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...
It's not house rules. It's using the abilities as they are written, I'll be it, I have interpretations that are in the minority. I'm in the camp that Tasha's is power creepy. So it either is, or it isn't. If it isn't, we can use it as guidance and clarification as to what kind of effect or power level those ranger abilities in the PHB are meant to have based on their optional replacements.
It's not that I wouldn't play with any of you. It's the game being played at the table. I prefer variant encumbrance, strict use of spell components, tracking food and water, tracking ammunition, heavy use of cover, the facing rules, equipment sizes option, and rest restrictions. Thats' not most tables.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Boy when I asked this question I did not think it would start a thread that would be active on and off for over 2 years.
It's not house rules. It's using the abilities as they are written, I'll be it, I have interpretations that are in the minority. I'm in the camp that Tasha's is power creepy. So it either is, or it isn't. If it isn't, we can use it as guidance and clarification as to what kind of effect or power level those ranger abilities in the PHB are meant to have based on their optional replacements.
It's not that I wouldn't play with any of you. It's the game being played at the table. I prefer variant encumbrance, strict use of spell components, tracking food and water, tracking ammunition, heavy use of cover, the facing rules, equipment sizes option, and rest restrictions. Thats' not most tables.