They feel like dungeoneers, not rangers. Favored Enemy can apply to anyone, anytime, and that makes it too strong. Rover and Tireless are nice, but they're broadly applicable. I really miss having rangers feel tied to specific terrains.
Features like Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer (Favored Terrain) date back to at least AD&D 2nd edition. You'd have specificly designated enemies. You were an experienced woodsman. Now…the current packet dilutes that.
I always saw ranger specialization as a weakness. Paladins' divine smite could damage anyone, but was extra effective against undead and fiends. 100% effective normally, 200% effective in select cases. That's how ranger features were supposed to work. But instead, they are 0% effective normally, and 100% effective in select cases. That just sucked. It's like you're a ranger only sometimes, otherwise you're just a weaker fighter with some druid spells. I suppose there's hardly a cure for that other than reimagining ranger altogether. A woodsman is shackled to the woods. Ranger's gotta be more than that.
As I said before about another hyperbole shows "a poster" dosen't really want to give a fair analysis But rather they justify their dislike without actually quantifying the real problem.
The "its situational" argument is a way over blown concept. People acting like "it" never happens is also an issue.
Some people who are prone to discouragement don't feel good when they think "this feature applies but then it doesn't". That bad feeling can be reduced by design but it will never be eliminated. At some point "design avoidance" becomes pandering at the expense of play options. Not every dnd class is designed for everyone's playstyles. That can be a good thing.
For me it sucks having tasha's ranger exhaustion removal rules when no smart ranger would pick it up in the first place. The extra 5' speed felt silly when features to increase speed were already there and under used or it became unnessicary if you kited enemies properly. Let's not forget having potential "expertise" in a variety (3-10) skills and potential advantage on 5 skills and tools. The phb ranger who planned knew what their skills were and didn't need to worry about whether it was investigation or Archana about their enemy that was needed.
From that perspective phb ranger sounds great. Where it actually sits is probably somewhere in the middle.
............ As was stated previously, a lot of the Ranger's previous abilities are easily recreated with good survival and nature skills, especially if you get expertise in them. Someone in the thread above said you can make an effective Ranger with the Rogue class ....
The point of many people in this thread is that nature and survival expertise is not enough to make a ranger. (But you might be able to make a wilderness expert)
The phb ranger was the only legit way to both scout ahead and stay with the party (just like in fiction) because they could move faster than the rest.
The phb hide in plain sight was given a lot of flack but it was the only way to hide from high wisdom truesight.
The food/harvesting multiplier ment they got more when the same skill would be made by another expert. A second skill check isn't going to make an area re-harvestable.
And more.
If your doing everything a phb ranger can do with skill checks alone there's probably a rulings issue at play.
............ As was stated previously, a lot of the Ranger's previous abilities are easily recreated with good survival and nature skills, especially if you get expertise in them. Someone in the thread above said you can make an effective Ranger with the Rogue class ....
The point of many people in this thread is that nature and survival expertise is not enough to make a ranger. (But you might be able to make a wilderness expert)
The phb ranger was the only legit way to both scout ahead and stay with the party (just like in fiction) because they could move faster than the rest.
The phb hide in plain sight was given a lot of flack but it was the only way to hide from high wisdom truesigt.
The food/harvesting multiplier ment they got more when the same skill would be made by another expert. A second skill check isn't going to make an area re-harvestable.
And more.
If your doing everything a phb ranger can do with skill checks alone there's probably a rulings issue at play.
I guess it is true for things like foraging, in that it depends on how the DMG sees skill rolls. Printed adventures and guidance in the DM usually suggest a Pass/Fail scenario, and a lot of people play it that way. I've always used varying degrees of success, where a roll of a 23 yields better results than a 14, even if the DC was only 10. This is a point I didn't consider as much because of my default approach.
............ As was stated previously, a lot of the Ranger's previous abilities are easily recreated with good survival and nature skills, especially if you get expertise in them. Someone in the thread above said you can make an effective Ranger with the Rogue class ....
The point of many people in this thread is that nature and survival expertise is not enough to make a ranger. (But you might be able to make a wilderness expert)
The phb ranger was the only legit way to both scout ahead and stay with the party (just like in fiction) because they could move faster than the rest.
The phb hide in plain sight was given a lot of flack but it was the only way to hide from high wisdom truesigt.
The food/harvesting multiplier ment they got more when the same skill would be made by another expert. A second skill check isn't going to make an area re-harvestable.
And more.
If your doing everything a phb ranger can do with skill checks alone there's probably a rulings issue at play.
I guess it is true for things like foraging, in that it depends on how the DMG sees skill rolls. Printed adventures and guidance in the DM usually suggest a Pass/Fail scenario, and a lot of people play it that way. I've always used varying degrees of success, where a roll of a 23 yields better results than a 14, even if the DC was only 10. This is a point I didn't consider as much because of my default approach.
Even if you include degrees of success, a ranger in a favored terrain would still harvest twice as much. If they're proficient in a relevant skill, they automatically have expertise. Which is...impressive. There are 10 skills which use Intelligence or Wisdom as a default ability. All else being equal, the ranger's features blow just about anyone else out of the park. And why not? They specialize, and D&D rewards specialization. With the right choices, everyone becomes better. And that's the sticking point for some: they didn't being forced to make certain choices.
Not all choices, just some. Feats aren't an issue, except that some are "traps" and there isn't enough room in normal class progression to learn all the good ones. Except you can, if the DM feels like giving them out as rewards; which is an option in the DMG. But nobody reads the DMG™, so I don't know what else to do.
The biggest issue the PH ranger faces, in my estimation, was their inability to prepare and adapt. Which, in hindsight, makes zero sense. They should have been able to prepare spells, and even could during the D&D Next playtest. They probably should have been able to retrain Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy, or at least been given more instances of them to work with. (Two each at 1st and 6th level are fine, but then one each at 10th and 14? Just give them four of each by 14th.) Or give those selections some sort of passive, combat-oriented benefit to make them more worthwhile. Rangers, mechanically, were plenty strong in a fight. Most of the paladin's early features weren't very strong, either. Rangers just interacted with a pillar that nobody seemed to care for.
And, admittedly, not a lot of official adventures did, either. They'd regularly ignore or break the rules WotC laid out in its books. I think what I really want is consistency that doesn't mean turning the ranger into just a dungoneer with primal spellcasting.
............ As was stated previously, a lot of the Ranger's previous abilities are easily recreated with good survival and nature skills, especially if you get expertise in them. Someone in the thread above said you can make an effective Ranger with the Rogue class ....
The point of many people in this thread is that nature and survival expertise is not enough to make a ranger. (But you might be able to make a wilderness expert)
The phb ranger was the only legit way to both scout ahead and stay with the party (just like in fiction) because they could move faster than the rest.
The phb hide in plain sight was given a lot of flack but it was the only way to hide from high wisdom truesigt.
The food/harvesting multiplier ment they got more when the same skill would be made by another expert. A second skill check isn't going to make an area re-harvestable.
And more.
If your doing everything a phb ranger can do with skill checks alone there's probably a rulings issue at play.
I guess it is true for things like foraging, in that it depends on how the DMG sees skill rolls. Printed adventures and guidance in the DM usually suggest a Pass/Fail scenario, and a lot of people play it that way. I've always used varying degrees of success, where a roll of a 23 yields better results than a 14, even if the DC was only 10. This is a point I didn't consider as much because of my default approach.
Even if you include degrees of success, a ranger in a favored terrain would still harvest twice as much. If they're proficient in a relevant skill, they automatically have expertise. Which is...impressive. There are 10 skills which use Intelligence or Wisdom as a default ability. All else being equal, the ranger's features blow just about anyone else out of the park. And why not? They specialize, and D&D rewards specialization. With the right choices, everyone becomes better. And that's the sticking point for some: they didn't being forced to make certain choices.
Not all choices, just some. Feats aren't an issue, except that some are "traps" and there isn't enough room in normal class progression to learn all the good ones. Except you can, if the DM feels like giving them out as rewards; which is an option in the DMG. But nobody reads the DMG™, so I don't know what else to do.
The biggest issue the PH ranger faces, in my estimation, was their inability to prepare and adapt. Which, in hindsight, makes zero sense. They should have been able to prepare spells, and even could during the D&D Next playtest. They probably should have been able to retrain Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy, or at least been given more instances of them to work with. (Two each at 1st and 6th level are fine, but then one each at 10th and 14? Just give them four of each by 14th.) Or give those selections some sort of passive, combat-oriented benefit to make them more worthwhile. Rangers, mechanically, were plenty strong in a fight. Most of the paladin's early features weren't very strong, either. Rangers just interacted with a pillar that nobody seemed to care for.
And, admittedly, not a lot of official adventures did, either. They'd regularly ignore or break the rules WotC laid out in its books. I think what I really want is consistency that doesn't mean turning the ranger into just a dungoneer with primal spellcasting.
on the note of weird random ranger rules, There is buried rule about a group being tracked by a ranger during a chase sequence.
Remember, by there rules a chase occurs when the pursuer can see the fleeing party. What is likely then is for the pursuers to spread out and trap the party. What is not covered is one group tracking the other (pursuers can not see pursued) now it’s who has the ranger and if both do how skilled and what rolls.
Getting prepared spells, at first level, with ranger levels rounding up was the biggest and most important change. Getting 4 expertises was good but - n addition bards get jack of all trades and rogues get reliable talent where is the skill improvement for rangers? Getting advantage on tracking, foraging etc ( or on nature and survival rolls generally) would certainly help separate the ranger from something like a scout rogue. The biggest problem the ranger really has is that nothing plays to its strengths - too many campaigns/DMs/modules etc gloss over the travel and exploration aspects of the game to get to the “good stuff” reducing the ranger to a second class fighter. No amount of minor tweaking or major overhauling of just the class is going to help that. Only a conscious effort by WOTC to create exploration heavy modules and mechanics will. As long as they talk about handling it “cinematically” the ranger is going to either have problems or be forced to shift to a generic Gish class with a primal subclass.
Getting prepared spells, at first level, with ranger levels rounding up was the biggest and most important change. Getting 4 expertises was good but - n addition bards get jack of all trades and rogues get reliable talent where is the skill improvement for rangers? Getting advantage on tracking, foraging etc ( or on nature and survival rolls generally) would certainly help separate the ranger from something like a scout rogue. The biggest problem the ranger really has is that nothing plays to its strengths - too many campaigns/DMs/modules etc gloss over the travel and exploration aspects of the game to get to the “good stuff” reducing the ranger to a second class fighter. No amount of minor tweaking or major overhauling of just the class is going to help that. Only a conscious effort by WOTC to create exploration heavy modules and mechanics will. As long as they talk about handling it “cinematically” the ranger is going to either have problems or be forced to shift to a generic Gish class with a primal subclass.
Most of my tables gloss over travel but when they do .. I (as a phb ranger) get a free 8 hours of downtime because of my ability to do an extra activity and remain alert. Harvesting, crafting ect. It doesn't have to slow the game but features should be used/rewarded. It's the dms or players fault if it doesn't get used.
Getting prepared spells, at first level, with ranger levels rounding up was the biggest and most important change. Getting 4 expertises was good but - n addition bards get jack of all trades and rogues get reliable talent where is the skill improvement for rangers? Getting advantage on tracking, foraging etc ( or on nature and survival rolls generally) would certainly help separate the ranger from something like a scout rogue. The biggest problem the ranger really has is that nothing plays to its strengths - too many campaigns/DMs/modules etc gloss over the travel and exploration aspects of the game to get to the “good stuff” reducing the ranger to a second class fighter. No amount of minor tweaking or major overhauling of just the class is going to help that. Only a conscious effort by WOTC to create exploration heavy modules and mechanics will. As long as they talk about handling it “cinematically” the ranger is going to either have problems or be forced to shift to a generic Gish class with a primal subclass.
I agree...I really think they need to rebalance the exploration pillar myself as well. It deserves a full book for itself IMO. I do not agree, however, that the PHB/DMG options provide a very good reason (at this point) to return to the PHB ranger options. I think they are focusing on more "general" play and skill expertise play into that a lot more fluidly.
Getting prepared spells, at first level, with ranger levels rounding up was the biggest and most important change. Getting 4 expertises was good but - n addition bards get jack of all trades and rogues get reliable talent where is the skill improvement for rangers? Getting advantage on tracking, foraging etc ( or on nature and survival rolls generally) would certainly help separate the ranger from something like a scout rogue. The biggest problem the ranger really has is that nothing plays to its strengths - too many campaigns/DMs/modules etc gloss over the travel and exploration aspects of the game to get to the “good stuff” reducing the ranger to a second class fighter. No amount of minor tweaking or major overhauling of just the class is going to help that. Only a conscious effort by WOTC to create exploration heavy modules and mechanics will. As long as they talk about handling it “cinematically” the ranger is going to either have problems or be forced to shift to a generic Gish class with a primal subclass.
Most of my tables gloss over travel but when they do .. I (as a phb ranger) get a free 8 hours of downtime because of my ability to do an extra activity and remain alert. Harvesting, crafting ect. It doesn't have to slow the game but features should be used/rewarded. It's the dms or players fault if it doesn't get used.
You're absolutely right that it's on the player and DM to make sure those features are used.
It's also true of Inspiration, and people want it gone because they can't be bothered to remember to use it.
Getting prepared spells, at first level, with ranger levels rounding up was the biggest and most important change. Getting 4 expertises was good but - n addition bards get jack of all trades and rogues get reliable talent where is the skill improvement for rangers? Getting advantage on tracking, foraging etc ( or on nature and survival rolls generally) would certainly help separate the ranger from something like a scout rogue. The biggest problem the ranger really has is that nothing plays to its strengths - too many campaigns/DMs/modules etc gloss over the travel and exploration aspects of the game to get to the “good stuff” reducing the ranger to a second class fighter. No amount of minor tweaking or major overhauling of just the class is going to help that. Only a conscious effort by WOTC to create exploration heavy modules and mechanics will. As long as they talk about handling it “cinematically” the ranger is going to either have problems or be forced to shift to a generic Gish class with a primal subclass.
Maybe it's heresy, but I'll disagree. You can't force survival stuff on players. Survival-focused scenarios appeal to a pretty specific audience, just like survival videogames. Making a class specialized for certain type of scenarios is getting right back to the problem that caused Tasha's reworks and this iteration in the first place. If a player finds out the campaign is going to be mostly urban, they're likely to just ditch the idea of playing a survivalist specialized class? WotC, in my opinion, should rather focus on hunter/slayer aspect of a ranger. Being mechanically on par with the others while having their own fighting identity is core, it's a framework without which all the flavor and ribbons would be as useful as makeup on a dead hooker. Whoever will want to make their rangers into survival experts, has the tools to make it so. Expertise in survival and nature, primal rituals, some of class featuress like Roving. What more do you need?
I actually agree as well (you shouldn't force parts that are not player interesting) and I think wotc should have quick and dirty travel rules.
If travel is an ordeal it then becomes a full encounter and should be treated as such. If simple give benefits to ranger and move on.
All I know is my tables became More interested in travel when my phb ranger would end travel through FT with extra gold(sale goods), free poison damage, extra spell scrolls (crafting). All of a sudden players were saying "it's my turn to get travel activities" someone else navigate, watch, ect. Every class has fun things to do during travel. phb ranger just gets boosts when they do.
Basically it becomes interesting when you use interesting mechanics. Ignoring already existing mechanics may be a wotc issue or it may be a player one.
I actually agree as well (you shouldn't foce parts that are not player intresting) and I think wotc should have quick and dirty travel rules.
If travel is an ordeal it then becomes a full encounter and should be treated as such. If simple give benefits to ranger and move on.
All I know is my tables became More interested in travel when my phb ranger would end travel through FT with extra gold(sale goods), free poison damage, extra spell scrolls (crafting). Al of a sudden players were saying "it's my turn to get travel activities" someone else navigate, watch, ect. Every class has fun things to do during travel. phb ranger just gets boosts when they do.
Basically it becomes interesting when you use interesting mechanics. Ignoring already existing mechanics may be a wotc issue or it may be a player one.
The overland mechanics are simply the other side of the coin from exploring a dungeon. Both use the same rules for movement, with only the scale being different, and have the different party members taking on roles within the expedition.
So if we're calling the overland boring, then we're calling half of the game's namesake boring. And, at that point, why would this person be playing?
Getting prepared spells, at first level, with ranger levels rounding up was the biggest and most important change. Getting 4 expertises was good but - n addition bards get jack of all trades and rogues get reliable talent where is the skill improvement for rangers? Getting advantage on tracking, foraging etc ( or on nature and survival rolls generally) would certainly help separate the ranger from something like a scout rogue. The biggest problem the ranger really has is that nothing plays to its strengths - too many campaigns/DMs/modules etc gloss over the travel and exploration aspects of the game to get to the “good stuff” reducing the ranger to a second class fighter. No amount of minor tweaking or major overhauling of just the class is going to help that. Only a conscious effort by WOTC to create exploration heavy modules and mechanics will. As long as they talk about handling it “cinematically” the ranger is going to either have problems or be forced to shift to a generic Gish class with a primal subclass.
I agree...I really think they need to rebalance the exploration pillar myself as well. It deserves a full book for itself IMO. I do not agree, however, that the PHB/DMG options provide a very good reason (at this point) to return to the PHB ranger options. I think they are focusing on more "general" play and skill expertise play into that a lot more fluidly.
I would love to see a book focused entirely around wilderness exploration and survival
I actually agree as well (you shouldn't foce parts that are not player intresting) and I think wotc should have quick and dirty travel rules.
If travel is an ordeal it then becomes a full encounter and should be treated as such. If simple give benefits to ranger and move on.
All I know is my tables became More interested in travel when my phb ranger would end travel through FT with extra gold(sale goods), free poison damage, extra spell scrolls (crafting). Al of a sudden players were saying "it's my turn to get travel activities" someone else navigate, watch, ect. Every class has fun things to do during travel. phb ranger just gets boosts when they do.
Basically it becomes interesting when you use interesting mechanics. Ignoring already existing mechanics may be a wotc issue or it may be a player one.
The overland mechanics are simply the other side of the coin from exploring a dungeon. Both use the same rules for movement, with only the scale being different, and have the different party members taking on roles within the expedition.
So if we're calling the overland boring, then we're calling half of the game's namesake boring. And, at that point, why would this person be playing?
Im running an official 5e module right now (Out of the Abyss) and let me tell you, the provided rules for running long distance travel and the way encounters occur for those are very different than the provided dungeon crawls. RAW, theres a very good chance a party could travel miles throughout the day and not encounter anything, whereas is almost impossible to go through any dungeon without something happening (usually several somethings). There is a vast difference in encounter design/frequency, not just scale.
Saying that someone who finds long distance travel boring must also dislike dungeons and therefor shouldnt be playing 5e is not a fair comparison at all.
Getting prepared spells, at first level, with ranger levels rounding up was the biggest and most important change. Getting 4 expertises was good but - n addition bards get jack of all trades and rogues get reliable talent where is the skill improvement for rangers? Getting advantage on tracking, foraging etc ( or on nature and survival rolls generally) would certainly help separate the ranger from something like a scout rogue. The biggest problem the ranger really has is that nothing plays to its strengths - too many campaigns/DMs/modules etc gloss over the travel and exploration aspects of the game to get to the “good stuff” reducing the ranger to a second class fighter. No amount of minor tweaking or major overhauling of just the class is going to help that. Only a conscious effort by WOTC to create exploration heavy modules and mechanics will. As long as they talk about handling it “cinematically” the ranger is going to either have problems or be forced to shift to a generic Gish class with a primal subclass.
I agree...I really think they need to rebalance the exploration pillar myself as well. It deserves a full book for itself IMO. I do not agree, however, that the PHB/DMG options provide a very good reason (at this point) to return to the PHB ranger options. I think they are focusing on more "general" play and skill expertise play into that a lot more fluidly.
I would love to see a book focused entirely around wilderness exploration and survival
I recently learned about the "outdoor survival" game that was suggested or required for an earlier edition of dnd. I bet wotc has at least considered making it an add-on but the logistics probably haven't been worth it yet.
I actually agree as well (you shouldn't foce parts that are not player intresting) and I think wotc should have quick and dirty travel rules.
If travel is an ordeal it then becomes a full encounter and should be treated as such. If simple give benefits to ranger and move on.
All I know is my tables became More interested in travel when my phb ranger would end travel through FT with extra gold(sale goods), free poison damage, extra spell scrolls (crafting). Al of a sudden players were saying "it's my turn to get travel activities" someone else navigate, watch, ect. Every class has fun things to do during travel. phb ranger just gets boosts when they do.
Basically it becomes interesting when you use interesting mechanics. Ignoring already existing mechanics may be a wotc issue or it may be a player one.
The overland mechanics are simply the other side of the coin from exploring a dungeon. Both use the same rules for movement, with only the scale being different, and have the different party members taking on roles within the expedition.
So if we're calling the overland boring, then we're calling half of the game's namesake boring. And, at that point, why would this person be playing?
Im running an official 5e module right now (Out of the Abyss) and let me tell you, the provided rules for running long distance travel and the way encounters occur for those are very different than the provided dungeon crawls. RAW, theres a very good chance a party could travel miles throughout the day and not encounter anything, whereas is almost impossible to go through any dungeon without something happening (usually several somethings). There is a vast difference in encounter design/frequency, not just scale.
Saying that someone who finds long distance travel boring must also dislike dungeons and therefor shouldnt be playing 5e is not a fair comparison at all.
Agreed, the further problem is that, for the vast majority of us, for the vast majority of the time, travel is something fairly safe but tedious, done to get from a known point to another known point in the shortest time possible. And so we tend to play our games much the same way. Very few of us come anywhere near being they sort of “live and work” in the wilderness types that go off the roads and premade trails to see what it’s like in the few “primeval forests/mtns /deserts” etc . Most of us have no idea what it is to ride a horse all day or to take care of a horse, what plants are edible, what plants are deadly, what animals we need to watch out for let alone how to locate/avoid/deal with potentially dangerous humanoids in the wild. Few of us have the real world experience needed to support an in-depth navigation/exploration adventure with weather changes, terrain problems, etc . If we look at he published maps of the official game worlds they are basically wilderness with scattered settlements not tamed lands like we are used to. We should all ( and yes I’m guilty of not doing this too) be making the journey as much of an adventure as the dungeon when we get there.
I actually agree as well (you shouldn't foce parts that are not player intresting) and I think wotc should have quick and dirty travel rules.
If travel is an ordeal it then becomes a full encounter and should be treated as such. If simple give benefits to ranger and move on.
All I know is my tables became More interested in travel when my phb ranger would end travel through FT with extra gold(sale goods), free poison damage, extra spell scrolls (crafting). Al of a sudden players were saying "it's my turn to get travel activities" someone else navigate, watch, ect. Every class has fun things to do during travel. phb ranger just gets boosts when they do.
Basically it becomes interesting when you use interesting mechanics. Ignoring already existing mechanics may be a wotc issue or it may be a player one.
The overland mechanics are simply the other side of the coin from exploring a dungeon. Both use the same rules for movement, with only the scale being different, and have the different party members taking on roles within the expedition.
So if we're calling the overland boring, then we're calling half of the game's namesake boring. And, at that point, why would this person be playing?
Im running an official 5e module right now (Out of the Abyss) and let me tell you, the provided rules for running long distance travel and the way encounters occur for those are very different than the provided dungeon crawls. RAW, theres a very good chance a party could travel miles throughout the day and not encounter anything, whereas is almost impossible to go through any dungeon without something happening (usually several somethings). There is a vast difference in encounter design/frequency, not just scale.
Saying that someone who finds long distance travel boring must also dislike dungeons and therefor shouldnt be playing 5e is not a fair comparison at all.
Then populate your map. Because I just finished an official hexcrawl (Unwelcome Spirits from Explorer's Guide to Wildemount) for new players, and the overland travel is basically a tiny dungeon. If you run through Tomb of Annihilation, same thing. Just on a much larger scale.
The movement rules are the same, merely adjusted for scale. The actions are the same. The party roles are largely the same. So why does it only work in some environments (for you) and not others? What's missing?
ToA hexcrawl boils down to 90% Survival checks and random encounter tables which I would not personally say is engaging as combat or social encounters by and large.
I actually agree as well (you shouldn't foce parts that are not player intresting) and I think wotc should have quick and dirty travel rules.
If travel is an ordeal it then becomes a full encounter and should be treated as such. If simple give benefits to ranger and move on.
All I know is my tables became More interested in travel when my phb ranger would end travel through FT with extra gold(sale goods), free poison damage, extra spell scrolls (crafting). Al of a sudden players were saying "it's my turn to get travel activities" someone else navigate, watch, ect. Every class has fun things to do during travel. phb ranger just gets boosts when they do.
Basically it becomes interesting when you use interesting mechanics. Ignoring already existing mechanics may be a wotc issue or it may be a player one.
The overland mechanics are simply the other side of the coin from exploring a dungeon. Both use the same rules for movement, with only the scale being different, and have the different party members taking on roles within the expedition.
So if we're calling the overland boring, then we're calling half of the game's namesake boring. And, at that point, why would this person be playing?
Im running an official 5e module right now (Out of the Abyss) and let me tell you, the provided rules for running long distance travel and the way encounters occur for those are very different than the provided dungeon crawls. RAW, theres a very good chance a party could travel miles throughout the day and not encounter anything, whereas is almost impossible to go through any dungeon without something happening (usually several somethings). There is a vast difference in encounter design/frequency, not just scale.
Saying that someone who finds long distance travel boring must also dislike dungeons and therefor shouldnt be playing 5e is not a fair comparison at all.
Then populate your map. Because I just finished an official hexcrawl (Unwelcome Spirits from Explorer's Guide to Wildemount) for new players, and the overland travel is basically a tiny dungeon. If you run through Tomb of Annihilation, same thing. Just on a much larger scale.
The movement rules are the same, merely adjusted for scale. The actions are the same. The party roles are largely the same. So why does it only work in some environments (for you) and not others? What's missing?
If following the exact mechanics as provided by 5e's guidelines requires me to do more prepwork even when running a fully fleshed out module, then thats a sign that the base guidelines for 5e's exploration pillar could use some building upon. Yes, the DM can always do more work, but itd be nice to have a more firm base to build off of. Not to mention, if I am running a module, one of the main reasons is to cut back on how much time I have to dedicate to prep because its not always feasible for someone to pour over populating every 6 mile hex of a 100+ sq. mile map.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As I said before about another hyperbole shows "a poster" dosen't really want to give a fair analysis But rather they justify their dislike without actually quantifying the real problem.
The "its situational" argument is a way over blown concept. People acting like "it" never happens is also an issue.
Some people who are prone to discouragement don't feel good when they think "this feature applies but then it doesn't". That bad feeling can be reduced by design but it will never be eliminated. At some point "design avoidance" becomes pandering at the expense of play options. Not every dnd class is designed for everyone's playstyles. That can be a good thing.
For me it sucks having tasha's ranger exhaustion removal rules when no smart ranger would pick it up in the first place. The extra 5' speed felt silly when features to increase speed were already there and under used or it became unnessicary if you kited enemies properly. Let's not forget having potential "expertise" in a variety (3-10) skills and potential advantage on 5 skills and tools. The phb ranger who planned knew what their skills were and didn't need to worry about whether it was investigation or Archana about their enemy that was needed.
From that perspective phb ranger sounds great. Where it actually sits is probably somewhere in the middle.
The point of many people in this thread is that nature and survival expertise is not enough to make a ranger. (But you might be able to make a wilderness expert)
The phb ranger was the only legit way to both scout ahead and stay with the party (just like in fiction) because they could move faster than the rest.
The phb hide in plain sight was given a lot of flack but it was the only way to hide from high wisdom truesight.
The food/harvesting multiplier ment they got more when the same skill would be made by another expert. A second skill check isn't going to make an area re-harvestable.
And more.
If your doing everything a phb ranger can do with skill checks alone there's probably a rulings issue at play.
I guess it is true for things like foraging, in that it depends on how the DMG sees skill rolls. Printed adventures and guidance in the DM usually suggest a Pass/Fail scenario, and a lot of people play it that way. I've always used varying degrees of success, where a roll of a 23 yields better results than a 14, even if the DC was only 10. This is a point I didn't consider as much because of my default approach.
Even if you include degrees of success, a ranger in a favored terrain would still harvest twice as much. If they're proficient in a relevant skill, they automatically have expertise. Which is...impressive. There are 10 skills which use Intelligence or Wisdom as a default ability. All else being equal, the ranger's features blow just about anyone else out of the park. And why not? They specialize, and D&D rewards specialization. With the right choices, everyone becomes better. And that's the sticking point for some: they didn't being forced to make certain choices.
Not all choices, just some. Feats aren't an issue, except that some are "traps" and there isn't enough room in normal class progression to learn all the good ones. Except you can, if the DM feels like giving them out as rewards; which is an option in the DMG. But nobody reads the DMG™, so I don't know what else to do.
The biggest issue the PH ranger faces, in my estimation, was their inability to prepare and adapt. Which, in hindsight, makes zero sense. They should have been able to prepare spells, and even could during the D&D Next playtest. They probably should have been able to retrain Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy, or at least been given more instances of them to work with. (Two each at 1st and 6th level are fine, but then one each at 10th and 14? Just give them four of each by 14th.) Or give those selections some sort of passive, combat-oriented benefit to make them more worthwhile. Rangers, mechanically, were plenty strong in a fight. Most of the paladin's early features weren't very strong, either. Rangers just interacted with a pillar that nobody seemed to care for.
And, admittedly, not a lot of official adventures did, either. They'd regularly ignore or break the rules WotC laid out in its books. I think what I really want is consistency that doesn't mean turning the ranger into just a dungoneer with primal spellcasting.
on the note of weird random ranger rules, There is buried rule about a group being tracked by a ranger during a chase sequence.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/running-the-game#EndingaChase
Remember, by there rules a chase occurs when the pursuer can see the fleeing party. What is likely then is for the pursuers to spread out and trap the party. What is not covered is one group tracking the other (pursuers can not see pursued) now it’s who has the ranger and if both do how skilled and what rolls.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Getting prepared spells, at first level, with ranger levels rounding up was the biggest and most important change. Getting 4 expertises was good but - n addition bards get jack of all trades and rogues get reliable talent where is the skill improvement for rangers? Getting advantage on tracking, foraging etc ( or on nature and survival rolls generally) would certainly help separate the ranger from something like a scout rogue. The biggest problem the ranger really has is that nothing plays to its strengths - too many campaigns/DMs/modules etc gloss over the travel and exploration aspects of the game to get to the “good stuff” reducing the ranger to a second class fighter. No amount of minor tweaking or major overhauling of just the class is going to help that. Only a conscious effort by WOTC to create exploration heavy modules and mechanics will. As long as they talk about handling it “cinematically” the ranger is going to either have problems or be forced to shift to a generic Gish class with a primal subclass.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Most of my tables gloss over travel but when they do .. I (as a phb ranger) get a free 8 hours of downtime because of my ability to do an extra activity and remain alert. Harvesting, crafting ect. It doesn't have to slow the game but features should be used/rewarded. It's the dms or players fault if it doesn't get used.
I agree...I really think they need to rebalance the exploration pillar myself as well. It deserves a full book for itself IMO. I do not agree, however, that the PHB/DMG options provide a very good reason (at this point) to return to the PHB ranger options. I think they are focusing on more "general" play and skill expertise play into that a lot more fluidly.
You're absolutely right that it's on the player and DM to make sure those features are used.
It's also true of Inspiration, and people want it gone because they can't be bothered to remember to use it.
Maybe it's heresy, but I'll disagree. You can't force survival stuff on players. Survival-focused scenarios appeal to a pretty specific audience, just like survival videogames. Making a class specialized for certain type of scenarios is getting right back to the problem that caused Tasha's reworks and this iteration in the first place. If a player finds out the campaign is going to be mostly urban, they're likely to just ditch the idea of playing a survivalist specialized class? WotC, in my opinion, should rather focus on hunter/slayer aspect of a ranger. Being mechanically on par with the others while having their own fighting identity is core, it's a framework without which all the flavor and ribbons would be as useful as makeup on a dead hooker. Whoever will want to make their rangers into survival experts, has the tools to make it so. Expertise in survival and nature, primal rituals, some of class featuress like Roving. What more do you need?
I actually agree as well (you shouldn't force parts that are not player interesting) and I think wotc should have quick and dirty travel rules.
If travel is an ordeal it then becomes a full encounter and should be treated as such. If simple give benefits to ranger and move on.
All I know is my tables became More interested in travel when my phb ranger would end travel through FT with extra gold(sale goods), free poison damage, extra spell scrolls (crafting). All of a sudden players were saying "it's my turn to get travel activities" someone else navigate, watch, ect. Every class has fun things to do during travel. phb ranger just gets boosts when they do.
Basically it becomes interesting when you use interesting mechanics. Ignoring already existing mechanics may be a wotc issue or it may be a player one.
The overland mechanics are simply the other side of the coin from exploring a dungeon. Both use the same rules for movement, with only the scale being different, and have the different party members taking on roles within the expedition.
So if we're calling the overland boring, then we're calling half of the game's namesake boring. And, at that point, why would this person be playing?
I would love to see a book focused entirely around wilderness exploration and survival
Im running an official 5e module right now (Out of the Abyss) and let me tell you, the provided rules for running long distance travel and the way encounters occur for those are very different than the provided dungeon crawls. RAW, theres a very good chance a party could travel miles throughout the day and not encounter anything, whereas is almost impossible to go through any dungeon without something happening (usually several somethings). There is a vast difference in encounter design/frequency, not just scale.
Saying that someone who finds long distance travel boring must also dislike dungeons and therefor shouldnt be playing 5e is not a fair comparison at all.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I recently learned about the "outdoor survival" game that was suggested or required for an earlier edition of dnd. I bet wotc has at least considered making it an add-on but the logistics probably haven't been worth it yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outdoor_Survival
Agreed, the further problem is that, for the vast majority of us, for the vast majority of the time, travel is something fairly safe but tedious, done to get from a known point to another known point in the shortest time possible. And so we tend to play our games much the same way. Very few of us come anywhere near being they sort of “live and work” in the wilderness types that go off the roads and premade trails to see what it’s like in the few “primeval forests/mtns /deserts” etc . Most of us have no idea what it is to ride a horse all day or to take care of a horse, what plants are edible, what plants are deadly, what animals we need to watch out for let alone how to locate/avoid/deal with potentially dangerous humanoids in the wild. Few of us have the real world experience needed to support an in-depth navigation/exploration adventure with weather changes, terrain problems, etc . If we look at he published maps of the official game worlds they are basically wilderness with scattered settlements not tamed lands like we are used to. We should all ( and yes I’m guilty of not doing this too) be making the journey as much of an adventure as the dungeon when we get there.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Then populate your map. Because I just finished an official hexcrawl (Unwelcome Spirits from Explorer's Guide to Wildemount) for new players, and the overland travel is basically a tiny dungeon. If you run through Tomb of Annihilation, same thing. Just on a much larger scale.
The movement rules are the same, merely adjusted for scale. The actions are the same. The party roles are largely the same. So why does it only work in some environments (for you) and not others? What's missing?
ToA hexcrawl boils down to 90% Survival checks and random encounter tables which I would not personally say is engaging as combat or social encounters by and large.
If following the exact mechanics as provided by 5e's guidelines requires me to do more prepwork even when running a fully fleshed out module, then thats a sign that the base guidelines for 5e's exploration pillar could use some building upon. Yes, the DM can always do more work, but itd be nice to have a more firm base to build off of. Not to mention, if I am running a module, one of the main reasons is to cut back on how much time I have to dedicate to prep because its not always feasible for someone to pour over populating every 6 mile hex of a 100+ sq. mile map.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!