and if that knowledge helps it will provide a bonus and if it it won't help no bonus. When in doubt, providing essentially "expertise" to a check isn't going to break the game as its just a skill check that has a chance of success or failure anyway. This is also a skill check that seems to fit the ranger anyway.
Also You can sometimes track scuffmarks or scents in a busy city. Smells might fade faster but a Costal ranger would be better at discerning normal from abnormal smells in a costal city or there might be other indicators like mud tracks or knowing how far someone would travel in the environment before wanting food water or shade. General tracking stays the same even in the city and few dnd players or dms are actually experts knowing what is possible and what is not.
At the same time it might just take a "face" who knows how to ask the right people. There is sill hunters mark and locate spells for tracking in cities even if the ranger can't use his terrain skills. so, another benefit to hunters mark or a missed opportunity for rangers that don't have it.
most real world environments aren't divided in to the options given way. We have things like mountain deserts and mountain tundra.
What about Chult? does the adventure give any guidance?
I haven't played it but I think most of the terrain is both swamp and forest at the same time. The benefit should be determined for each individual check instance which is why they needed a vague term like related. same with cities a city is in the terrain and if that knowledge helps it will provide a bonus and if it it won't help no bonus. When in doubt, providing essentially "expertise" to a check isn't going to break the game as its just a skill check that has a chance of success or failure anyway. This is also a skill check that seems to fit the ranger anyway.
Also You can sometimes track scuffmarks or scents in a busy city. Smells might fade faster but a Costal ranger would be better at discerning normal from abnormal smells in a costal city or there might be other indicators like mud tracks or knowing how far someone would travel in the environment before wanting food water or shade. General tracking stays the same even in the city and few dnd players or dms are actually experts knowing what is possible and what is not.
At the same time it might just take a "face" who knows how to ask the right people. There is sill hunters mark and locate spells for tracking in cities even if the ranger can't use his terrain skills. so, another benefit to hunters mark or a missed opportunity for rangers that don't have it.
Chult is a special setting and it's actually mostly made up of swamp or Jungle. Jungle is not actually on the Favored Terrain list at all. And I don't remember if the Chult specific setting adds it or makes some kind of allowance about it or not. It's been far too long since i looked at that setting and I never did a lot in it anyway.
As for Cities. They may be within the boundaries of a natural terrain but anything of any decent size is a beast all unto itself and the rules within that city for moving around, for the normal patterns of behavior, and everything else the ranger is used to are going to be very different than what they are shortly outside it's limits. it could be possible to move much farther out in open planes for example in the same amount of time it would take you to get a few blocks in a bustling intricately laid out and noisy city.
I think if a player and/or DM is making such lazer precision distinctions between “forest” and “jungle” the ranger class as written in the PHB is not for them.
I think if a player and/or DM is making such lazer precision distinctions between “forest” and “jungle” the ranger class as written in the PHB is not for them.
or they simply have studied geographic regions to some extent. A jungle is a fair bit different from just a forest despite them both having trees. now if they were making distinctions between kinds of regular forest that is laser precision as you put it.
I think if a player and/or DM is making such lazer precision distinctions between “forest” and “jungle” the ranger class as written in the PHB is not for them.
or they simply have studied geographic regions to some extent. A jungle is a fair bit different from just a forest despite them both having trees. now if they were making distinctions between kinds of regular forest that is laser precision as you put it.
Jungles are just overgrown forests; typically rainforests. It's not too much of a stretch to say they are functionally the same for the same feature.
Savanna. A grassland or a forest? Or do you allow it to be both?
Personally, I just decide if the terrain is something the ranger knows, something similar to what the ranger knows or completely different.
And what if the ranger makes a Intelligence (Nature) check on a creature that lives in more than one terrain? Is the ranger unable to identify wolf just because it was in a woodland(forest) rather than a grassland that is 6 miles away? The DM has to make some judgement calls and they should be siding with the PCs when it’s a toss up.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
On the topic of Natural Explorer versus Deft Explorer.... Sadly, the choice is insanely game dependent. I'm going to use the same examples that I did way back - the Princes of the Apocalypse versus Out of the Abyss.
Now, PotA is a story about hunting down the Elememtal Evil cult and stopping them. This covers a wide variety of terrains - lots of plains and mountains, but you also hit forests and, given the water at times, I'd argue for coastal land as well. Its pretty inconsistent when you'll be encountering the different terrains, so Natural Explorer is kind of crap. Interestingly, though, Favored Enemy really shines - most of the cult includes humans, so taking "human" as your foe gives you lots of bonuses related to the cult and to tracking said cult. Get Elementals when you get to a higher level.
Meanwhile, OotA is a game in the Underdark - take that terrain with Natural Explorer, and you're consistently getting better bonuses than Deft Explorer. Effective expertise in at least three skills (perception, survival, nature), maybe more depending, some stealth bonuses and movement bonuses through difficult terrain. Which is pretty solid. Meanwhile, Favored Enemy is crap - there's so much variety in what you face that any choice you take is good for maybe two sessions, and then worthless. Even taking "demon" is pretty bad, and they're kind of the core of the plot.
In PotA, the choice of Natural versus Deft is a no-brainer, imho. The bonuses are more consistent with Deft, and there's plenty of parts of Natural that just never see use. Meanwhile, OotA? Natural is the superior choice, given the plot. More expertise dealing with immediately relevant skills.
Well said. Options are great. And this is great proof that people’s individual valuation of the ranger and their abilities is reliant on the game they are playing. An example would be natural explorer would still be a poor choice in OotA if the dungeon master didn’t use any exploration or travel and just skipped ahead to battles and such. Defy explorer would be good in that case. Natural explorer would be great in PotA if the party had two ranger, taking different environments. And why wouldn’t you, if you were traveling across the world so much.
The terrain choices are arctic, coast, desert, forest, grassland, mountain, swamp, or the Underdark. I’m reality the ranger should probably be choosing the more dangerous or deadly terrains. The party probably won’t have any trouble traveling or surviving in the coast, grassland, or forest. And underdark is very niche and not likely to come up. So that leaves arctic, desert, mountain, and swamp. These terrains offer challenges for both survival and navigation, and are more valuable to the party when it does come up.
The big thing with grasslands, mountains and forests and that those three are the most common terrain types you encounter. I assume that mountains include caves so popular for small dungeons. Grasslands are the most popular terrain when when you travel. Forests are a bit of a middle ground between the other two, and often include elves or druid conclaves to visit. A stereotypical D&D game will only include these three terrains.
Underdark, coast, artic and desert are what I consider to be "campaign specific" terrains. There's several campaigns that take place entirely in the Underdark, while stories that take place in, say, Icewind Dale or Al-Qadim pretty much use artic and desert exclusively. Same with any "age of sails" game and coast. Outside these specific settings, the terrain won't come up.
Swamps... I don't think they've ever come up in a game I've played.
Swamps are usually fairly small but distinct. The rest are all things that can actually cover entire regions so even a bit of talking with the DM should be able to help you match them up for a fair part of the game. Even one that goes to various locations. There is often some basic area that you primarily work within. But there is more to it than that. Some of these terrains can actually overlap. Mountains and Forests actually being one of the most common combinations. But Forest with grasslands, mountains with grasslands, and grasslands with coast all being relatively common as well. Which is something that often gets overlooked with the kind of oversimplified but massive overall classifications of most of the terrains offered. Really the only major terrain that can be come across regularly or dominate the general setting of a game is that of the urban environment. Which i wonder if it was an oversight or if it was intentional.
Yep. And I believe this is why they used the word “related” in the ability. So much, skill wise, is going to overlap. Tracking, survival, nature, etc.
The choice between favored foe and favored species (I hate the term favored enemy) is ranger dependent as it is campaign dependent. A hunter ranger, as several have pointed out already, especially a longbow using one, would be crazy not to use hunters mark and would benefit greatly from favored species as it would help them hunt whatever it is they hunt. A two weapon fighting front line and/or urban ranger would benefit greatly from favored foe. Favored foe would be nice on a campaign that isn’t, either because of the campaign, player, or DM, going to bother much with tracking, using any languages besides common, or knowledge checks. In that case you might as well trade it in for a little extra resource. Favored foe plus hunter’s mark will have you being able to fight very effectively for long hours between long rests.
Your preferred term, Favored Species, is inadequate because none of the selectable types could really be quantified as species.
LOL!
Sorry, professor.
How about "Favored Creature Type(s)"?
Favored Enemy is generally pretty bad as tracking is rarely a thing that is required in a game and since lore recall is an INT based skill even with ADV you will be better off letting the wizard do it.
Now if you could swap enemies on a long rest it would be a lot better.
Same with the Terrian...if you could swap from forest to swamp after spending a day in the bayou it would be a lot better as you can adapt.
The abilites were written in a way that hamstrings you so much....even tracking humans in a city is completely outclassed eventually by magic. I think that the other martial abilties ( Action Surge, Cunning Action, Rage, Divine Smite, Etc...) all end up being very good throughout your lifespan as an adventurer where the features mentioned here are completely outclassed by magic pretty quickly.
Enhance Ability, Expertise, etc... make your ADV on lore/survival checks a joke and you can just see where someone is eventually with magic like Scrying.
Where as replicating the other abilities are much harder.
Favored Prey?
I think its intentional, but for one of two reasons.
The tracking abilities you need to find someone in a city are vastly different from ones you use in the wild. Too crowded, too many distracting scents and sights, etc. Rangers specialize in being lone adventurer/hunter types as their class fantasy. So, its entirely possible not having urban environments is deliberate.
The second possibility, and the one I personally subscribe to, is that "urban" is actually tied into the normal environment. I don't know anyone who would argue that a dwarven city doesn't count as a mountain terrain, nor the same for elven cities and forest terrain, nor lizardfolk and their wetland homes. Why should grassland-based human cities be different? Would you really argue that a coastal city isn't part of the coast terrain?
Yeah then you run in the issue of only being able to track people well in Dwarf cities and such.
I think it's the former. Rangers serve as a bulwark between civilization and the wilderness. If we include cities as part of that terrain, then we're saying cities are also part of the wilderness.
Or, to put this another way, plenty of cities are situated along the coast. And the coast can have all kinds of terrain specific to it: beaches, cliffs, plains, and so forth. A city, depending on how it's laid out and integrates with the surrounding landscape, could potentially count as a selectable terrain from Natural Explorer. But you're not tracking footprints or scents over busy cobblestone streets.
most real world environments aren't divided in to the options given way. We have things like mountain deserts and mountain tundra.
What about Chult? does the adventure give any guidance?
I haven't played it but I think most of the terrain is both swamp and forest at the same time. The benefit should be determined for each individual check instance which is why they needed a vague term like related. same with cities a city is in the terrain and if that knowledge helps it will provide a bonus and if it it won't help no bonus. When in doubt, providing essentially "expertise" to a check isn't going to break the game as its just a skill check that has a chance of success or failure anyway. This is also a skill check that seems to fit the ranger anyway.
Also You can sometimes track scuffmarks or scents in a busy city. Smells might fade faster but a Costal ranger would be better at discerning normal from abnormal smells in a costal city or there might be other indicators like mud tracks or knowing how far someone would travel in the environment before wanting food water or shade. General tracking stays the same even in the city and few dnd players or dms are actually experts knowing what is possible and what is not.
At the same time it might just take a "face" who knows how to ask the right people. There is sill hunters mark and locate spells for tracking in cities even if the ranger can't use his terrain skills. so, another benefit to hunters mark or a missed opportunity for rangers that don't have it.
Chult is a special setting and it's actually mostly made up of swamp or Jungle. Jungle is not actually on the Favored Terrain list at all. And I don't remember if the Chult specific setting adds it or makes some kind of allowance about it or not. It's been far too long since i looked at that setting and I never did a lot in it anyway.
As for Cities. They may be within the boundaries of a natural terrain but anything of any decent size is a beast all unto itself and the rules within that city for moving around, for the normal patterns of behavior, and everything else the ranger is used to are going to be very different than what they are shortly outside it's limits. it could be possible to move much farther out in open planes for example in the same amount of time it would take you to get a few blocks in a bustling intricately laid out and noisy city.
I think if a player and/or DM is making such lazer precision distinctions between “forest” and “jungle” the ranger class as written in the PHB is not for them.
or they simply have studied geographic regions to some extent. A jungle is a fair bit different from just a forest despite them both having trees. now if they were making distinctions between kinds of regular forest that is laser precision as you put it.
Jungles are just overgrown forests; typically rainforests. It's not too much of a stretch to say they are functionally the same for the same feature.
Savanna. A grassland or a forest? Or do you allow it to be both?
Personally, I just decide if the terrain is something the ranger knows, something similar to what the ranger knows or completely different.
And what if the ranger makes a Intelligence (Nature) check on a creature that lives in more than one terrain? Is the ranger unable to identify wolf just because it was in a woodland(forest) rather than a grassland that is 6 miles away? The DM has to make some judgement calls and they should be siding with the PCs when it’s a toss up.