Necro thread: the phb ranger isn't bad. The revised ranger is just worlds better. Favored enemy and favored terrain in phb and optional class features are just plain bad, and the weaker hunters mark is just weaker hunters mark.
At 20th level, your wolf ends up with 80hp, which at 20th level is 2 hits tops, and outright killed by most spells of 6th level or higher with an above averagedamage roll. That's less than a wizard that has (by almost half) and the wizard has tools for staying out of hitting range. Compare that to the revised ranger which gets ASI's, and hp like a player, hp that scales better, to hit and damage that scales better (and isn't significantly better than other classes)
Especially at the table, the phb ranger is fine. Scout rogue does nature things better, wizard does recon better, fighter is tougher and more mobile, paladin is a stronger caster, phb ranger is generally ok at almost everything, but great at nothing.
Revised ranger is solid at most things and great at a few, and its class features feel impactful and fun.
I'd very much like to see it available in dbb
The revised ranger isn't going to make WotC any money. It's gone forever in the support department.
Also, "That's less than a wizard that has (by almost half) and the wizard has tools for staying out of hitting range." Really? By half? That's not true. The wolf is also dodging much of the time and has an armor class of 19 while naked. Share spells is now a thing as well. How many single attacks from most monsters do more than 10-20 damage on a hit? Most monsters make up their DPR with multiattack. And ins't a good thing if the wolf takes a few hit occasionally? Isn't that part of their job for the subclass?
And why is "...phb ranger is generally ok at almost everything, but great at nothing..." a bad thing? You just listed the strongest feature of four different classes and said the ranger does all of them just about as good.
1) I know RR is never getting published,
2) I said rogues do nature things (and tracking) better, fighters are more mobile and tougher, wizards are better scouts (and better at knowledge skills), paladins have a significantly better spell list.
2 hits is possibly less than one turn, and likely before it gets to act, so no, 1-2 hits isn't very good. Even if it is multi-atrack, that's one single action with several roll components.
I also said the phb ranger isn't bad ( its just not good ), it's just terrible compared to revised ranger
Is this the scout rogue thing? I don’t think they surpass the ranger at wilderness travel/exploration/survival. Plus, rogues are better at skills then any other character doing skills. That’s what rogues do. Same with fighter being a better fighter. I don’t agree about the paladin spell list being superior. And wizards can do all kinds of cute tricks!
Is this the scout rogue thing? I don’t think they surpass the ranger at wilderness travel/exploration/survival. Plus, rogues are better at skills then any other character doing skills. That’s what rogues do. Same with fighter being a better fighter. I don’t agree about the paladin spell list being superior. And wizards can do all kinds of cute tricks!
scout gets expertise in Nature and Survival right off the bat (when you take the subclass at 3rd). while the ranger can take both of those skills, expertise is better than advantage (which, IIRC Favored Terrain gets you) on rolls after ~5th level (when your proficiency bonus becomes 3, meaning a WIS mod +6 to the check [+9 to11 to the roll], while advantage is generally viewed as a floating +5) Nature and Survival are both key skills for nature things. rangers never get expertise in any skill they can take. Yes rogues get more skills, but that's kind of an aside to the discussion, as specifically the subclass Scout does ranger things better than rangers, and with a particular background choice, any scout can gather extra food sufficient to feed themselves and up to 6 companions, which is a key feature of the Favored Terrain that Rangers get on 1-4 terrains, only the background choice is on all terrain. (backgrounds is a whole other ballgame that I dont really want to get too much into)
What is the role of Ranger that makes them better to have in your party than a Scout Rogue (who is still a rogue, and a better ranger for ranger things)? If their role isnt Damage (which I agree it isnt, because it functionally cannot keep up with FIghter or Paladin, even ignoring any spell usage or subclass selection) their role is not taking hits (no heavy armor and very late damage avoidace), they arent Casters (half casting, and a utility-focused spell list, which they cannot (as written) rotate out spells, meaning they select their spells and those are ones they know, period. like Bards, Sorcs and Warlocks) They dont have good control options (unless you take control options, in which case you are not taking utility or damage options), they arent Ritual Casters, PHB ranger doesnt give any combat benefits to Favored Enemies OR Favored Terrain so no damage or control there.
maybe rangers are just suppsed to be grubby Polyglots? they certainly are that; 1-3 from race, possible 2-3 from background, 1-4 from class. thats as many as 10 languages. but anyone can learn 10 languages, and most characters begin play at level 1 with 1-3 from race and 1-3 from background... and anyone who wants to can take Linguist, for another 3, meaning 4-9, versus the ranger's 5-13...
Ranger is incredibly thematic, and it is honestly a flavor i love to death, which is why I harsh so bad on them being so very underwhelming in any of the 3 pillars. They are generalists, who perform at best as well as any (untrained) other person. Yes, Scout is a subclass (which means youre taking that instead of any of the other rogue subs, but youre still a rogue), and Ranger is a core class, but none of the Subclasses make them outperform the Scout at Ranger things, none make them out damage (anyone), or out-control (anyone) or out recon (anyone) or out mobility (anyone), certainly they dont out social anyone.
I really want to love the ranger, and I very much DO love the theme of Beastmaster (which, even with Tasha's, is the worst subclass rangers have in terms of the 3 pillars).
They arent bad. they are just not good at anything, without hefty DM backflips, and/or extensive houseruling.
This is where Revised Ranger comes into play. Favored Enemy adds damage (how it should and has since at least 3.0) Favored Terrain gives actual tangible benefits to more than just skillchecks, and which benefit the whole party directly Conclaves deal increased damage, making them more competible as a second-line damage dealer Beast Conclave actually makes your beast significantly tougher, and makes it competitive with other conclaves, and relevant on the battlefield because it isnt going down in 6 sec It retains the flavor of the core Ranger, while improving all of the shortcomings
the ONLY thing i like from Tasha's that the Revised doesnt do, is give your pet an extra attack at 11th level (the flurry to adjacent enemies that Beast Conclave Revised Ranger gets is very, very niche) but that extra attack steps pretty hard on Fighter, except the damage output is less than Fighter would do.
that's why I'd like to see Revised Ranger, or a heavily reworked PHB ranger (because they've errata'd PHB ranger twice now, and also printed optional rules, and it still underperforms)
Flavor is key, but fun is king, and uncompetitive damage, or uncompetitive exploration, or uncompetitive social is only fun if you bring something unique to the gameplay. anyone can call themselves a lowercase r ranger, but the capitol R Ranger needs to shine someplace other than backstory.
Quick sidenote: Rogue 1st level COULD take Nature (from background) and Survival (alongside 1 other background skill and 3 other class skills) as kills, and use their 1st level expertise on them, meaning they'd still have better checks in those things than Rangers, and also have a full subclass kit
Ranger spells make the entire party better at exploration: they can heal, speak with plants, pass without trace, set an alarm, locate stuff, let you walk on water or breathe under it, and create food. The ranger's problem isn't being out-survivaled by the rogue, because he isn't. It's that survival as a skill isn't very well designed and largely obsolete once magic kicks in. Magic they can use, sure, but a lot of their non-spellcasting kit is made redundant by it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Ranger spells make the entire party better at exploration: they can heal, speak with plants, pass without trace, set an alarm, locate stuff, let you walk on water or breathe under it, and create food. The ranger's problem isn't being out-survivaled by the rogue, because he isn't. It's that survival as a skill isn't very well designed and largely obsolete once magic kicks in. Magic they can use, sure, but a lot of their non-spellcasting kit is made redundant by it.
if youre taking those spells, youre not taking any control options, terrain alteration options, damage options (which are virtually necessary if you intend to not be completely flaccid in combat, or buff spells). they get 2 healing spells by level 11. they arent kitted to be even pinch healers. a Thief rogue with a healer's kit does that better too. (for the record, i dont like rogues) PHB ranger does interesting things when you multiclass it into other classes (Gloomstalker/Spores Druid is potent, but then Gloomstalker and possibly swarmkeeper are very good for ranger) they dont get to pick enough spells to make taking flavor spells like those you list viable, when there are mundane methods that other classes or backgrounds can do as well or better. domain style subclass spells would go a long way toward fixing this.
Ranger as written in PHB is very lackluster across the board. WotC's attention to the Ranger highlights this further too. out of 12 classes, Ranger is in the bottom 3 selected, and among those Beastmaster is the most commonly complained about.
there are loads of people who feel like I do about PHB ranger, and people, like I do, want desperately to enjoy the ranger.
heck, I think Moon Druid is highly, highly overrated for its "endless pool of temp hp" and ive run 2 of them up above 15.
So the scout is devoting their background and subclass to find food a little better and have expertise in two skills the ranger is known for. At level 5 the scout rogue is better at those two skills by 15%...some of the time. You mentioned advantage, but that is favored enemy, not natural explorer. Rangers get expertise in those same two skills, and possibly more, when in, or doing anything associated with, one of their every growing favored terrains. And when they aren’t, again, you’re talking about a 15% difference at tier 2. Plus, when they are in their favored terrain they get en entire slew of other abilities that no rogue ever gets. When using the travel rules everyone can do one thing, so the rogue can use their expertise in nature to look at the weather, their expertise in survival to make a fire, or their expertise in perception to stand watch. Rangers get to do two things at the same time while in their favored terrain.
Rangers do more damage than fighters and paladins at levels 2-10, and more than keep up after that. They also have many spells and abilities to do martial AoE damage, again, something their fighter and paladin counterparts can’t do. Their damage boost comes from their subclass choice and actually casting their spells, and the additional control and utility that comes with that is unmatched by fighter, paladin, or rogue. They have limited spells known, so yes, they do have to kind of pick a spell casting subclass or focus in addition to their subclass. But their spells are very powerful, and many last the entire or even multiple battles.
Scout rogues are kind of cute, but they aren’t a ranger.
So the scout is devoting their background and subclass to find food a little better and have expertise in two skills the ranger is known for. At level 5 the scout rogue is better at those two skills by 15%...some of the time. You mentioned advantage, but that is favored enemy, not natural explorer. Rangers get expertise in those same two skills, and possibly more, when in, or doing anything associated with, one of their every growing favored terrains. And when they aren’t, again, you’re talking about a 15% difference at tier 2. Plus, when they are in their favored terrain they get en entire slew of other abilities that no rogue ever gets. When using the travel rules everyone can do one thing, so the rogue can use their expertise in nature to look at the weather, their expertise in survival to make a fire, or their expertise in perception to stand watch. Rangers get to do two things at the same time while in their favored terrain.
Rangers do more damage than fighters and paladins at levels 2-10, and more than keep up after that. They also have many spells and abilities to do martial AoE damage, again, something their fighter and paladin counterparts can’t do. Their damage boost comes from their subclass choice and actually casting their spells, and the additional control and utility that comes with that is unmatched by fighter, paladin, or rogue. They have limited spells known, so yes, they do have to kind of pick a spell casting subclass or focus in addition to their subclass. But their spells are very powerful, and many last the entire or even multiple battles.
Scout rogues are kind of cute, but they aren’t a ranger.
Rangers get expertise in zero skills. They get proficiency in 3 skills, 2 of which could be those two. Expertise is a specific thing, giving you twice your proficiency bonus to those schools. It starts 15% better, and climbs to 50% better, capping out at +17, versus 11, or 35% over all, but they keep that 35% ahead the whole time because of how stat growth works with pointbuy (unless you're rolling, which means you could start with 20, and likely start with 18)
You're very hung up on the scout thing, which I have engaged you on from jump.
Do you know why I picked that specific thing? Hint: because a scout gets other things that should be standard on ranger, and the scout is STILL a full rogue. Do you not understand that? Still has evasion, and uncanny dodge and sneak attack still has cunning action, still has expertise in 4-6 skills and is still competing in at least 1 of the other 2 pillars. Ranger can't compete in the pillar it is supposed to excel in.
Which is why I why I mentioned scout. Because IF you're going to pick ranger from the PHB, there is never a time that scout isn't a better option mechanically. O. There's 1; magic. Rogue scout doesn't get spells. We've gone over what I think of the ranger's spellcasting. But if you're picking a ranger for its spellcasting, just pick druid instead.
Phb ranger is busted, and wotc knows it, which is why revised ranger pseudo-exists.
So the scout is devoting their background and subclass to find food a little better and have expertise in two skills the ranger is known for. At level 5 the scout rogue is better at those two skills by 15%...some of the time. You mentioned advantage, but that is favored enemy, not natural explorer. Rangers get expertise in those same two skills, and possibly more, when in, or doing anything associated with, one of their every growing favored terrains. And when they aren’t, again, you’re talking about a 15% difference at tier 2. Plus, when they are in their favored terrain they get en entire slew of other abilities that no rogue ever gets. When using the travel rules everyone can do one thing, so the rogue can use their expertise in nature to look at the weather, their expertise in survival to make a fire, or their expertise in perception to stand watch. Rangers get to do two things at the same time while in their favored terrain.
Rangers do more damage than fighters and paladins at levels 2-10, and more than keep up after that. They also have many spells and abilities to do martial AoE damage, again, something their fighter and paladin counterparts can’t do. Their damage boost comes from their subclass choice and actually casting their spells, and the additional control and utility that comes with that is unmatched by fighter, paladin, or rogue. They have limited spells known, so yes, they do have to kind of pick a spell casting subclass or focus in addition to their subclass. But their spells are very powerful, and many last the entire or even multiple battles.
Scout rogues are kind of cute, but they aren’t a ranger.
Rangers get expertise in zero skills. They get proficiency in 3 skills, 2 of which could be those two. Expertise is a specific thing, giving you twice your proficiency bonus to those schools. It starts 15% better, and climbs to 50% better, capping out at +17, versus 11, or 35% over all, but they keep that 35% ahead the whole time because of how stat growth works with pointbuy (unless you're rolling, which means you could start with 20, and likely start with 18)
You're very hung up on the scout thing, which I have engaged you on from jump.
Do you know why I picked that specific thing? Hint: because a scout gets other things that should be standard on ranger, and the scout is STILL a full rogue. Do you not understand that? Still has evasion, and uncanny dodge and sneak attack still has cunning action, still has expertise in 4-6 skills and is still competing in at least 1 of the other 2 pillars. Ranger can't compete in the pillar it is supposed to excel in.
Which is why I why I mentioned scout. Because IF you're going to pick ranger from the PHB, there is never a time that scout isn't a better option mechanically. O. There's 1; magic. Rogue scout doesn't get spells. We've gone over what I think of the ranger's spellcasting. But if you're picking a ranger for its spellcasting, just pick druid instead.
Phb ranger is busted, and wotc knows it, which is why revised ranger pseudo-exists.
The scout's expertise over the ranger's proficiency starts at a 10% and eventually gets to 30% at level 17. That's great! That's what rogues do. Skills, sneak attack, and getting out of dodge. Ranger do get expertise. In any brain stat based skill checks related to one of their eventual three terrains. They can also do more for themselves and the rest of the party in the wild and while traveling. I don't know of any modules or campaigns that takes place in more than 2 or 3 types of terrains. A scout can get along themself very well in the wild. A ranger can get the entire party along. I'm sorry if I've frustrated you. Travel in 5E is not about making a single person making a single skill check. It's not written that way. And much of it isn't even written. At a table that uses the little nitty gritty parts of the game the ranger class shines.
Phb ranger is busted, and wotc knows it, which is why revised ranger pseudo-exists.
Many will agree that the PHB ranger was lackluster, largely because Favored Foe and Favored Terrain vary widely in utility depending on the DM and campaign.
However, the optional features in Tasha's go a long way to shore up the class. Canny gets Ranger the Expertise they deserve. Roving gives you great mobility, and Tireless increases your endurance.
Ranger does still require some DM effort to allow them to leverage their exploration abilities to the max, but this is more a fault of the game than the ranger. Despite claiming exploration as a pillar of the game, the PHB and DMG do not actually put a lot of effort in explaining how that part of the game works. If it just boils down to X number of Survival checks, then yeah a Scout is all you need. But if exploration and travel require more than skill checks, Ranger has a lot of additional tools to handle foraging, scouting, mapping, and orienteering.
The default game is set up to be playable without a Ranger in the party, so you should never need one to succeed at exploration challenges. But if there is one in the party, the DM should be encouraged to dig into exploration and make it a bit more challenging and deep. Provide additional win states that showcase what the Ranger can do.
At any rate, post-Tasha's Ranger has some pretty cool subclasses now that certainly justify its use. It can hold its own in and out of combat and is not an active drain on resources like the OG Beastmaster is. In the right game it's a great pick. In the wrong game it's still not terrible.
Phb ranger is busted, and wotc knows it, which is why revised ranger pseudo-exists.
Many will agree that the PHB ranger was lackluster, largely because Favored Foe and Favored Terrain vary widely in utility depending on the DM and campaign.
However, the optional features in Tasha's go a long way to shore up the class. Canny gets Ranger the Expertise they deserve. Roving gives you great mobility, and Tireless increases your endurance.
Ranger does still require some DM effort to allow them to leverage their exploration abilities to the max, but this is more a fault of the game than the ranger. Despite claiming exploration as a pillar of the game, the PHB and DMG do not actually put a lot of effort in explaining how that part of the game works. If it just boils down to X number of Survival checks, then yeah a Scout is all you need. But if exploration and travel require more than skill checks, Ranger has a lot of additional tools to handle foraging, scouting, mapping, and orienteering.
The default game is set up to be playable without a Ranger in the party, so you should never need one to succeed at exploration challenges. But if there is one in the party, the DM should be encouraged to dig into exploration and make it a bit more challenging and deep. Provide additional win states that showcase what the Ranger can do.
At any rate, post-Tasha's Ranger has some pretty cool subclasses now that certainly justify its use. It can hold its own in and out of combat and is not an active drain on resources like the OG Beastmaster is. In the right game it's a great pick. In the wrong game it's still not terrible.
Would you agree that the game is setup to be playable without any specific class, like a "healer", tank", "power gamer DPR build", etc.? I think so. Combat is kind of the highlight at most tables, I get that. So anyone playing a class that focuses on something that isn't focused on combat is considered to be playing something that is broken or underpowered. The OG beast master is fun, thematic, and effective, just not the most damage output in the world. Illusion magic, divination magic, knowledge checks, languages, wilderness exploration/travel, social skills, and the like are all like 90% reliant on the DM, and shouldn't thought of as being bad or underpowered. If you took away favored enemy, natural explorer, an d primeval awareness, you would skill have a class that is a fighter that replaces action surge with spellcasting. If nothing else, Tasha's allows tables, DMs, and players that want a 100% combat focused ranger to have a way to do that, so that is good. But that isn't a need, that is a want.
I'm of the opinion that daily challenge limits are a bit high if you don't have at least 1 character that can heal unconscious allies. RAW it takes 1d4 hours before they gain 1 HP and wake up, then need another hour to short rest. That is half your adventuring day on average gone if you don't have a healer or healing items when an ally goes down.
There really is no such thing as a tank (in the MMO sense) in 5e. You can build a character with a lot of AC and HP, but there aren't a lot of ways to keep enemies on you and away from your allies.
A spellcaster to handle crowd control (AOE damage, status effects, area denial, etc) helps a lot, but isn't required.
Basically, any build that adds to the party's total HP ("tank") or reduces the damage enemies can deal ("control or dps") will help a lot, but only having an ally at 0 hp ends an adventuring day.
Healing, AoE, crowd control, area denial are all thing rangers can do that other martials can’t (generally speaking). Through their spells, and a few of the subclasses. Also lots of damage.
Frank has touched upon it, but it seems a few people have not read what Favored Terrain does. It does not grant advantage, it grants expertise similar to the Scout.
Favored Terrain grants expertise in proficient intelligence/wisdom checks related to a favored terrain. It's confusing cause it's not directly called expertise and there's several other features listed, but it's there. "When you make an Intelligence or Wisdom check related to your favored terrain, your proficiency bonus is doubled if you are using a skill that you’re proficient in."
It also grants the bonuses of ignoring difficult terrain, can't become lost, can watch & do activity, double forage and tracking+.
You don't actually get advantage at all. Although Favored Foe grants advantage on tracking foes and making intelligence checks about said foes, but that doesn't apply to just surviving out in the woods.
Also yeah, Ranger excels in combat quite a lot from 2-10 and does pretty decent on all the other levels. I do agree PHB ranger would be a ton better if the travel rules were more front and center as well as more interesting.
Edit: Changed "all" to "proficient" to be a bit more specific.
Healing, AoE, crowd control, area denial are all thing rangers can do that other martials can’t (generally speaking). Through their spells, and a few of the subclasses. Also lots of damage.
Yeah, they have always had a lot of potential with their spells and (non-PHB) subclasses.
Frank has touched upon it, but it seems a few people have not read what Favored Terrain does. It does not grant advantage, it grants expertise similar to the Scout.
Favored Terrain grants expertise in proficient intelligence/wisdom checks related to a favored terrain. It's confusing cause it's not directly called expertise and there's several other features listed, but it's there. "When you make an Intelligence or Wisdom check related to your favored terrain, your proficiency bonus is doubled if you are using a skill that you’re proficient in."
It also grants the bonuses of ignoring difficult terrain, can't become lost, can watch & do activity, double forage and tracking+.
You don't actually get advantage at all. Although Favored Foe grants advantage on tracking foes and making intelligence checks about said foes, but that doesn't apply to just surviving out in the woods.
Also yeah, Ranger excels in combat quite a lot from 2-10 and does pretty decent on all the other levels. I do agree PHB ranger would be a ton better if the travel rules were more front and center as well as more interesting.
Edit: Changed "all" to "proficient" to be a bit more specific.
except that ranger only gets that expertise in one terrain type initially and 4 eventually, while scout gets them all the time. Favored Foe (not enemy) is much, much better than Favored Enemy.
the Tasha's alternates are MUCH better than the PHB ones, so much so that the PHB ones should never have made it out of the design stages, but hindsight is what it is. with the tasha's mods, ranger does much better damage at 2-10, but without them, its abysmal.
their spell list does HAVE the option to either heal OR aoe, OR damage, OR control, but the other half caster (paladin) replaces those 'or's with 'ands'. Laura on CR (after campaign 1) summed up the ranger best when compared to the rest of the party: "travis can attack 3 times and soaks damage, marisha can turn into all the things, ashley can call on her god to wreck her foes. I can summon a quiver." 5e PHB ranger is busted, Tashas somewhat fixes some of that. Revised Ranger is a much better solution. particularly beast conclave over beastmaster
Frank has touched upon it, but it seems a few people have not read what Favored Terrain does. It does not grant advantage, it grants expertise similar to the Scout.
Favored Terrain grants expertise in proficient intelligence/wisdom checks related to a favored terrain. It's confusing cause it's not directly called expertise and there's several other features listed, but it's there. "When you make an Intelligence or Wisdom check related to your favored terrain, your proficiency bonus is doubled if you are using a skill that you’re proficient in."
It also grants the bonuses of ignoring difficult terrain, can't become lost, can watch & do activity, double forage and tracking+.
You don't actually get advantage at all. Although Favored Foe grants advantage on tracking foes and making intelligence checks about said foes, but that doesn't apply to just surviving out in the woods.
Also yeah, Ranger excels in combat quite a lot from 2-10 and does pretty decent on all the other levels. I do agree PHB ranger would be a ton better if the travel rules were more front and center as well as more interesting.
Edit: Changed "all" to "proficient" to be a bit more specific.
except that ranger only gets that expertise in one terrain type initially and 4 eventually, while scout gets them all the time. Favored Foe (not enemy) is much, much better than Favored Enemy.
the Tasha's alternates are MUCH better than the PHB ones, so much so that the PHB ones should never have made it out of the design stages, but hindsight is what it is. with the tasha's mods, ranger does much better damage at 2-10, but without them, its abysmal.
their spell list does HAVE the option to either heal OR aoe, OR damage, OR control, but the other half caster (paladin) replaces those 'or's with 'ands'. Laura on CR (after campaign 1) summed up the ranger best when compared to the rest of the party: "travis can attack 3 times and soaks damage, marisha can turn into all the things, ashley can call on her god to wreck her foes. I can summon a quiver." 5e PHB ranger is busted, Tashas somewhat fixes some of that. Revised Ranger is a much better solution. particularly beast conclave over beastmaster
"except that ranger only gets that expertise in one terrain type initially and 4 eventually, while scout gets them all the time." Two things here that make me think you're not very familiar on the ranger's abilities. First, the expertise is on any skill check (with preexisting proficiency of course) RELATED to any of your favorite terrains. Animals, plants, weather, history, lore, anything that has to do with one of your terrains. Everyone ask themselves what kind of checks someone would make using the skills history, investigation, medicine, nature, survival, animal handling, and then ask yourself how often you use any of them in your game. If the answer is little to none, then the ranger or scout rogue is not for you. If your answer is some to a lot, then ask yourself how those skills are related to something in, from, or about any kind of landscape. THOSE are the skills the ranger has expertise in. Most of what anyone is doing with those skills with relate to one of the ranger's terrains. Whenever a rogue decides to focus their expertise on a set of skills they will be the best at that. That is like 80% of the kit of their class. Navigation, hunting, tracking, for casting the weather, recalling information about plants or animals, reading an animal, all of these things makes almost no difference whether you are in the coast, forest, grassland, or mountain terrains all being more or less the same, and with the specificity of arctic, desert, swamp, and underdark being a little more niche.
Second, it's only three favored terrains in total.
Frank has touched upon it, but it seems a few people have not read what Favored Terrain does. It does not grant advantage, it grants expertise similar to the Scout.
Favored Terrain grants expertise in proficient intelligence/wisdom checks related to a favored terrain. It's confusing cause it's not directly called expertise and there's several other features listed, but it's there. "When you make an Intelligence or Wisdom check related to your favored terrain, your proficiency bonus is doubled if you are using a skill that you’re proficient in."
It also grants the bonuses of ignoring difficult terrain, can't become lost, can watch & do activity, double forage and tracking+.
You don't actually get advantage at all. Although Favored Foe grants advantage on tracking foes and making intelligence checks about said foes, but that doesn't apply to just surviving out in the woods.
Also yeah, Ranger excels in combat quite a lot from 2-10 and does pretty decent on all the other levels. I do agree PHB ranger would be a ton better if the travel rules were more front and center as well as more interesting.
Edit: Changed "all" to "proficient" to be a bit more specific.
except that ranger only gets that expertise in one terrain type initially and 4 eventually, while scout gets them all the time. Favored Foe (not enemy) is much, much better than Favored Enemy.
the Tasha's alternates are MUCH better than the PHB ones, so much so that the PHB ones should never have made it out of the design stages, but hindsight is what it is. with the tasha's mods, ranger does much better damage at 2-10, but without them, its abysmal.
their spell list does HAVE the option to either heal OR aoe, OR damage, OR control, but the other half caster (paladin) replaces those 'or's with 'ands'. Laura on CR (after campaign 1) summed up the ranger best when compared to the rest of the party: "travis can attack 3 times and soaks damage, marisha can turn into all the things, ashley can call on her god to wreck her foes. I can summon a quiver." 5e PHB ranger is busted, Tashas somewhat fixes some of that. Revised Ranger is a much better solution. particularly beast conclave over beastmaster
"except that ranger only gets that expertise in one terrain type initially and 4 eventually, while scout gets them all the time." Two things here that make me think you're not very familiar on the ranger's abilities. First, the expertise is on any skill check (with preexisting proficiency of course) RELATED to any of your favorite terrains. Animals, plants, weather, history, lore, anything that has to do with one of your terrains. Everyone ask themselves what kind of checks someone would make using the skills history, investigation, medicine, nature, survival, animal handling, and then ask yourself how often you use any of them in your game. If the answer is little to none, then the ranger or scout rogue is not for you. If your answer is some to a lot, then ask yourself how those skills are related to something in, from, or about any kind of landscape. THOSE are the skills the ranger has expertise in. Most of what anyone is doing with those skills with relate to one of the ranger's terrains. Whenever a rogue decides to focus their expertise on a set of skills they will be the best at that. That is like 80% of the kit of their class. Navigation, hunting, tracking, for casting the weather, recalling information about plants or animals, reading an animal, all of these things makes almost no difference whether you are in the coast, forest, grassland, or mountain terrains all being more or less the same, and with the specificity of arctic, desert, swamp, and underdark being a little more niche.
Second, it's only three favored terrains in total.
cool, so they're good an everything to do with their (three, unsarcastically thanks.) favored terrains, and at best as good as anyone else any not-their-favored-terrains. that's unbelievably campaign and DM dependent, which means unless you tell everyone "hey guys, i want this one specific way to play, indulge my specific fantasy and make me look like a bamf", its going to be a rough go. tell me how having to ask your DM to make you look cool is fun. you're right, PHB ranger is not for me. tashas mods make it closer to my thing. revised ranger is objectively better than both. if i have to ask the DM's permission to make my ranger look cool or keep up with my party, ill play a different class. one which gets features which give me some agency in how well my character performs. even being suboptimal by choice as another class or race/class combo is better than being cool/functional by using the DM as a crutch. the storytelling is supposed to be a 50/50 DM/player. if the DM sees that a particular person is struggling, they may decide to set them up to shine. to shine, Ranger by default requires more handholding than any other class.
The reason all of that is frustrating to me is that i love the flavor of the ranger, in particular the beastmaster ranger. the flavor is so cool and interesting, and there's so much RP/storytelling potential there. The idea of a dude ranging the wilds until he knows them like family is very appealing. the above is also part of why I love the idea of Warlock, but to function best, the player and DM need to spend a great deal of time hashing out the patron/warlock relationship
paladin is fair even if youre not fighting undead/fiends druid is good even in urban environments cleric is good unless your world specifically has no divine presence barbarian is solid rogue too, even in standup fights monk is better than it looks on paper (similar to ranger) fighter is another all-arounder frontline sorcerer needs some player planning, but is generally pretty fair wizard/mage has always been progressively better with more play Bard is an all-arounder backline Warlock is better with DM involvement, but can be good without
ranger needs some help to be on the level of other classes, and is a feast-or-famine class, meaning they are either so OP as to make their skills meaningless to actually roll on, or so useless as to never stand out
I really want ranger to stand be rounded out into something which, without excessive DM handholding, brings something engaging to the table. Every class has at least one thing that other classes wish they had. except ranger.
Two things here that make me think you're not very familiar on the ranger's abilities. First, the expertise is on any skill check (with preexisting proficiency of course) RELATED to any of your favorite terrains. ... Most of what anyone is doing with those skills with relate to one of the ranger's terrains.
Frank, I think if everyone were confident that their DM would interpret this feature the way you do then there would be much less argument about it. But I personally know at least one other DM who would see this interpretation as blatant rules lawyering/munchkinism, and I have players who would at the least roll their eyes at every attempt to Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon your way into expertise on anything not related in the most direct and literal ways.
The abilities are just worded too vaguely. That is part of the complaint. Something that varies so widely from table to table in basic utility and functionality is bad design by definition. There are things they could have done to clean up the features' boundaries and potential without changing the flavor or flexibility. At the very least they could have included a few examples of applicable checks to illustrate what they mean by "related to."
Two things here that make me think you're not very familiar on the ranger's abilities. First, the expertise is on any skill check (with preexisting proficiency of course) RELATED to any of your favorite terrains. ... Most of what anyone is doing with those skills with relate to one of the ranger's terrains.
Frank, I think if everyone were confident that their DM would interpret this feature the way you do then there would be much less argument about it. But I personally know at least one other DM who would see this interpretation as blatant rules lawyering/munchkinism, and I have players who would at the least roll their eyes at every attempt to Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon your way into expertise on anything not related in the most direct and literal ways.
The abilities are just worded too vaguely. That is part of the complaint. Something that varies so widely from table to table in basic utility and functionality is bad design by definition. There are things they could have done to clean up the features' boundaries and potential without changing the flavor or flexibility. At the very least they could have included a few examples of applicable checks to illustrate what they mean by "related to."
I 100% understand and agree with that. I’m biased because as a player and DM I’ve never had a negative experience with the PHB ranger class or PHB beast master subclass. Most people don’t like, and therefore don’t use, anything in the game that is vague or open to DM interpretation. I’m fortunate to be in a position to choose who I don’t play D&D with.
Two things here that make me think you're not very familiar on the ranger's abilities. First, the expertise is on any skill check (with preexisting proficiency of course) RELATED to any of your favorite terrains. ... Most of what anyone is doing with those skills with relate to one of the ranger's terrains.
Frank, I think if everyone were confident that their DM would interpret this feature the way you do then there would be much less argument about it. But I personally know at least one other DM who would see this interpretation as blatant rules lawyering/munchkinism, and I have players who would at the least roll their eyes at every attempt to Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon your way into expertise on anything not related in the most direct and literal ways.
The abilities are just worded too vaguely. That is part of the complaint. Something that varies so widely from table to table in basic utility and functionality is bad design by definition. There are things they could have done to clean up the features' boundaries and potential without changing the flavor or flexibility. At the very least they could have included a few examples of applicable checks to illustrate what they mean by "related to."
I 100% understand and agree with that. I’m biased because as a player and DM I’ve never had a negative experience with the PHB ranger class or PHB beast master subclass. Most people don’t like, and therefore don’t use, anything in the game that is vague or open to DM interpretation. I’m fortunate to be in a position to choose who I don’t play D&D with.
Might be harder to have a bad time when one is houserule buffing it though, no?
In the real world, knowing about one biome gives you some measure of knowledge about all or most biomes (knowledge: nature), but they're clearly and intentionally separated for ranger in a way which makes them highly situation/table dependent by adding complexity to a rule which would have been one die roll/check for anyone else. They don't bring anything that can't be acquired by anyone else, who would still have their entire class/subclass clear.
Scavenging? Background ; difficult terrain? Race or Background; tracking? Race/Background/subclass. Yes, you're taking those instead of others, but that's not a limitation you can really discuss, because the same is true of ranger.
Aside from (possibly) correcting me (ymmv) you haven't given me any compelling arguments as to the phb ranger, even with tashas (which does make it better somewhat), being anything less than underpowered. Ranger is uncharacteristically poorly designed in 5e. As I've said numerous times, that's what's so frustrating.
Also, tashas is widely viewed as "power creep: a novelization" and though the feeling seems to have lapsed some, is still very much a hot topic as to its eligibility for use at home tables. That is, many people have said they're likely to ban it
Side note: Everyone is in a position to pick who they do and do not play with. The internet is a thing.
Even with this disagreement, I would not refuse to play at the same table as you, though I'm reasonably sure that was you passive-aggressively implying you would not with the others in this thread...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1) I know RR is never getting published,
2) I said rogues do nature things (and tracking) better, fighters are more mobile and tougher, wizards are better scouts (and better at knowledge skills), paladins have a significantly better spell list.
2 hits is possibly less than one turn, and likely before it gets to act, so no, 1-2 hits isn't very good. Even if it is multi-atrack, that's one single action with several roll components.
I also said the phb ranger isn't bad ( its just not good ), it's just terrible compared to revised ranger
Is this the scout rogue thing? I don’t think they surpass the ranger at wilderness travel/exploration/survival. Plus, rogues are better at skills then any other character doing skills. That’s what rogues do. Same with fighter being a better fighter. I don’t agree about the paladin spell list being superior. And wizards can do all kinds of cute tricks!
scout gets expertise in Nature and Survival right off the bat (when you take the subclass at 3rd). while the ranger can take both of those skills, expertise is better than advantage (which, IIRC Favored Terrain gets you) on rolls after ~5th level (when your proficiency bonus becomes 3, meaning a WIS mod +6 to the check [+9 to11 to the roll], while advantage is generally viewed as a floating +5) Nature and Survival are both key skills for nature things. rangers never get expertise in any skill they can take. Yes rogues get more skills, but that's kind of an aside to the discussion, as specifically the subclass Scout does ranger things better than rangers, and with a particular background choice, any scout can gather extra food sufficient to feed themselves and up to 6 companions, which is a key feature of the Favored Terrain that Rangers get on 1-4 terrains, only the background choice is on all terrain. (backgrounds is a whole other ballgame that I dont really want to get too much into)
What is the role of Ranger that makes them better to have in your party than a Scout Rogue (who is still a rogue, and a better ranger for ranger things)? If their role isnt Damage (which I agree it isnt, because it functionally cannot keep up with FIghter or Paladin, even ignoring any spell usage or subclass selection) their role is not taking hits (no heavy armor and very late damage avoidace), they arent Casters (half casting, and a utility-focused spell list, which they cannot (as written) rotate out spells, meaning they select their spells and those are ones they know, period. like Bards, Sorcs and Warlocks) They dont have good control options (unless you take control options, in which case you are not taking utility or damage options), they arent Ritual Casters, PHB ranger doesnt give any combat benefits to Favored Enemies OR Favored Terrain so no damage or control there.
maybe rangers are just suppsed to be grubby Polyglots? they certainly are that; 1-3 from race, possible 2-3 from background, 1-4 from class. thats as many as 10 languages. but anyone can learn 10 languages, and most characters begin play at level 1 with 1-3 from race and 1-3 from background... and anyone who wants to can take Linguist, for another 3, meaning 4-9, versus the ranger's 5-13...
Ranger is incredibly thematic, and it is honestly a flavor i love to death, which is why I harsh so bad on them being so very underwhelming in any of the 3 pillars. They are generalists, who perform at best as well as any (untrained) other person.
Yes, Scout is a subclass (which means youre taking that instead of any of the other rogue subs, but youre still a rogue), and Ranger is a core class, but none of the Subclasses make them outperform the Scout at Ranger things, none make them out damage (anyone), or out-control (anyone) or out recon (anyone) or out mobility (anyone), certainly they dont out social anyone.
I really want to love the ranger, and I very much DO love the theme of Beastmaster (which, even with Tasha's, is the worst subclass rangers have in terms of the 3 pillars).
They arent bad. they are just not good at anything, without hefty DM backflips, and/or extensive houseruling.
This is where Revised Ranger comes into play.
Favored Enemy adds damage (how it should and has since at least 3.0)
Favored Terrain gives actual tangible benefits to more than just skillchecks, and which benefit the whole party directly
Conclaves deal increased damage, making them more competible as a second-line damage dealer
Beast Conclave actually makes your beast significantly tougher, and makes it competitive with other conclaves, and relevant on the battlefield because it isnt going down in 6 sec
It retains the flavor of the core Ranger, while improving all of the shortcomings
the ONLY thing i like from Tasha's that the Revised doesnt do, is give your pet an extra attack at 11th level (the flurry to adjacent enemies that Beast Conclave Revised Ranger gets is very, very niche) but that extra attack steps pretty hard on Fighter, except the damage output is less than Fighter would do.
that's why I'd like to see Revised Ranger, or a heavily reworked PHB ranger (because they've errata'd PHB ranger twice now, and also printed optional rules, and it still underperforms)
Flavor is key, but fun is king, and uncompetitive damage, or uncompetitive exploration, or uncompetitive social is only fun if you bring something unique to the gameplay. anyone can call themselves a lowercase r ranger, but the capitol R Ranger needs to shine someplace other than backstory.
Quick sidenote: Rogue 1st level COULD take Nature (from background) and Survival (alongside 1 other background skill and 3 other class skills) as kills, and use their 1st level expertise on them, meaning they'd still have better checks in those things than Rangers, and also have a full subclass kit
Ranger spells make the entire party better at exploration: they can heal, speak with plants, pass without trace, set an alarm, locate stuff, let you walk on water or breathe under it, and create food. The ranger's problem isn't being out-survivaled by the rogue, because he isn't. It's that survival as a skill isn't very well designed and largely obsolete once magic kicks in. Magic they can use, sure, but a lot of their non-spellcasting kit is made redundant by it.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
if youre taking those spells, youre not taking any control options, terrain alteration options, damage options (which are virtually necessary if you intend to not be completely flaccid in combat, or buff spells). they get 2 healing spells by level 11. they arent kitted to be even pinch healers. a Thief rogue with a healer's kit does that better too. (for the record, i dont like rogues)
PHB ranger does interesting things when you multiclass it into other classes (Gloomstalker/Spores Druid is potent, but then Gloomstalker and possibly swarmkeeper are very good for ranger)
they dont get to pick enough spells to make taking flavor spells like those you list viable, when there are mundane methods that other classes or backgrounds can do as well or better. domain style subclass spells would go a long way toward fixing this.
Ranger as written in PHB is very lackluster across the board. WotC's attention to the Ranger highlights this further too. out of 12 classes, Ranger is in the bottom 3 selected, and among those Beastmaster is the most commonly complained about.
there are loads of people who feel like I do about PHB ranger, and people, like I do, want desperately to enjoy the ranger.
heck, I think Moon Druid is highly, highly overrated for its "endless pool of temp hp" and ive run 2 of them up above 15.
So the scout is devoting their background and subclass to find food a little better and have expertise in two skills the ranger is known for. At level 5 the scout rogue is better at those two skills by 15%...some of the time. You mentioned advantage, but that is favored enemy, not natural explorer. Rangers get expertise in those same two skills, and possibly more, when in, or doing anything associated with, one of their every growing favored terrains. And when they aren’t, again, you’re talking about a 15% difference at tier 2. Plus, when they are in their favored terrain they get en entire slew of other abilities that no rogue ever gets. When using the travel rules everyone can do one thing, so the rogue can use their expertise in nature to look at the weather, their expertise in survival to make a fire, or their expertise in perception to stand watch. Rangers get to do two things at the same time while in their favored terrain.
Rangers do more damage than fighters and paladins at levels 2-10, and more than keep up after that. They also have many spells and abilities to do martial AoE damage, again, something their fighter and paladin counterparts can’t do. Their damage boost comes from their subclass choice and actually casting their spells, and the additional control and utility that comes with that is unmatched by fighter, paladin, or rogue. They have limited spells known, so yes, they do have to kind of pick a spell casting subclass or focus in addition to their subclass. But their spells are very powerful, and many last the entire or even multiple battles.
Scout rogues are kind of cute, but they aren’t a ranger.
Rangers get expertise in zero skills. They get proficiency in 3 skills, 2 of which could be those two. Expertise is a specific thing, giving you twice your proficiency bonus to those schools. It starts 15% better, and climbs to 50% better, capping out at +17, versus 11, or 35% over all, but they keep that 35% ahead the whole time because of how stat growth works with pointbuy (unless you're rolling, which means you could start with 20, and likely start with 18)
You're very hung up on the scout thing, which I have engaged you on from jump.
Do you know why I picked that specific thing? Hint: because a scout gets other things that should be standard on ranger, and the scout is STILL a full rogue. Do you not understand that? Still has evasion, and uncanny dodge and sneak attack still has cunning action, still has expertise in 4-6 skills and is still competing in at least 1 of the other 2 pillars. Ranger can't compete in the pillar it is supposed to excel in.
Which is why I why I mentioned scout. Because IF you're going to pick ranger from the PHB, there is never a time that scout isn't a better option mechanically. O. There's 1; magic. Rogue scout doesn't get spells. We've gone over what I think of the ranger's spellcasting. But if you're picking a ranger for its spellcasting, just pick druid instead.
Phb ranger is busted, and wotc knows it, which is why revised ranger pseudo-exists.
The scout's expertise over the ranger's proficiency starts at a 10% and eventually gets to 30% at level 17. That's great! That's what rogues do. Skills, sneak attack, and getting out of dodge. Ranger do get expertise. In any brain stat based skill checks related to one of their eventual three terrains. They can also do more for themselves and the rest of the party in the wild and while traveling. I don't know of any modules or campaigns that takes place in more than 2 or 3 types of terrains. A scout can get along themself very well in the wild. A ranger can get the entire party along. I'm sorry if I've frustrated you. Travel in 5E is not about making a single person making a single skill check. It's not written that way. And much of it isn't even written. At a table that uses the little nitty gritty parts of the game the ranger class shines.
Many will agree that the PHB ranger was lackluster, largely because Favored Foe and Favored Terrain vary widely in utility depending on the DM and campaign.
However, the optional features in Tasha's go a long way to shore up the class. Canny gets Ranger the Expertise they deserve. Roving gives you great mobility, and Tireless increases your endurance.
Ranger does still require some DM effort to allow them to leverage their exploration abilities to the max, but this is more a fault of the game than the ranger. Despite claiming exploration as a pillar of the game, the PHB and DMG do not actually put a lot of effort in explaining how that part of the game works. If it just boils down to X number of Survival checks, then yeah a Scout is all you need. But if exploration and travel require more than skill checks, Ranger has a lot of additional tools to handle foraging, scouting, mapping, and orienteering.
The default game is set up to be playable without a Ranger in the party, so you should never need one to succeed at exploration challenges. But if there is one in the party, the DM should be encouraged to dig into exploration and make it a bit more challenging and deep. Provide additional win states that showcase what the Ranger can do.
At any rate, post-Tasha's Ranger has some pretty cool subclasses now that certainly justify its use. It can hold its own in and out of combat and is not an active drain on resources like the OG Beastmaster is. In the right game it's a great pick. In the wrong game it's still not terrible.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Would you agree that the game is setup to be playable without any specific class, like a "healer", tank", "power gamer DPR build", etc.? I think so. Combat is kind of the highlight at most tables, I get that. So anyone playing a class that focuses on something that isn't focused on combat is considered to be playing something that is broken or underpowered. The OG beast master is fun, thematic, and effective, just not the most damage output in the world. Illusion magic, divination magic, knowledge checks, languages, wilderness exploration/travel, social skills, and the like are all like 90% reliant on the DM, and shouldn't thought of as being bad or underpowered. If you took away favored enemy, natural explorer, an d primeval awareness, you would skill have a class that is a fighter that replaces action surge with spellcasting. If nothing else, Tasha's allows tables, DMs, and players that want a 100% combat focused ranger to have a way to do that, so that is good. But that isn't a need, that is a want.
I'm of the opinion that daily challenge limits are a bit high if you don't have at least 1 character that can heal unconscious allies. RAW it takes 1d4 hours before they gain 1 HP and wake up, then need another hour to short rest. That is half your adventuring day on average gone if you don't have a healer or healing items when an ally goes down.
There really is no such thing as a tank (in the MMO sense) in 5e. You can build a character with a lot of AC and HP, but there aren't a lot of ways to keep enemies on you and away from your allies.
A spellcaster to handle crowd control (AOE damage, status effects, area denial, etc) helps a lot, but isn't required.
Basically, any build that adds to the party's total HP ("tank") or reduces the damage enemies can deal ("control or dps") will help a lot, but only having an ally at 0 hp ends an adventuring day.
Healing, AoE, crowd control, area denial are all thing rangers can do that other martials can’t (generally speaking). Through their spells, and a few of the subclasses. Also lots of damage.
Frank has touched upon it, but it seems a few people have not read what Favored Terrain does. It does not grant advantage, it grants expertise similar to the Scout.
Favored Terrain grants expertise in proficient intelligence/wisdom checks related to a favored terrain. It's confusing cause it's not directly called expertise and there's several other features listed, but it's there. "When you make an Intelligence or Wisdom check related to your favored terrain, your proficiency bonus is doubled if you are using a skill that you’re proficient in."
It also grants the bonuses of ignoring difficult terrain, can't become lost, can watch & do activity, double forage and tracking+.
You don't actually get advantage at all. Although Favored Foe grants advantage on tracking foes and making intelligence checks about said foes, but that doesn't apply to just surviving out in the woods.
Also yeah, Ranger excels in combat quite a lot from 2-10 and does pretty decent on all the other levels. I do agree PHB ranger would be a ton better if the travel rules were more front and center as well as more interesting.
Edit: Changed "all" to "proficient" to be a bit more specific.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Yeah, they have always had a lot of potential with their spells and (non-PHB) subclasses.
except that ranger only gets that expertise in one terrain type initially and 4 eventually, while scout gets them all the time. Favored Foe (not enemy) is much, much better than Favored Enemy.
the Tasha's alternates are MUCH better than the PHB ones, so much so that the PHB ones should never have made it out of the design stages, but hindsight is what it is. with the tasha's mods, ranger does much better damage at 2-10, but without them, its abysmal.
their spell list does HAVE the option to either heal OR aoe, OR damage, OR control, but the other half caster (paladin) replaces those 'or's with 'ands'.
Laura on CR (after campaign 1) summed up the ranger best when compared to the rest of the party: "travis can attack 3 times and soaks damage, marisha can turn into all the things, ashley can call on her god to wreck her foes. I can summon a quiver."
5e PHB ranger is busted, Tashas somewhat fixes some of that. Revised Ranger is a much better solution. particularly beast conclave over beastmaster
"except that ranger only gets that expertise in one terrain type initially and 4 eventually, while scout gets them all the time." Two things here that make me think you're not very familiar on the ranger's abilities. First, the expertise is on any skill check (with preexisting proficiency of course) RELATED to any of your favorite terrains. Animals, plants, weather, history, lore, anything that has to do with one of your terrains. Everyone ask themselves what kind of checks someone would make using the skills history, investigation, medicine, nature, survival, animal handling, and then ask yourself how often you use any of them in your game. If the answer is little to none, then the ranger or scout rogue is not for you. If your answer is some to a lot, then ask yourself how those skills are related to something in, from, or about any kind of landscape. THOSE are the skills the ranger has expertise in. Most of what anyone is doing with those skills with relate to one of the ranger's terrains. Whenever a rogue decides to focus their expertise on a set of skills they will be the best at that. That is like 80% of the kit of their class. Navigation, hunting, tracking, for casting the weather, recalling information about plants or animals, reading an animal, all of these things makes almost no difference whether you are in the coast, forest, grassland, or mountain terrains all being more or less the same, and with the specificity of arctic, desert, swamp, and underdark being a little more niche.
Second, it's only three favored terrains in total.
cool, so they're good an everything to do with their (three, unsarcastically thanks.) favored terrains, and at best as good as anyone else any not-their-favored-terrains. that's unbelievably campaign and DM dependent, which means unless you tell everyone "hey guys, i want this one specific way to play, indulge my specific fantasy and make me look like a bamf", its going to be a rough go.
tell me how having to ask your DM to make you look cool is fun.
you're right, PHB ranger is not for me. tashas mods make it closer to my thing. revised ranger is objectively better than both.
if i have to ask the DM's permission to make my ranger look cool or keep up with my party, ill play a different class. one which gets features which give me some agency in how well my character performs.
even being suboptimal by choice as another class or race/class combo is better than being cool/functional by using the DM as a crutch.
the storytelling is supposed to be a 50/50 DM/player. if the DM sees that a particular person is struggling, they may decide to set them up to shine. to shine, Ranger by default requires more handholding than any other class.
The reason all of that is frustrating to me is that i love the flavor of the ranger, in particular the beastmaster ranger. the flavor is so cool and interesting, and there's so much RP/storytelling potential there. The idea of a dude ranging the wilds until he knows them like family is very appealing.
the above is also part of why I love the idea of Warlock, but to function best, the player and DM need to spend a great deal of time hashing out the patron/warlock relationship
paladin is fair even if youre not fighting undead/fiends
druid is good even in urban environments
cleric is good unless your world specifically has no divine presence
barbarian is solid
rogue too, even in standup fights
monk is better than it looks on paper (similar to ranger)
fighter is another all-arounder frontline
sorcerer needs some player planning, but is generally pretty fair
wizard/mage has always been progressively better with more play
Bard is an all-arounder backline
Warlock is better with DM involvement, but can be good without
ranger needs some help to be on the level of other classes, and is a feast-or-famine class, meaning they are either so OP as to make their skills meaningless to actually roll on, or so useless as to never stand out
I really want ranger to stand be rounded out into something which, without excessive DM handholding, brings something engaging to the table. Every class has at least one thing that other classes wish they had. except ranger.
Frank, I think if everyone were confident that their DM would interpret this feature the way you do then there would be much less argument about it. But I personally know at least one other DM who would see this interpretation as blatant rules lawyering/munchkinism, and I have players who would at the least roll their eyes at every attempt to Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon your way into expertise on anything not related in the most direct and literal ways.
The abilities are just worded too vaguely. That is part of the complaint. Something that varies so widely from table to table in basic utility and functionality is bad design by definition. There are things they could have done to clean up the features' boundaries and potential without changing the flavor or flexibility. At the very least they could have included a few examples of applicable checks to illustrate what they mean by "related to."
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I 100% understand and agree with that. I’m biased because as a player and DM I’ve never had a negative experience with the PHB ranger class or PHB beast master subclass. Most people don’t like, and therefore don’t use, anything in the game that is vague or open to DM interpretation. I’m fortunate to be in a position to choose who I don’t play D&D with.
Might be harder to have a bad time when one is houserule buffing it though, no?
In the real world, knowing about one biome gives you some measure of knowledge about all or most biomes (knowledge: nature), but they're clearly and intentionally separated for ranger in a way which makes them highly situation/table dependent by adding complexity to a rule which would have been one die roll/check for anyone else. They don't bring anything that can't be acquired by anyone else, who would still have their entire class/subclass clear.
Scavenging? Background ; difficult terrain? Race or Background; tracking? Race/Background/subclass. Yes, you're taking those instead of others, but that's not a limitation you can really discuss, because the same is true of ranger.
Aside from (possibly) correcting me (ymmv) you haven't given me any compelling arguments as to the phb ranger, even with tashas (which does make it better somewhat), being anything less than underpowered. Ranger is uncharacteristically poorly designed in 5e. As I've said numerous times, that's what's so frustrating.
Also, tashas is widely viewed as "power creep: a novelization" and though the feeling seems to have lapsed some, is still very much a hot topic as to its eligibility for use at home tables. That is, many people have said they're likely to ban it
Side note: Everyone is in a position to pick who they do and do not play with. The internet is a thing.
Even with this disagreement, I would not refuse to play at the same table as you, though I'm reasonably sure that was you passive-aggressively implying you would not with the others in this thread...