By that logic, a Paladin could make money as a doctor quite easily using just Lay on Hands and buy a magic weapon. And yet, Paladins get not only the Magic Weapon spell, but also the Improved Divine Smite feature.
A Paladin would be an amazing doctor for a small village. With just one level, proficiency in Medicine, and an Herbalism kit, you could keep the whole town happy and healthy for a long time. Hmmm... good idea.
By that logic, a Paladin could make money as a doctor quite easily using just Lay on Hands and buy a magic weapon. And yet, Paladins get not only the Magic Weapon spell, but also the Improved Divine Smite feature.
True all classes make money in down time but only the phb ranger can multiply foraging results and/or do it during "free time" during a travel session.
A ranger could also preform spellcasting services or other professional duties.
This is about what the ranger lost. This is not about general adventuring. A ranger always did ok with magic damage that hasn't changed since the first errata.
By that logic, a Paladin could make money as a doctor quite easily using just Lay on Hands and buy a magic weapon. And yet, Paladins get not only the Magic Weapon spell, but also the Improved Divine Smite feature.
True all classes make money in down time but only the phb ranger can multiply foraging results and/or do it during "free time" during a travel session.
A ranger could also preform spellcasting services or other professional duties.
This is about what the ranger lost. This is not about general adventuring. A ranger always did ok with magic damage that hasn't changed since the first errata.
Ranger can do even more with spell casting services thanks to the larger amount of spells available and, most importantly, the ability to change the spells AND ritual casting.
Hunters mark/favored enemy creates a dip problem pretty much no matter how you do it. The point of the +1 damage per ranger level is to eliminate that problem no one is going to take a dip for +1 damage on every hit. Yes it is probably too much at tier 4 and maybe tier 3 but it could have a cutoff around L10. The problems with concentration til L5 is that it nerfs the rangers own combos like HM+ ZS at the levels where they need it most. The problem with getting no concentration at L1/2 is that it invites a dip. Changing it to a straight +1/ranger level changes the dynamic enough since your getting roughly the same extra damage ( but still enough extra damage) until levels 3-4 and then after that your getting a reward for not multiclassing out of ranger with the additional extra damage.
I think it's important to admit when we're wrong. I've played all the new classes through level 5 now. And I was wrong.
Is the ranger prefect? No. I still think that it's most thematic abilities come online way too late (but the same is true of all 3 classes.) I still think Roving should be a first level feature. Hunter's Mark is too strong at low levels. And rangers largely make Rogues feel obsolete. I'll be noting all of that in the survey.
But.
My fears about the ranger losing its flavor were largely unfounded. When making the character, I took the skills, equipment, and spells it suggested and it already felt pretty good. I underestimated how much the Primal spell list adds to a Ranger's theme. Only one other class gets these spells, and having more access to them really helps a Ranger do what feels right. The skills available for expertise are thematic. They came in handy both in the Exploration phase of the games, AND the dungeon crawls.
And I think that last point was the most important one. The Ranger felt like a Ranger, even while exploring a cave or castle. They were equipped to act as the scout, the trap finder, the monster slayer, and the beast friend. Our Ranger stealthed ahead in ruined castles, located dangerous traps, climbed through sketchy tunnels, and befriended wild animals.
It was... honestly pretty great. Having a Ranger that filled the theme even outside of his native wilderness. I was wrong. I want to thank everyone who disagreed with me for making me take a long hard look at it. And I highly suggest playtesting as much as your time allows. Even rolling up some characters can change your outlook on them better than any theorizing can.
Thanks everyone! I look forward to the next UA release!
I think it's important to admit when we're wrong. I've played all the new classes through level 5 now. And I was wrong.
Is the ranger prefect? No. I still think that it's most thematic abilities come online way too late (but the same is true of all 3 classes.) I still think Roving should be a first level feature. Hunter's Mark is too strong at low levels. And rangers largely make Rogues feel obsolete. I'll be noting all of that in the survey.
But.
My fears about the ranger losing its flavor were largely unfounded. When making the character, I took the skills, equipment, and spells it suggested and it already felt pretty good. I underestimated how much the Primal spell list adds to a Ranger's theme. Only one other class gets these spells, and having more access to them really helps a Ranger do what feels right. The skills available for expertise are thematic. They came in handy both in the Exploration phase of the games, AND the dungeon crawls.
And I think that last point was the most important one. The Ranger felt like a Ranger, even while exploring a cave or castle. They were equipped to act as the scout, the trap finder, the monster slayer, and the beast friend. Our Ranger stealthed ahead in ruined castles, located dangerous traps, climbed through sketchy tunnels, and befriended wild animals.
It was... honestly pretty great. Having a Ranger that filled the theme even outside of his native wilderness. I was wrong. I want to thank everyone who disagreed with me for making me take a long hard look at it. And I highly suggest playtesting as much as your time allows. Even rolling up some characters can change your outlook on them better than any theorizing can.
Thanks everyone! I look forward to the next UA release!
while I appreciate the anecdote, All it does is show possibility of having fun but not probability of it being a universal experience. there are so many factors that tie in dm, adventure day length, party composition ect. some people desire different builds or party roles than just one sample group.
a big part of ranger being an expert is their ability to give the team assistance but many of the new features are what I would consider selfish. they don't make the team better they make the player better and Franky in ways that can be easily or better mimicked via other methods. at least ignoring difficult terrain was unique, at least Favored terrain features weren't tied to combat resources(slots or Known) and the whole party felt better off when they knew they could rely on you for that zone. HIPS was a fun concept but never wotc ironed out as to practical function. (not once even mentioned in S.A. or other FAQ)
I think it's important to admit when we're wrong. I've played all the new classes through level 5 now. And I was wrong.
Is the ranger prefect? No. I still think that it's most thematic abilities come online way too late (but the same is true of all 3 classes.) I still think Roving should be a first level feature. Hunter's Mark is too strong at low levels. And rangers largely make Rogues feel obsolete. I'll be noting all of that in the survey.
But.
My fears about the ranger losing its flavor were largely unfounded. When making the character, I took the skills, equipment, and spells it suggested and it already felt pretty good. I underestimated how much the Primal spell list adds to a Ranger's theme. Only one other class gets these spells, and having more access to them really helps a Ranger do what feels right. The skills available for expertise are thematic. They came in handy both in the Exploration phase of the games, AND the dungeon crawls.
And I think that last point was the most important one. The Ranger felt like a Ranger, even while exploring a cave or castle. They were equipped to act as the scout, the trap finder, the monster slayer, and the beast friend. Our Ranger stealthed ahead in ruined castles, located dangerous traps, climbed through sketchy tunnels, and befriended wild animals.
It was... honestly pretty great. Having a Ranger that filled the theme even outside of his native wilderness. I was wrong. I want to thank everyone who disagreed with me for making me take a long hard look at it. And I highly suggest playtesting as much as your time allows. Even rolling up some characters can change your outlook on them better than any theorizing can.
Thanks everyone! I look forward to the next UA release!
while I appreciate the anecdote, All it does is show possibility of having fun but not probability of it being a universal experience. there are so many factors that tie in dm, adventure day length, party composition ect. some people desire different builds or party roles than just one sample group.
a big part of ranger being an expert is their ability to give the team assistance but many of the new features are what I would consider selfish. they don't make the team better they make the player better and Franky in ways that can be easily or better mimicked via other methods. at least ignoring difficult terrain was unique, at least Favored terrain features weren't tied to combat resources(slots or Known) and the whole party felt better off when they knew they could rely on you for that zone. HIPS was a fun concept but never wotc ironed out as to practical function. (not once even mentioned in S.A. or other FAQ)
I
The way I see it is simple. Everyone can kind of make the ranger they want. Expertise in survival and nature can do most of the natural explorer and favored enemy stuff but in any terrain instead of just one terrain. But if you want a ranger to be more of a scout, maybe perception and stealth. Maybe you want a more urban ranger, Perception and History? The One DnD ranger is more than just the "nature guy" they are an expert in what ever "rangery" thing you want them to be an expert in. The flavor you want only worked in extremely specific settings with extremely specific DM's. This is more streamlined so people can make the ranger they want for any terrain, any setting and any GM and still get the mechanical benefits they wanted out of their ranger.
Yeah, it's true, it was just one person's experience. But I was very much on the side that Rangers had lost their flavor. And after playing one, I changed my mind.
It was better than I expected. If anyone else wants to see, they can try it too. It was a lot of fun.
And the ranger didn't seem selfish at all. He became the effective leader of the group in anything outside of a town social situation. He scouted ahead in every wilderness setting AND dungeon. Used his new Message cantrip to silently send information back to the team. Identified traps for them to avoid. Lead the vanguard in ever battle. Entangled large groups of monsters so the others could fight them easier. Tanked for the rogue to get sneak attack. Healed when spell slots were low. He was an integral part of the team and held it together.
And even outside of the forest, he really felt like a Ranger, and that was cool.
Expertise in survival and nature can do most of the natural explorer and favored enemy stuff but in any terrain instead of just one terrain.
that is actively untrue. It's total bs that the phb ranger skills are replicable by survival or nature. the "free activity"(perception while doing other thing), ignoring difficult terrain, guaranteed mechanical explanation of your knowledge, exact details on tracking ect.
That lie has ruined play for so many players And I am done with it.
if you like the other Tasha's features Or (1dnd's similar version) fine not a problem but please don't twist the facts.
The One D&D version of Outlander no longer gives auto success. Instead, you get Magic Initiate: Primal. You could pick Goodberry, sure, but that one often gets nerfed by house rules. IMO, nerfing Outlander is long overdue. Out of the Abyss and Tomb of Annihilation are some of my favorite campaigns, and Outlander makes the survival aspect of those campaigns way too easy.
that is actively untrue. It's total bs that the phb ranger skills are replicable by survival or nature. the "free activity"(perception while doing other thing), ignoring difficult terrain, guaranteed mechanical explanation of your knowledge, exact details on tracking ect.
That lie has ruined play for so many players And I am done with it.
if you like the other Tasha's features Or (1dnd's similar version) fine not a problem but please don't twist the facts.
The real BS is assuming that everyone likes the situation when the presence of a ranger automatically trivializes survival, and that ranger must be useless outside survival scenarios.
The 5e ranger definitely does not trivialize suvival as there is so much to it but it does reward investment. There are so many strategies and opportunities just moving. Over 5 roles. 3 default speeds. Mounts, vehicles, foot travel random encounters.
Not being lost is not the same as not needing to navigate.
Double food or goodberies won't automatically solve food for a caravan or carry weight issues.
Even if you dm or table skips such details gaining a little boost in sale goods makes it feel rewarding and allows rp for fur and meat sales.
Maybe if you're the type to dislike traveling nitpick you want an in game excuse to make it easy as possible. If I hate failing skill checks I consider a rogues reliable talent. If I dislike low level undead fighting I take cleric or paladin. If I want to have an easy time traveling I consider a ranger. This is what makes them an expert. This is a common design method for board games with simple characters. Be good at a thing so it's missed when other choices are made. Each character has their unique skill that makes them a hero.
The 5e ranger even without using favored enemy or favored terrain is still a top tier adventurer. Definitely not useless outside exploration.
This response is underdeveloped and just shows a single anecdote of "it doesn't matter when I play, so it must not matter."
Just one example of your blindspot is the caravan. If you have 50 creatures to feed that's 5 spells slots to solve food. Now you are severely resource weakened for any combat. Similarly, If you find double food you can only cover a limited percentage of the population. Note this example is a recreation from a adventurers league module. I have also had a simiar senario in a larger campaign.
As for vehicles, a simple carage allows for several types of work to be preformed opening up a lot of downtime opportunities. For sale or party use. But vehicles mean you can't travel specific routes that may save time.
Did you actually attempt to analyze the responses or did you just throw out the first thought that came to mind? There are many places where I appreciate your insight but in this your stance seems reactionary rather than
I think it's important to realize that many things can be true at the same time. The old Ranger rules did not come into play in a large percentage of actual games. For most people, they handwave travel, or reduce it to a kind of montage with a few rolls. That's at least 90% of games out there, maybe more. Those players think the old rules were useless because they were, in their games. In fact, they were only good in games that built strongly on that part of the Exploration pillar. And even in games that did that, the Ranger was only super useful for whatever period of time they spent in that one terrain. After that, they're just a fighter with some spells. A good one, yes, but one without some of their kit.
Then there were a few DMs that complained that the rules trivialize exploration. They wanted to run harsh survival games and couldn't because there was a Ranger that could just point the way home and summon some berries to eat on the way. They were right in some regards. Some of the rules were absolute - You can't get lost, you are always alert, you can't be slowed down, and you know exactly what you are tracking. Those are somewhat hard to foil with normal means. But they are wrong about some other parts too. Foraging twice as much food doesn't mean much if there is no food to be found. Getting lost isn't much of an obstacle anyway in DnD. You usually just climb a tree and look around, or follow a river, or head towards the sunrise. Difficult terrain isn't a massive challenge either. You double your travel time. That only matters as much as the wilderness is big. If Goodberry is a problem, make the component consumed on casting. So for these 1% of games, I would tell the DM to be happy there is a Ranger who wants to engage with their survival heavy world, and get a little creative with the challenges.
Yes, situations exist in campaigns where the ranger's old skills are largely useless. It's quite common. And yes, there are other games where they made the dangers too easy to circumvent. And yes, there are games where you need to feed a caravan of 50, however rare that might be. Everyone has their own stories that gave them their current views
So WotC needs to make a new Ranger. What do they try to do? Please the 90% who wished their Ranger could do more outside of the forest? Please the 1% who think the ranger is OP and ruins their campaigns? Or stick with the 9% who love them the way they are? I think they do what they can to make everyone at least a little happy. And from my recent experience, that's what they did.
(Note that obviously all these percentages are made up. But I do think it's fair to say that the vast majority of people don't play with detailed wilderness travel, and another small number really want to make it hard. Very few published adventures focus on travel in any way that a Ranger would matter. But adjust these numbers as you see fit. They're just for illustrative purposes.)
Looking at the old abilities, they got certain advantages in one terrain (then a few more terrains later):
Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel.
Your group can’t become lost except by magical means.
Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger.
If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace.
When you forage, you find twice as much food as you normally would.
While tracking other creatures, you also learn their exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area.
Well, the first one (difficult terrain) is lost completely. There's no other way to see that one. This probably pleases the 1% of gritty survival DMs, means nothing to the 90% of regular players, and saddens people like me.
The next (can't get lost) is now covered by Survival expertise, and that fact you can get advantage on that roll with navigation or cartography tools. Okay, so it's not a guaranteed chance. But it's pretty close. (The hardest DC is 15, 10 if you take it slow) And there's just enough chance of failure for the hard-core survival DMs to have breathing room in designing adventures.
Third (staying alert during travel) is... weird. There is no actual definition to what that means. Does it mean you can't be surprised? Do you actually see any hidden monsters? It's not well defined, and I doubt it comes up in many games. Even running exploration heavy games myself, I don't usually remember this one, and still leave the mechanics to to rolls and passive abilities. Rolls that the new Ranger is better at in every environment. And you can always take the Alert feat. I guess everybody wins with this one, just because we don't have to interpret it anymore.
Fourth (moving stealthy alone at normal pace) - This one is actually cool, but... not well defined. I think this is just using very vague common language. Too vague. It should have used actual in game mechanical terms for being hidden and movement speeds. If it was better defined, I guess it would come in handy occasionally in your favored terrain. Traveling alone. That's not very often. Oh well, this one is gone now. A very small, but real loss. Unless moving stealthy doesn't require half speed during overland travel at all anymore.
The fifth ability (forage for twice as much) is another odd one. Most of these vague abilities depend on travel rules that... don't exist? How much food can you normally forage? Does it depend on the environment? Is there a roll to tell you how many people you can normally feed? I guess it's up to the DM. Expertise in Survival or Nature should yield a similar effect, for the few tables that track food at all. Since it's all made up anyway. Most players won't ever see it used in their adventures. Some like me always will. The hard-core guys seem to hate this one for no reason. They should be happy to lose it I guess. I can just depend on good survival rolls to cover it. [Edit - found the rules for foraging DMG pg 111. Would be nice if these were referenced. It is largely up to the whim of the DM how often to can do it and what the DC is. On average, one person can already forage enough for a whole party with only one attempt per day. Expertise in Survival makes it easier. This is largely a non-issue unless you really need to feed a lot of people and no one can help you forage. In one specific terrain. Overall this change probably comes out as a wash]
Sixth (tracking creatures) is also poorly defined, because we don't know what the default is. If you are a fighter tracking some creatures, is this information that you don't get to know? Would you need a higher roll to get it? Again it's totally up to interpretation. We do, however, have a great example in the starter set adventure LMoP. There is an encounter at the start where you can follow some tracks after the battle. This is what it says, edited for spoilers - "A character who succeeds on a DC 10 Wisdom (Survival) check recognizes that about a dozen (specific creatures) have come and gone along the trail, as well as signs of two (things) being hauled away from the (spoiler) site." Well, that sounds like getting pretty much all the information the class ability offers with one very simple roll. Expertise in Survival handles this perfectly. Nothing lost here.
So that's it. For 90% of players, they've lost nothing at all. For the hard-core survival DMs, they're gained some freedom in creating adventures by having a chance of failure built in. Everyone got to avoid vague language. That leaves the 9% or whatever of people like me who really like exploration. We lost a few things it's true. But they only applied in very specific environments. And most of them can still be covered by expertise. Not all, no, but most.
But what did we all gain? The ability to use most of these abilities in EVERY environment. In the forest, the mountains, caverns, towns, everywhere. Our Rangers can now track the thieves guild through back alleys, then sneak past goblin guards in their cave. They can do so much more.
The first time I played LMoP, we had a Ranger. We cheered when he tried to track the creature at the start because we had a Ranger! It turned out it wasn't very hard, but he did it. Then he found some traps in the woods. Then we entered a cave and... he became a fighter. Nothing more. He was a good fighter, but no longer felt much like a Ranger.
In the playtest we ran the same adventure. Our Ranger easily tracked the creatures. He easily found the traps. Then we entered the cave and what happened? He used his Stealth expertise and Survival expertise to track in there too, and scout ahead. He used his Message cantrip to send his findings back to the party and plan their moves. He used his spells to befriend and release the wolves. He was a beast in combat. He felt like a Ranger everywhere. He then did the same in an abandoned mansion, and a ruined castle, and a town, and a dungeon. It felt so much better than I expected.
Is it perfect? No. But it's good.
Yes, this is only one anecdote. That's all we have. That's what the playtesting is for. To gather enough anecdotes that it becomes data. Because we can't quantify how we feel about something like we can do crunching damage numbers. I played multiple sessions from level 1 through 5 with the new Ranger, and it changed my mind. That's my data. I'm not trying to convince anyone that these are the right rules for you. I'm just trying to convince people to try them at least. If anyone else actually played a new Ranger and felt differently than me, I would genuinely like to hear your stories too.
I think a lot of the frustration, and thus this discussion, is rooted in not fully grasping what the pillars are. Combat is easy enough to understand, but Exploration and Social Interaction?
In the PH, Rangers had tools to aid in both of those latter pillars. In fact, it might be the only class with features explicitly for all three pillars of the game. This, in turn, gives it something of a muddled identity. Its features are also dependent on DMs and players who care enough about something besides combat to adequately use those rules. But when fully utilized, the Ranger is one of the strongest classes in the game.
Exploration isn't just wilderness survival. And while a Ranger can be good at that, so can a Bard or Rogue. I do miss Natural Explorer and the various perks it brought to wilderness survival, and no it wasn't an auto-success feature. Exploration is identifying muddy boot prints at a crime scene, or the poison used on a noble. It's researching in a library, like Candlekeep. It's checking the walls for hidden doors and passages, or for a false bottom in a desk drawer. Investigation and Perception are both on their class skill list, so they can be built for this.
Social Interaction is similarly broad. Insight is on their class skill list, and Wisdom is suggested as their secondary statistic. Each ranger can be adept in this field. Combined with Favored Enemy, and the bonus languages it can grant, you have someone who can know a lot of languages to read allies and enemies alike. They might not be able to influence the actions of others, but they can study them and know when something is up. Social Interaction is more than just rolling Deception, Intimidation, or Persuasion. It requires giving and taking. What the ranger can learn can then be shared with someone else and leveraged for advantage.
Those are really good points, and I think that's why the new Ranger felt so much more involved in every type of situation. I liked the old Ranger, but my games were geared towards them. The new one feels even better in even more scenarios.
This response is underdeveloped and just shows a single anecdote of "it doesn't matter when I play, so it must not matter."
Just one example of your blindspot is the caravan. If you have 50 creatures to feed that's 5 spells slots to solve food. Now you are severely resource weakened for any combat. Similarly, If you find double food you can only cover a limited percentage of the population. Note this example is a recreation from a adventurers league module. I have also had a simiar senario in a larger campaign.
You're telling me that a Ranger struggling to feed FIFTY PEOPLE every day by himself is an indicator that the class is not trivializing anything? Not FAILING to feed fifty people, mind you, just having to use a lot of spell slots?
Most adventures don't require you to look after anyone aside from your party and maybe one or two NPCs. And doing that is extremely trivial, yes.
If you had a class feature that said "you can use an action to kill any creature," you wouldn't say that doesn't trivialize combat just because it's possible to have all your monsters using Death Ward.
Its features are also dependent on DMs and players who care enough about something besides combat to adequately use those rules. But when fully utilized, the Ranger is one of the strongest classes in the game.
I hear this a lot: "if you actually use the rules, exploring is hard/playing an explorer class is rewarding!" I'm gonna push back on this here, because I usually don't bother.
I know these rules. I'm one of those weirdos who has read all my core rulebooks. I've used these rules. I've taught them to my friends. I've been on both sides of the screen with these rules.
They're not challenging. They're not interesting. They're not exciting, and they're not fun. (And they're terribly organized. These rules are scattered across so many chapters of so many books it's unreal.) Running the 5e exploration rules as written is tedious and pointless. It makes you roll a lot of dice, to slowly wiggle your way through near-identical branching paths, devoid of any content, until you eventually pop out at a near-identical endpoint. Any character can do it, and having good bonuses isn't important. You SHOULDN'T play with the exploration rules as written in 5e. You should fix them! And if you've had fun with exploration, which it sounds like you have, then you or your DM probably did just that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
By that logic, a Paladin could make money as a doctor quite easily using just Lay on Hands and buy a magic weapon. And yet, Paladins get not only the Magic Weapon spell, but also the Improved Divine Smite feature.
A Paladin would be an amazing doctor for a small village. With just one level, proficiency in Medicine, and an Herbalism kit, you could keep the whole town happy and healthy for a long time. Hmmm... good idea.
True all classes make money in down time but only the phb ranger can multiply foraging results and/or do it during "free time" during a travel session.
A ranger could also preform spellcasting services or other professional duties.
This is about what the ranger lost. This is not about general adventuring. A ranger always did ok with magic damage that hasn't changed since the first errata.
Ranger can do even more with spell casting services thanks to the larger amount of spells available and, most importantly, the ability to change the spells AND ritual casting.
Hunters mark/favored enemy creates a dip problem pretty much no matter how you do it. The point of the +1 damage per ranger level is to eliminate that problem no one is going to take a dip for +1 damage on every hit. Yes it is probably too much at tier 4 and maybe tier 3 but it could have a cutoff around L10. The problems with concentration til L5 is that it nerfs the rangers own combos like HM+ ZS at the levels where they need it most. The problem with getting no concentration at L1/2 is that it invites a dip. Changing it to a straight +1/ranger level changes the dynamic enough since your getting roughly the same extra damage ( but still enough extra damage) until levels 3-4 and then after that your getting a reward for not multiclassing out of ranger with the additional extra damage.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I think it's important to admit when we're wrong. I've played all the new classes through level 5 now. And I was wrong.
Is the ranger prefect? No. I still think that it's most thematic abilities come online way too late (but the same is true of all 3 classes.) I still think Roving should be a first level feature. Hunter's Mark is too strong at low levels. And rangers largely make Rogues feel obsolete. I'll be noting all of that in the survey.
But.
My fears about the ranger losing its flavor were largely unfounded. When making the character, I took the skills, equipment, and spells it suggested and it already felt pretty good. I underestimated how much the Primal spell list adds to a Ranger's theme. Only one other class gets these spells, and having more access to them really helps a Ranger do what feels right. The skills available for expertise are thematic. They came in handy both in the Exploration phase of the games, AND the dungeon crawls.
And I think that last point was the most important one. The Ranger felt like a Ranger, even while exploring a cave or castle. They were equipped to act as the scout, the trap finder, the monster slayer, and the beast friend. Our Ranger stealthed ahead in ruined castles, located dangerous traps, climbed through sketchy tunnels, and befriended wild animals.
It was... honestly pretty great. Having a Ranger that filled the theme even outside of his native wilderness. I was wrong. I want to thank everyone who disagreed with me for making me take a long hard look at it. And I highly suggest playtesting as much as your time allows. Even rolling up some characters can change your outlook on them better than any theorizing can.
Thanks everyone! I look forward to the next UA release!
while I appreciate the anecdote, All it does is show possibility of having fun but not probability of it being a universal experience. there are so many factors that tie in dm, adventure day length, party composition ect. some people desire different builds or party roles than just one sample group.
a big part of ranger being an expert is their ability to give the team assistance but many of the new features are what I would consider selfish. they don't make the team better they make the player better and Franky in ways that can be easily or better mimicked via other methods. at least ignoring difficult terrain was unique, at least Favored terrain features weren't tied to combat resources(slots or Known) and the whole party felt better off when they knew they could rely on you for that zone. HIPS was a fun concept but never wotc ironed out as to practical function. (not once even mentioned in S.A. or other FAQ)
I
The way I see it is simple. Everyone can kind of make the ranger they want. Expertise in survival and nature can do most of the natural explorer and favored enemy stuff but in any terrain instead of just one terrain. But if you want a ranger to be more of a scout, maybe perception and stealth. Maybe you want a more urban ranger, Perception and History? The One DnD ranger is more than just the "nature guy" they are an expert in what ever "rangery" thing you want them to be an expert in. The flavor you want only worked in extremely specific settings with extremely specific DM's. This is more streamlined so people can make the ranger they want for any terrain, any setting and any GM and still get the mechanical benefits they wanted out of their ranger.
Yeah, it's true, it was just one person's experience. But I was very much on the side that Rangers had lost their flavor. And after playing one, I changed my mind.
It was better than I expected. If anyone else wants to see, they can try it too. It was a lot of fun.
And the ranger didn't seem selfish at all. He became the effective leader of the group in anything outside of a town social situation. He scouted ahead in every wilderness setting AND dungeon. Used his new Message cantrip to silently send information back to the team. Identified traps for them to avoid. Lead the vanguard in ever battle. Entangled large groups of monsters so the others could fight them easier. Tanked for the rogue to get sneak attack. Healed when spell slots were low. He was an integral part of the team and held it together.
And even outside of the forest, he really felt like a Ranger, and that was cool.
that is actively untrue. It's total bs that the phb ranger skills are replicable by survival or nature. the "free activity"(perception while doing other thing), ignoring difficult terrain, guaranteed mechanical explanation of your knowledge, exact details on tracking ect.
That lie has ruined play for so many players And I am done with it.
if you like the other Tasha's features Or (1dnd's similar version) fine not a problem but please don't twist the facts.
The One D&D version of Outlander no longer gives auto success. Instead, you get Magic Initiate: Primal. You could pick Goodberry, sure, but that one often gets nerfed by house rules. IMO, nerfing Outlander is long overdue. Out of the Abyss and Tomb of Annihilation are some of my favorite campaigns, and Outlander makes the survival aspect of those campaigns way too easy.
The real BS is assuming that everyone likes the situation when the presence of a ranger automatically trivializes survival, and that ranger must be useless outside survival scenarios.
The 5e ranger definitely does not trivialize suvival as there is so much to it but it does reward investment. There are so many strategies and opportunities just moving. Over 5 roles. 3 default speeds. Mounts, vehicles, foot travel random encounters.
Not being lost is not the same as not needing to navigate.
Double food or goodberies won't automatically solve food for a caravan or carry weight issues.
Even if you dm or table skips such details gaining a little boost in sale goods makes it feel rewarding and allows rp for fur and meat sales.
Maybe if you're the type to dislike traveling nitpick you want an in game excuse to make it easy as possible. If I hate failing skill checks I consider a rogues reliable talent. If I dislike low level undead fighting I take cleric or paladin. If I want to have an easy time traveling I consider a ranger. This is what makes them an expert. This is a common design method for board games with simple characters. Be good at a thing so it's missed when other choices are made. Each character has their unique skill that makes them a hero.
The 5e ranger even without using favored enemy or favored terrain is still a top tier adventurer. Definitely not useless outside exploration.
You refer to "navigate, draw a map, track, and forage"? What's the fifth? Notice threats?
I've never seen these matter. Players get in their own heads about it, but it never makes any difference in my experience.
I struggle to see how a Ranger is needed for any of that. Theoretically, your mounts could go rogue, but has this ever actually happened?
But what is the result of failing to navigate well? Is it... Getting lost?
I think you'll find that it will, in fact.
This response is underdeveloped and just shows a single anecdote of "it doesn't matter when I play, so it must not matter."
Just one example of your blindspot is the caravan. If you have 50 creatures to feed that's 5 spells slots to solve food. Now you are severely resource weakened for any combat. Similarly, If you find double food you can only cover a limited percentage of the population. Note this example is a recreation from a adventurers league module. I have also had a simiar senario in a larger campaign.
As for vehicles, a simple carage allows for several types of work to be preformed opening up a lot of downtime opportunities. For sale or party use. But vehicles mean you can't travel specific routes that may save time.
Did you actually attempt to analyze the responses or did you just throw out the first thought that came to mind? There are many places where I appreciate your insight but in this your stance seems reactionary rather than
I think it's important to realize that many things can be true at the same time. The old Ranger rules did not come into play in a large percentage of actual games. For most people, they handwave travel, or reduce it to a kind of montage with a few rolls. That's at least 90% of games out there, maybe more. Those players think the old rules were useless because they were, in their games. In fact, they were only good in games that built strongly on that part of the Exploration pillar. And even in games that did that, the Ranger was only super useful for whatever period of time they spent in that one terrain. After that, they're just a fighter with some spells. A good one, yes, but one without some of their kit.
Then there were a few DMs that complained that the rules trivialize exploration. They wanted to run harsh survival games and couldn't because there was a Ranger that could just point the way home and summon some berries to eat on the way. They were right in some regards. Some of the rules were absolute - You can't get lost, you are always alert, you can't be slowed down, and you know exactly what you are tracking. Those are somewhat hard to foil with normal means. But they are wrong about some other parts too. Foraging twice as much food doesn't mean much if there is no food to be found. Getting lost isn't much of an obstacle anyway in DnD. You usually just climb a tree and look around, or follow a river, or head towards the sunrise. Difficult terrain isn't a massive challenge either. You double your travel time. That only matters as much as the wilderness is big. If Goodberry is a problem, make the component consumed on casting. So for these 1% of games, I would tell the DM to be happy there is a Ranger who wants to engage with their survival heavy world, and get a little creative with the challenges.
Yes, situations exist in campaigns where the ranger's old skills are largely useless. It's quite common. And yes, there are other games where they made the dangers too easy to circumvent. And yes, there are games where you need to feed a caravan of 50, however rare that might be. Everyone has their own stories that gave them their current views
So WotC needs to make a new Ranger. What do they try to do? Please the 90% who wished their Ranger could do more outside of the forest? Please the 1% who think the ranger is OP and ruins their campaigns? Or stick with the 9% who love them the way they are? I think they do what they can to make everyone at least a little happy. And from my recent experience, that's what they did.
(Note that obviously all these percentages are made up. But I do think it's fair to say that the vast majority of people don't play with detailed wilderness travel, and another small number really want to make it hard. Very few published adventures focus on travel in any way that a Ranger would matter. But adjust these numbers as you see fit. They're just for illustrative purposes.)
Looking at the old abilities, they got certain advantages in one terrain (then a few more terrains later):
Well, the first one (difficult terrain) is lost completely. There's no other way to see that one. This probably pleases the 1% of gritty survival DMs, means nothing to the 90% of regular players, and saddens people like me.
The next (can't get lost) is now covered by Survival expertise, and that fact you can get advantage on that roll with navigation or cartography tools. Okay, so it's not a guaranteed chance. But it's pretty close. (The hardest DC is 15, 10 if you take it slow) And there's just enough chance of failure for the hard-core survival DMs to have breathing room in designing adventures.
Third (staying alert during travel) is... weird. There is no actual definition to what that means. Does it mean you can't be surprised? Do you actually see any hidden monsters? It's not well defined, and I doubt it comes up in many games. Even running exploration heavy games myself, I don't usually remember this one, and still leave the mechanics to to rolls and passive abilities. Rolls that the new Ranger is better at in every environment. And you can always take the Alert feat. I guess everybody wins with this one, just because we don't have to interpret it anymore.
Fourth (moving stealthy alone at normal pace) - This one is actually cool, but... not well defined. I think this is just using very vague common language. Too vague. It should have used actual in game mechanical terms for being hidden and movement speeds. If it was better defined, I guess it would come in handy occasionally in your favored terrain. Traveling alone. That's not very often. Oh well, this one is gone now. A very small, but real loss. Unless moving stealthy doesn't require half speed during overland travel at all anymore.
The fifth ability (forage for twice as much) is another odd one. Most of these vague abilities depend on travel rules that... don't exist? How much food can you normally forage? Does it depend on the environment? Is there a roll to tell you how many people you can normally feed? I guess it's up to the DM. Expertise in Survival or Nature should yield a similar effect, for the few tables that track food at all. Since it's all made up anyway. Most players won't ever see it used in their adventures. Some like me always will. The hard-core guys seem to hate this one for no reason. They should be happy to lose it I guess. I can just depend on good survival rolls to cover it. [Edit - found the rules for foraging DMG pg 111. Would be nice if these were referenced. It is largely up to the whim of the DM how often to can do it and what the DC is. On average, one person can already forage enough for a whole party with only one attempt per day. Expertise in Survival makes it easier. This is largely a non-issue unless you really need to feed a lot of people and no one can help you forage. In one specific terrain. Overall this change probably comes out as a wash]
Sixth (tracking creatures) is also poorly defined, because we don't know what the default is. If you are a fighter tracking some creatures, is this information that you don't get to know? Would you need a higher roll to get it? Again it's totally up to interpretation. We do, however, have a great example in the starter set adventure LMoP. There is an encounter at the start where you can follow some tracks after the battle. This is what it says, edited for spoilers - "A character who succeeds on a DC 10 Wisdom (Survival) check recognizes that about a dozen (specific creatures) have come and gone along the trail, as well as signs of two (things) being hauled away from the (spoiler) site." Well, that sounds like getting pretty much all the information the class ability offers with one very simple roll. Expertise in Survival handles this perfectly. Nothing lost here.
So that's it. For 90% of players, they've lost nothing at all. For the hard-core survival DMs, they're gained some freedom in creating adventures by having a chance of failure built in. Everyone got to avoid vague language. That leaves the 9% or whatever of people like me who really like exploration. We lost a few things it's true. But they only applied in very specific environments. And most of them can still be covered by expertise. Not all, no, but most.
But what did we all gain? The ability to use most of these abilities in EVERY environment. In the forest, the mountains, caverns, towns, everywhere. Our Rangers can now track the thieves guild through back alleys, then sneak past goblin guards in their cave. They can do so much more.
The first time I played LMoP, we had a Ranger. We cheered when he tried to track the creature at the start because we had a Ranger! It turned out it wasn't very hard, but he did it. Then he found some traps in the woods. Then we entered a cave and... he became a fighter. Nothing more. He was a good fighter, but no longer felt much like a Ranger.
In the playtest we ran the same adventure. Our Ranger easily tracked the creatures. He easily found the traps. Then we entered the cave and what happened? He used his Stealth expertise and Survival expertise to track in there too, and scout ahead. He used his Message cantrip to send his findings back to the party and plan their moves. He used his spells to befriend and release the wolves. He was a beast in combat. He felt like a Ranger everywhere. He then did the same in an abandoned mansion, and a ruined castle, and a town, and a dungeon. It felt so much better than I expected.
Is it perfect? No. But it's good.
Yes, this is only one anecdote. That's all we have. That's what the playtesting is for. To gather enough anecdotes that it becomes data. Because we can't quantify how we feel about something like we can do crunching damage numbers. I played multiple sessions from level 1 through 5 with the new Ranger, and it changed my mind. That's my data. I'm not trying to convince anyone that these are the right rules for you. I'm just trying to convince people to try them at least. If anyone else actually played a new Ranger and felt differently than me, I would genuinely like to hear your stories too.
I think a lot of the frustration, and thus this discussion, is rooted in not fully grasping what the pillars are. Combat is easy enough to understand, but Exploration and Social Interaction?
In the PH, Rangers had tools to aid in both of those latter pillars. In fact, it might be the only class with features explicitly for all three pillars of the game. This, in turn, gives it something of a muddled identity. Its features are also dependent on DMs and players who care enough about something besides combat to adequately use those rules. But when fully utilized, the Ranger is one of the strongest classes in the game.
Exploration isn't just wilderness survival. And while a Ranger can be good at that, so can a Bard or Rogue. I do miss Natural Explorer and the various perks it brought to wilderness survival, and no it wasn't an auto-success feature. Exploration is identifying muddy boot prints at a crime scene, or the poison used on a noble. It's researching in a library, like Candlekeep. It's checking the walls for hidden doors and passages, or for a false bottom in a desk drawer. Investigation and Perception are both on their class skill list, so they can be built for this.
Social Interaction is similarly broad. Insight is on their class skill list, and Wisdom is suggested as their secondary statistic. Each ranger can be adept in this field. Combined with Favored Enemy, and the bonus languages it can grant, you have someone who can know a lot of languages to read allies and enemies alike. They might not be able to influence the actions of others, but they can study them and know when something is up. Social Interaction is more than just rolling Deception, Intimidation, or Persuasion. It requires giving and taking. What the ranger can learn can then be shared with someone else and leveraged for advantage.
Those are really good points, and I think that's why the new Ranger felt so much more involved in every type of situation. I liked the old Ranger, but my games were geared towards them. The new one feels even better in even more scenarios.
You're telling me that a Ranger struggling to feed FIFTY PEOPLE every day by himself is an indicator that the class is not trivializing anything? Not FAILING to feed fifty people, mind you, just having to use a lot of spell slots?
Most adventures don't require you to look after anyone aside from your party and maybe one or two NPCs. And doing that is extremely trivial, yes.
If you had a class feature that said "you can use an action to kill any creature," you wouldn't say that doesn't trivialize combat just because it's possible to have all your monsters using Death Ward.
I hear this a lot: "if you actually use the rules, exploring is hard/playing an explorer class is rewarding!" I'm gonna push back on this here, because I usually don't bother.
I know these rules. I'm one of those weirdos who has read all my core rulebooks. I've used these rules. I've taught them to my friends. I've been on both sides of the screen with these rules.
They're not challenging. They're not interesting. They're not exciting, and they're not fun. (And they're terribly organized. These rules are scattered across so many chapters of so many books it's unreal.) Running the 5e exploration rules as written is tedious and pointless. It makes you roll a lot of dice, to slowly wiggle your way through near-identical branching paths, devoid of any content, until you eventually pop out at a near-identical endpoint. Any character can do it, and having good bonuses isn't important. You SHOULDN'T play with the exploration rules as written in 5e. You should fix them! And if you've had fun with exploration, which it sounds like you have, then you or your DM probably did just that.