Barbarians don't get anything to boost their out-of-combat muscular strength until level 20. A weirdly-designed Bard would do better at strength-based challenges than a Barbarian. Heck, a Sorcerer could use the Bend Luck feature to exceed what a Barbarian can do.
Sorry, but I don't follow. Even if the fighter is the best at making melee attacks, it can still participate in other pillars of the game. It's not difficult.
Like any of us can participate in neural surgery - by standing by and sometimes maybe handing tools to specialists. Fighter is an example of a class geared towards only one pillar of the game. When literally every other class, even barbarian (through Danger Sense and Primal Knowledge), has features that help exploration.
Plot is just things that happen─the sequence of events that transpire. It can happen around the player characters, to them, be caused by them, and then some. NPCs should still be actively up to something, even when the PCs aren't around. So a sandbox adventure, trudging through the wilderness, is never a derailment. Players, and their characters, can never lose the plot. Traveling between the nearest town or city and the dungeon of choice was an adventure unto itself; rife with its own challenges. There were monsters. There were threats. You survived not by your class abilities, but by your tools and your wits. Your classes and levels simply gave you more tools to solve the problem at hand. And, fundamentally, D&D is still this.
Like I said, this kind of sandbox experience requires lots of improvisation on DM's part, and not everyone can pull that off. Which is why it's not for everyone.
Making things memorable and fun always takes effort on the part of the DM. And the players, if we're being honest, but that's a topic for another thread. The thing is, and I've said this before, D&D isn't just one game. The current iteration tries to be several different games; with mixed success.
Can you run a dungeon crawl? Yes, technically, you can. But I personally wouldn't call 200 feet (twenty 10-foot squares) per minute a crawl. Over its decades of publication, the game has gradually shifted away from basically survival horror to faux medieval superheroes. But it has yet to completely abandon those old trappings. I suspect this is because WotC still wants people who like that style of play, such as myself, to be able to continue playing that way. Unfortunately, this means D&D isn't about anything in the same way other games are. Look at PbtA and WoD games, which I enjoy, and how they have a strong sense of identity and theme. D&D does not, and it has given that up for the sake of mass appeal. With D&D, I have to graft stuff on or else it comes across bland.
And this doesn't have to be a bad thing. I think it's great that so many people can find something to love about it and play it. And having what are essentially unfinished adventures leaves tremendous room for customization, and I dare say even encourages creative writing. I just also think the rules should continue to support that old style of play as the game broadens its horizons to embrace other styles of play. And the changes, so far, made to the ranger disappoint me in this regard.
Aye, I agree on this part. Best tabletop game for me was, and probably still is (aside from pen and paper RPGs) Arkham Horror, because the game has a ton of expansions that can be attached to game like mods and played in any combination you like. DnD looks like it's going in a similar direction. PHB is the framework, other sourcebooks offer things to add on top of it. WotC just needs to go deeper on mechanics in addition to genres. Well, at least I have my Van Richten's.
Barbarians don't get anything to boost their out-of-combat muscular strength until level 20. A weirdly-designed Bard would do better at strength-based challenges than a Barbarian. Heck, a Sorcerer could use the Bend Luck feature to exceed what a Barbarian can do.
Bit of a digression I suppose.
They can rage to get advantage on strength checks. Doesn't need to be in combat.
Barbarians don't get anything to boost their out-of-combat muscular strength until level 20. A weirdly-designed Bard would do better at strength-based challenges than a Barbarian. Heck, a Sorcerer could use the Bend Luck feature to exceed what a Barbarian can do.
Bit of a digression I suppose.
They can rage to get advantage on strength checks. Doesn't need to be in combat.
Fighters get good skill options for different kinds of exploration - Acrobatics, Athletics, History, Perception, and Survival
And for social situations - Animal Handling, History, Insight, Intimidation.
And there is crossover between them too. A display of athletic prowess can impress a crowd. And animal handling can help you survive the wilds.
Barbarians get a similar range, with Nature instead of History.
Every class has access to skills. As does every background. So it's not an argument really.
[I started this as a response to ChoirOfFire, but more people added posts before I finished, so I'm just trying to include everything]
Both are true. Everyone gets skills. Barbarians can improve some with rage. Experts can improve some with expertise. But skills are still how we engage with other pillars of the game. It's almost the only way that most people do it. So having skills means any class is viable in exploration or social encounters.
It's just more likely that a Barbarian or Fighter uses Strength over nearly any other class. But honestly, anyone with expertise can be better at almost any skill than someone else. And every skill is available through Backgrounds. So you could make a Fighter that is pretty good at Performance if you built them a certain way. I think that's a good feature that adds more options for creative builds, rather than a negative bug.
There are some caveats though. Some classes just use their primary stat in more ways than others. A Bard uses their Charisma for both their spells, and many social skills. And it's really the only ability score they absolutely need. The whole SAD vs MAD conversation.
A Strength build character gets... Athletics. A Constitution build gets nothing, skill-wise. Almost everyone stinks at Knowledge skills, because Intelligence is the new favorite dump stat. It used to be Charisma, and everyone played rough, grumbling, dirt covered dungeon delvers. Then they overcompensated and made Charisma so useful that everyone is now dumping INT and playing a charming doofus character. It’s a good thing that's a likeable character trait anyway :D
But all stats are good in combat, for the character that excels at them. They all matter in that pillar. That's also the easiest pillar to understand. So these things means it's the most prone to optimization. You can coordinate your stat and feature choices to make you effective in combat. And for some classes, that also makes you automatically good in other pillars. The Bard can be combat optimized, and also accidentally be great at social interactions. The Wizard can be great in exploration, in the form of knowledge and investigation. The Rogue in exploration in the form of scouting and traps. Even the Ranger and Paladin just happen to also focus stats and skills towards another pillar other than combat.
Optimization usually means a laser focus, or min-maxing. So the Bard that wants to be good at spellcasting, also puts their skill proficiencies in social skills. To get the most out of their high Charisma. The rogue that wants to be good at sneak attacks and dodging also puts their expertise in exploration skills, to get the most out of their Dexterity.
Other classes have good skills for other pillars, they just don't normally use the same stats. That's why so many Barbarians fail at Intimidation and just stay out of social situations all together. It's not that they can't be pretty good at it. They can easily be at least as good as other party members in a lot of cases. But the problem is that it's not written down on their sheet. And sometimes that makes it hard to realize.
Since most social and exploration parts of the game are covered by skill checks most of the time, everyone looks at their skill bonuses to determine if they want to try something. Most special abilities that are made for these pillars come on the form of spells, or spell-like features. When an ability isn't made like that, you get the old Ranger's favored terrain. People who liked that, myself included, saw a written feature and felt that gave it more weight. We all fall into that trick of the mind at some point or other. "I can do this thing now." But we forget that we can still do things that aren't written down too. We think that "I can do this" somehow also means "I can't do things that aren't this."
And it turns out that expertise in Survival is just as good as most of those features, even better than some. Definitely better in a wider range of exploration situations and environments. But it doesn't look like it. It just looks like a bonus to a skill. It doesn't explicitly tell you what that means you can do with it. It doesn't tell you the dangers you might face in the wild where you need to roll Survival. So it doesn't look as good. If it weren't for the skill bonus, it would look like nothing at all. Even though almost every Ranger will have better Wisdom for spells, and better Dexterity for combat, and thus automatically be better at exploration skills. You just wouldn't instantly notice it.
Other classes suffer even more from this illusion. We think we are limited to the things on the paper or screen. In 1st and 2nd edition, there weren't skills at all. If you wanted to disarm your opponent, you just said you wanted to. The DM made up a roll to see if it works. Or they just let you do it. Then we got skills, and they were great for customizing characters and showing us what they were capable of. But while we had a host of new options, we subconsciously felt limited to those actions alone even more.
In 5th edition, the exploration and social pillars largely assume the same way of playing that they did back at the beginning. You say what you want to say to an NPC. You tell the DM how you want to scale a cliff or poke around some ruins. We usually just pick one of the skills to make a roll because it's easier. If it's not one of the skills you have proficiency in, we think we're bad at that activity. So people ask for more things to be written down. More explicit abilities. And the more we get them, the more we're constrained by them.
That's why spells feel so much more versatile than anything else in the game. This spell says I can open a locked door. That one says I can attack everyone around me. That one says I can make the floor slippery and the monsters have to make a save.
If we don't have a spell, we look at skills. Okay the thief can pick the lock maybe. That's an ability it says I have. Or the fighter and break it down maybe. It didn't say so on my character sheet, but we're out of options, so maybe roll a Strength check? I can also attack everyone around me, but the weapon profile and Action Surge ability don't specifically say that. I have to infer it. Because I get 3 attacks, and in the combat section of the rules it says I can move between each attack. I can also make the floor slippery and make people fall. Nothing at all on my character sheet says that. Nothing in the combat section says that. But I can buy a bucket of grease right? Or I can just throw myself on top of the monster and knock it down. Or I can pull this level and let that water flood the room. Do I have to roll something now? Maybe?
The further we get from explicit rules on our character sheet, the more we forget its an option. And the more we have to make up how to handle it on the spot. This leaves people asking for rules with more explicit options. New weapon types that tell them what to roll, details on components they can harvest from monsters and how much is needed for one potion. They want something quantifiable. Something they can spend hours trying to build around. Something they can balance against other abilities to compare them.
The social and exploration pillars are mostly covered by fewer explicit rules. They depend on a lot of guesswork and creativity. The abilities that affect them can't often be quantified and compared. So there nothing for people to optimize. There are still a million things you can do with any character in these pillars. It's just sometimes hard to see. The trick is presenting it correctly in the rules, and getting the balance right. So options don't become limitations.
[I started this as a response to ChoirOfFire, but more people added posts before I finished, so I'm just trying to include everything]
Both are true. Everyone gets skills. Barbarians can improve some with rage. Experts can improve some with expertise. But skills are still how we engage with other pillars of the game. It's almost the only way that most people do it. So having skills means any class is viable in exploration or social encounters.
It's just more likely that a Barbarian or Fighter uses Strength over nearly any other class. But honestly, anyone with expertise can be better at almost any skill than someone else. And every skill is available through Backgrounds. So you could make a Fighter that is pretty good at Performance if you built them a certain way. I think that's a good feature that adds more options for creative builds, rather than a negative bug.
There are some caveats though. Some classes just use their primary stat in more ways than others. A Bard uses their Charisma for both their spells, and many social skills. And it's really the only ability score they absolutely need. The whole SAD vs MAD conversation.
A Strength build character gets... Athletics. A Constitution build gets nothing, skill-wise. Almost everyone stinks at Knowledge skills, because Intelligence is the new favorite dump stat. It used to be Charisma, and everyone played rough, grumbling, dirt covered dungeon delvers. Then they overcompensated and made Charisma so useful that everyone is now dumping INT and playing a charming doofus character. It’s a good thing that's a likeable character trait anyway :D
But all stats are good in combat, for the character that excels at them. They all matter in that pillar. That's also the easiest pillar to understand. So these things means it's the most prone to optimization. You can coordinate your stat and feature choices to make you effective in combat. And for some classes, that also makes you automatically good in other pillars. The Bard can be combat optimized, and also accidentally be great at social interactions. The Wizard can be great in exploration, in the form of knowledge and investigation. The Rogue in exploration in the form of scouting and traps. Even the Ranger and Paladin just happen to also focus stats and skills towards another pillar other than combat.
Optimization usually means a laser focus, or min-maxing. So the Bard that wants to be good at spellcasting, also puts their skill proficiencies in social skills. To get the most out of their high Charisma. The rogue that wants to be good at sneak attacks and dodging also puts their expertise in exploration skills, to get the most out of their Dexterity.
Other classes have good skills for other pillars, they just don't normally use the same stats. That's why so many Barbarians fail at Intimidation and just stay out of social situations all together. It's not that they can't be pretty good at it. They can easily be at least as good as other party members in a lot of cases. But the problem is that it's not written down on their sheet. And sometimes that makes it hard to realize.
Since most social and exploration parts of the game are covered by skill checks most of the time, everyone looks at their skill bonuses to determine if they want to try something. Most special abilities that are made for these pillars come on the form of spells, or spell-like features. When an ability isn't made like that, you get the old Ranger's favored terrain. People who liked that, myself included, saw a written feature and felt that gave it more weight. We all fall into that trick of the mind at some point or other. "I can do this thing now." But we forget that we can still do things that aren't written down too. We think that "I can do this" somehow also means "I can't do things that aren't this."
And it turns out that expertise in Survival is just as good as most of those features, even better than some. Definitely better in a wider range of exploration situations and environments. But it doesn't look like it. It just looks like a bonus to a skill. It doesn't explicitly tell you what that means you can do with it. It doesn't tell you the dangers you might face in the wild where you need to roll Survival. So it doesn't look as good. If it weren't for the skill bonus, it would look like nothing at all. Even though almost every Ranger will have better Wisdom for spells, and better Dexterity for combat, and thus automatically be better at exploration skills. You just wouldn't instantly notice it.
Other classes suffer even more from this illusion. We think we are limited to the things on the paper or screen. In 1st and 2nd edition, there weren't skills at all. If you wanted to disarm your opponent, you just said you wanted to. The DM made up a roll to see if it works. Or they just let you do it. Then we got skills, and they were great for customizing characters and showing us what they were capable of. But while we had a host of new options, we subconsciously felt limited to those actions alone even more.
In 5th edition, the exploration and social pillars largely assume the same way of playing that they did back at the beginning. You say what you want to say to an NPC. You tell the DM how you want to scale a cliff or poke around some ruins. We usually just pick one of the skills to make a roll because it's easier. If it's not one of the skills you have proficiency in, we think we're bad at that activity. So people ask for more things to be written down. More explicit abilities. And the more we get them, the more we're constrained by them.
That's why spells feel so much more versatile than anything else in the game. This spell says I can open a locked door. That one says I can attack everyone around me. That one says I can make the floor slippery and the monsters have to make a save.
If we don't have a spell, we look at skills. Okay the thief can pick the lock maybe. That's an ability it says I have. Or the fighter and break it down maybe. It didn't say so on my character sheet, but we're out of options, so maybe roll a Strength check? I can also attack everyone around me, but the weapon profile and Action Surge ability don't specifically say that. I have to infer it. Because I get 3 attacks, and in the combat section of the rules it says I can move between each attack. I can also make the floor slippery and make people fall. Nothing at all on my character sheet says that. Nothing in the combat section says that. But I can buy a bucket of grease right? Or I can just throw myself on top of the monster and knock it down. Or I can pull this level and let that water flood the room. Do I have to roll something now? Maybe?
The further we get from explicit rules on our character sheet, the more we forget its an option. And the more we have to make up how to handle it on the spot. This leaves people asking for rules with more explicit options. New weapon types that tell them what to roll, details on components they can harvest from monsters and how much is needed for one potion. They want something quantifiable. Something they can spend hours trying to build around. Something they can balance against other abilities to compare them.
The social and exploration pillars are mostly covered by fewer explicit rules. They depend on a lot of guesswork and creativity. The abilities that affect them can't often be quantified and compared. So there nothing for people to optimize. There are still a million things you can do with any character in these pillars. It's just sometimes hard to see. The trick is presenting it correctly in the rules, and getting the balance right. So options don't become limitations.
Well yeah, your fighter has the capability to speak and maybe has persuasion skill, now go compete with bard and all of his spells in an intrigue campaign. It's like disassembling your PC to change thermal paste on CPU without even a screwdriver. Technically, you can do this. The result, however...
Sorry, but I don't follow. Even if the fighter is the best at making melee attacks, it can still participate in other pillars of the game. It's not difficult.
Like any of us can participate in neural surgery - by standing by and sometimes maybe handing tools to specialists. Fighter is an example of a class geared towards only one pillar of the game. When literally every other class, even barbarian (through Danger Sense and Primal Knowledge), has features that help exploration.
Plot is just things that happen─the sequence of events that transpire. It can happen around the player characters, to them, be caused by them, and then some. NPCs should still be actively up to something, even when the PCs aren't around. So a sandbox adventure, trudging through the wilderness, is never a derailment. Players, and their characters, can never lose the plot. Traveling between the nearest town or city and the dungeon of choice was an adventure unto itself; rife with its own challenges. There were monsters. There were threats. You survived not by your class abilities, but by your tools and your wits. Your classes and levels simply gave you more tools to solve the problem at hand. And, fundamentally, D&D is still this.
Like I said, this kind of sandbox experience requires lots of improvisation on DM's part, and not everyone can pull that off. Which is why it's not for everyone.
You're making excuses. Every game requires improvisation; the style of play doesn't matter. You could be running the most railroaded adventure possible and your players will still surprise you. Additionally, we need a shared definition of "sandbox" that I think we presently lack. I wouldn't call Tomb of Annihilation a sandbox, and that leans more heavily into exploration, specifically wilderness survival, more than any 5e adventure I can think of. A sandbox is a world where the players can pursue their own interests, tugging on any number of dangling threads or cutting their own path through the world. I would call Storm King's Thunder and the Explorer's Guide to Wildemount sandbox books. Neither of those books relies heavily on outdoor exploration or wilderness survival.
Making things memorable and fun always takes effort on the part of the DM. And the players, if we're being honest, but that's a topic for another thread. The thing is, and I've said this before, D&D isn't just one game. The current iteration tries to be several different games; with mixed success.
Can you run a dungeon crawl? Yes, technically, you can. But I personally wouldn't call 200 feet (twenty 10-foot squares) per minute a crawl. Over its decades of publication, the game has gradually shifted away from basically survival horror to faux medieval superheroes. But it has yet to completely abandon those old trappings. I suspect this is because WotC still wants people who like that style of play, such as myself, to be able to continue playing that way. Unfortunately, this means D&D isn't about anything in the same way other games are. Look at PbtA and WoD games, which I enjoy, and how they have a strong sense of identity and theme. D&D does not, and it has given that up for the sake of mass appeal. With D&D, I have to graft stuff on or else it comes across bland.
And this doesn't have to be a bad thing. I think it's great that so many people can find something to love about it and play it. And having what are essentially unfinished adventures leaves tremendous room for customization, and I dare say even encourages creative writing. I just also think the rules should continue to support that old style of play as the game broadens its horizons to embrace other styles of play. And the changes, so far, made to the ranger disappoint me in this regard.
Aye, I agree on this part. Best tabletop game for me was, and probably still is (aside from pen and paper RPGs) Arkham Horror, because the game has a ton of expansions that can be attached to game like mods and played in any combination you like. DnD looks like it's going in a similar direction. PHB is the framework, other sourcebooks offer things to add on top of it. WotC just needs to go deeper on mechanics in addition to genres. Well, at least I have my Van Richten's.
D&D has been doing exactly that, adding source books for other kinds of adventures, for decades. Since at least the 1980s. That formula hasn't changed.
And it has zero bearing on the topic at hand. You brought up the barbarian and how it has features (Danger Sense and the optional Primal Knowledge) to aid in the exploration pillar. What class feature does the Expert UA ranger get? Expertise can be used on anything, even social skills, and don't say it's spellcasting. That includes Favored Enemy and the "free" hunter's mark that still requires spell slots. The first obvious feature is Roving, and that's at 7th level. It's a decent feature at a decent level, but it's too late to be finally giving them anything specifically exploration related.
Danger Sense, technically, works in two pillars: combat and exploration. And their Primal Knowledge, if they choose Intimidation, can also go towards social interaction. A good feature should be able to hit two pillars, and the ranger doesn't really have anything. That's why I say it feels like a dungeoneer, and not a ranger.
As much as it is discouraging to tell a legless person that they'll have a hard time running a marathon. Though technically, they can try to crawl really fast...
You're making excuses. Every game requires improvisation; the style of play doesn't matter. You could be running the most railroaded adventure possible and your players will still surprise you. Additionally, we need a shared definition of "sandbox" that I think we presently lack. I wouldn't call Tomb of Annihilation a sandbox, and that leans more heavily into exploration, specifically wilderness survival, more than any 5e adventure I can think of. A sandbox is a world where the players can pursue their own interests, tugging on any number of dangling threads or cutting their own path through the world. I would call Storm King's Thunder and the Explorer's Guide to Wildemount sandbox books. Neither of those books relies heavily on outdoor exploration or wilderness survival.
Hell, Strixhaven is a sandbox.
Hah, I just recently started ToA as a revived wizard) Kinda feels like cheating that my character doesn't need to eat, drink, sleep, and breathe. Though I didn't expect it to be so heavy on survivalist theme. I call it sandbox when I make my own scenario - I just create a map, factions with conflicting interests in a status quo, then a crisis that breaks the status quo and opens opportunities for change, then let the players decide for themselves what they want to do, whom they align with, and what methods they use.
D&D has been doing exactly that, adding source books for other kinds of adventures, for decades. Since at least the 1980s. That formula hasn't changed.
And it has zero bearing on the topic at hand. You brought up the barbarian and how it has features (Danger Sense and the optional Primal Knowledge) to aid in the exploration pillar. What class feature does the Expert UA ranger get? Expertise can be used on anything, even social skills, and don't say it's spellcasting. That includes Favored Enemy and the "free" hunter's mark that still requires spell slots. The first obvious feature is Roving, and that's at 7th level. It's a decent feature at a decent level, but it's too late to be finally giving them anything specifically exploration related.
Danger Sense, technically, works in two pillars: combat and exploration. And their Primal Knowledge, if they choose Intimidation, can also go towards social interaction. A good feature should be able to hit two pillars, and the ranger doesn't really have anything. That's why I say it feels like a dungeoneer, and not a ranger.
I'd say that sourcebooks provide more lore than mechanics. Tips on how to run horror, for example, are valuable, no arguing that, but sanity mechanic is still kinda in a fetal state in DMG. Van Richten could use a more developed fear/horror/sanity mechanic.
Well, it is actually expertise and spellcasting) I mean, like I said many times before, does the bard have any features that directly address the social pillar, which they are considered to rule? Actually, no, but their expertise and selection of spells help that greatly. Same with this ranger. And by all means, it is good when a feature offers choices and can be used for multiple goals. If the same features can make barbarian either a savage outlander, or a burly street thug who was raised in a ghetto, I'd say these features are definitely good. Options are better than no options.
Here is the problem with the 1DnD ranger and exploration: you get 4 expertises of which effectively 3 are going to be nature, survival and stealth giving you double PB in those skills - but you still have to roll and low rolls still occur. A scout rogue ( as of now) can take stealth and 3 other skills with expertise as a rogue, then gets nature and survival with expertise as a scout and then gets reliable talent. This means their worst roll on stuff the ranger should be the best at is 11+2xPB while the ranger’s worst roll is still 1+2xPB. The only thing a dual class scout rogue/Druid doesn’t get that a ranger does is the second attack (& they get more spells since rangers can’t get primal evocation spells and Druids can) With that and campaigns seldom reaching L15+ why be a ranger? The design of the base ranger (and at least a few subclasses) should make it clearly superior to the scout rogue and scout rogue/ Druid multiclass or there is no reason to have the ranger class - a half caster fighter subclass would provide the Gish chassis that the ranger now provides.
Here is the problem with the 1DnD ranger and exploration: you get 4 expertises of which effectively 3 are going to be nature, survival and stealth giving you double PB in those skills - but you still have to roll and low rolls still occur. A scout rogue ( as of now) can take stealth and 3 other skills with expertise as a rogue, then gets nature and survival with expertise as a scout and then gets reliable talent. This means their worst roll on stuff the ranger should be the best at is 11+2xPB while the ranger’s worst roll is still 1+2xPB. The only thing a dual class scout rogue/Druid doesn’t get that a ranger does is the second attack (& they get more spells since rangers can’t get primal evocation spells and Druids can) With that and campaigns seldom reaching L15+ why be a ranger? The design of the base ranger (and at least a few subclasses) should make it clearly superior to the scout rogue and scout rogue/ Druid multiclass or there is no reason to have the ranger class - a half caster fighter subclass would provide the Gish chassis that the ranger now provides.
Well Gee... with how the Nat 1/20 rule in the first packet was written; one would almost think that reliable talent was taken into consideration... (It is a fast fix for the issue not the best fix... IMO Reliable Talent should have never existed)
Also I wouldn't say that the PHB ranger features really added more than the current 1dnd expertise does anyway outside of adventures that only had one biome. They are universally easier to implement and use and allow for the ranger to get some flexibility in what they want to be good at. Maybe you want to make a ranger who is really good at medicine or at animal handling with a mount.
Personally I think that single biome adventures are boring anyway but that's me.
Here is the problem with the 1DnD ranger and exploration: you get 4 expertises of which effectively 3 are going to be nature, survival and stealth giving you double PB in those skills - but you still have to roll and low rolls still occur. A scout rogue ( as of now) can take stealth and 3 other skills with expertise as a rogue, then gets nature and survival with expertise as a scout and then gets reliable talent. This means their worst roll on stuff the ranger should be the best at is 11+2xPB while the ranger’s worst roll is still 1+2xPB. The only thing a dual class scout rogue/Druid doesn’t get that a ranger does is the second attack (& they get more spells since rangers can’t get primal evocation spells and Druids can) With that and campaigns seldom reaching L15+ why be a ranger? The design of the base ranger (and at least a few subclasses) should make it clearly superior to the scout rogue and scout rogue/ Druid multiclass or there is no reason to have the ranger class - a half caster fighter subclass would provide the Gish chassis that the ranger now provides.
That problem existed before. I take it your criticism here is OneD&D doesn't fix it, so the ranger will always be better?
Anyone with expertise could also be better with religion than any cleric or paladin, or with Arcana than any wizard. There's no changing that.
Here is the problem with the 1DnD ranger and exploration: you get 4 expertises of which effectively 3 are going to be nature, survival and stealth giving you double PB in those skills - but you still have to roll and low rolls still occur. A scout rogue ( as of now) can take stealth and 3 other skills with expertise as a rogue, then gets nature and survival with expertise as a scout and then gets reliable talent. This means their worst roll on stuff the ranger should be the best at is 11+2xPB while the ranger’s worst roll is still 1+2xPB. The only thing a dual class scout rogue/Druid doesn’t get that a ranger does is the second attack (& they get more spells since rangers can’t get primal evocation spells and Druids can) With that and campaigns seldom reaching L15+ why be a ranger? The design of the base ranger (and at least a few subclasses) should make it clearly superior to the scout rogue and scout rogue/ Druid multiclass or there is no reason to have the ranger class - a half caster fighter subclass would provide the Gish chassis that the ranger now provides.
That problem existed before. I take it your criticism here is OneD&D doesn't fix it, so the ranger will always be better?
Anyone with expertise could also be better with religion than any cleric or paladin, or with Arcana than any wizard. There's no changing that.
Yes that problem has been around for quite a while. Yes it would have been nice if 1DnD had fixed it. I can think of several ways but one would be(have been?) to cut the number of expertises down and then grant expertise in one skill to selected classes and rule out expertise in those particular skills but allow proficiency in them.so the ranger gets expertise in survival, the Druid gets expertise in nature the rogue gets expertise in stealth etc. The ranger can take stealth but is never quite as good as the rogue, the rogue can take survival but is never as good as the ranger etc. That gives each class a distinguishing feature that later subclasses of other classes can’t usurp giving each class a distinct “feel”
Here is the problem with the 1DnD ranger and exploration: you get 4 expertises of which effectively 3 are going to be nature, survival and stealth giving you double PB in those skills - but you still have to roll and low rolls still occur. A scout rogue ( as of now) can take stealth and 3 other skills with expertise as a rogue, then gets nature and survival with expertise as a scout and then gets reliable talent. This means their worst roll on stuff the ranger should be the best at is 11+2xPB while the ranger’s worst roll is still 1+2xPB. The only thing a dual class scout rogue/Druid doesn’t get that a ranger does is the second attack (& they get more spells since rangers can’t get primal evocation spells and Druids can) With that and campaigns seldom reaching L15+ why be a ranger? The design of the base ranger (and at least a few subclasses) should make it clearly superior to the scout rogue and scout rogue/ Druid multiclass or there is no reason to have the ranger class - a half caster fighter subclass would provide the Gish chassis that the ranger now provides.
That problem existed before. I take it your criticism here is OneD&D doesn't fix it, so the ranger will always be better?
Anyone with expertise could also be better with religion than any cleric or paladin, or with Arcana than any wizard. There's no changing that.
Yes that problem has been around for quite a while. Yes it would have been nice if 1DnD had fixed it. I can think of several ways but one would be(have been?) to cut the number of expertises down and then grant expertise in one skill to selected classes and rule out expertise in those particular skills but allow proficiency in them.so the ranger gets expertise in survival, the Druid gets expertise in nature the rogue gets expertise in stealth etc. The ranger can take stealth but is never quite as good as the rogue, the rogue can take survival but is never as good as the ranger etc. That gives each class a distinguishing feature that later subclasses of other classes can’t usurp giving each class a distinct “feel”
I also think having a survival/exploration focused book would help as well.
Give terrain a statblock and have some things only a ranger can overcome or assist with "defeating" said terrain
Actually, yes. We have a sourcebook on horror (though I wish it had actual mechanics), but we also need sourcebooks dedicated to exploration/survival, highlighting stranded, primal, post-apocalyptic, expedition scenarios and the like; and a sourcebook about social aspect, with tips and mechanics on intrigue, detective work, espionage, business rivalry, etc.
Here is the problem with the 1DnD ranger and exploration: you get 4 expertises of which effectively 3 are going to be nature, survival and stealth giving you double PB in those skills - but you still have to roll and low rolls still occur. A scout rogue ( as of now) can take stealth and 3 other skills with expertise as a rogue, then gets nature and survival with expertise as a scout and then gets reliable talent. This means their worst roll on stuff the ranger should be the best at is 11+2xPB while the ranger’s worst roll is still 1+2xPB. The only thing a dual class scout rogue/Druid doesn’t get that a ranger does is the second attack (& they get more spells since rangers can’t get primal evocation spells and Druids can) With that and campaigns seldom reaching L15+ why be a ranger? The design of the base ranger (and at least a few subclasses) should make it clearly superior to the scout rogue and scout rogue/ Druid multiclass or there is no reason to have the ranger class - a half caster fighter subclass would provide the Gish chassis that the ranger now provides.
That problem existed before. I take it your criticism here is OneD&D doesn't fix it, so the ranger will always be better?
Anyone with expertise could also be better with religion than any cleric or paladin, or with Arcana than any wizard. There's no changing that.
Yes that problem has been around for quite a while. Yes it would have been nice if 1DnD had fixed it. I can think of several ways but one would be(have been?) to cut the number of expertises down and then grant expertise in one skill to selected classes and rule out expertise in those particular skills but allow proficiency in them.so the ranger gets expertise in survival, the Druid gets expertise in nature the rogue gets expertise in stealth etc. The ranger can take stealth but is never quite as good as the rogue, the rogue can take survival but is never as good as the ranger etc. That gives each class a distinguishing feature that later subclasses of other classes can’t usurp giving each class a distinct “feel”
Here is the problem with the 1DnD ranger and exploration: you get 4 expertises of which effectively 3 are going to be nature, survival and stealth giving you double PB in those skills - but you still have to roll and low rolls still occur. A scout rogue ( as of now) can take stealth and 3 other skills with expertise as a rogue, then gets nature and survival with expertise as a scout and then gets reliable talent. This means their worst roll on stuff the ranger should be the best at is 11+2xPB while the ranger’s worst roll is still 1+2xPB. The only thing a dual class scout rogue/Druid doesn’t get that a ranger does is the second attack (& they get more spells since rangers can’t get primal evocation spells and Druids can) With that and campaigns seldom reaching L15+ why be a ranger? The design of the base ranger (and at least a few subclasses) should make it clearly superior to the scout rogue and scout rogue/ Druid multiclass or there is no reason to have the ranger class - a half caster fighter subclass would provide the Gish chassis that the ranger now provides.
That problem existed before. I take it your criticism here is OneD&D doesn't fix it, so the ranger will always be better?
Anyone with expertise could also be better with religion than any cleric or paladin, or with Arcana than any wizard. There's no changing that.
Yes that problem has been around for quite a while. Yes it would have been nice if 1DnD had fixed it. I can think of several ways but one would be(have been?) to cut the number of expertises down and then grant expertise in one skill to selected classes and rule out expertise in those particular skills but allow proficiency in them.so the ranger gets expertise in survival, the Druid gets expertise in nature the rogue gets expertise in stealth etc. The ranger can take stealth but is never quite as good as the rogue, the rogue can take survival but is never as good as the ranger etc. That gives each class a distinguishing feature that later subclasses of other classes can’t usurp giving each class a distinct “feel”
That's too limiting and a bad idea.
Do you have a better suggestion?
I don't need to, because I don't think that problem is actually a problem.
If you can acquire expertise, then you should have a say in where it goes. You shouldn't be pigeonholed into a single skill or two. If I can create an arcane trickster or eldritch knight with proficiency in the Arcana skill, then it should be a legal target for expertise. There's no good reason to deny someone that option.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Barbarians don't get anything to boost their out-of-combat muscular strength until level 20. A weirdly-designed Bard would do better at strength-based challenges than a Barbarian. Heck, a Sorcerer could use the Bend Luck feature to exceed what a Barbarian can do.
Bit of a digression I suppose.
Like any of us can participate in neural surgery - by standing by and sometimes maybe handing tools to specialists. Fighter is an example of a class geared towards only one pillar of the game. When literally every other class, even barbarian (through Danger Sense and Primal Knowledge), has features that help exploration.
Like I said, this kind of sandbox experience requires lots of improvisation on DM's part, and not everyone can pull that off. Which is why it's not for everyone.
Aye, I agree on this part. Best tabletop game for me was, and probably still is (aside from pen and paper RPGs) Arkham Horror, because the game has a ton of expansions that can be attached to game like mods and played in any combination you like. DnD looks like it's going in a similar direction. PHB is the framework, other sourcebooks offer things to add on top of it. WotC just needs to go deeper on mechanics in addition to genres. Well, at least I have my Van Richten's.
They can rage to get advantage on strength checks. Doesn't need to be in combat.
Every class has access to skills. As does every background. So it's not an argument really.
Other than the part where their rage ends at the start of their next turn because they haven't either attacked a hostile creature or taken damage.
If I wanted to be silly at strength checks, I'd probably do something involving a Rune Knight, maybe multiclassed.
[I started this as a response to ChoirOfFire, but more people added posts before I finished, so I'm just trying to include everything]
Both are true. Everyone gets skills. Barbarians can improve some with rage. Experts can improve some with expertise. But skills are still how we engage with other pillars of the game. It's almost the only way that most people do it. So having skills means any class is viable in exploration or social encounters.
It's just more likely that a Barbarian or Fighter uses Strength over nearly any other class. But honestly, anyone with expertise can be better at almost any skill than someone else. And every skill is available through Backgrounds. So you could make a Fighter that is pretty good at Performance if you built them a certain way. I think that's a good feature that adds more options for creative builds, rather than a negative bug.
There are some caveats though. Some classes just use their primary stat in more ways than others. A Bard uses their Charisma for both their spells, and many social skills. And it's really the only ability score they absolutely need. The whole SAD vs MAD conversation.
A Strength build character gets... Athletics. A Constitution build gets nothing, skill-wise. Almost everyone stinks at Knowledge skills, because Intelligence is the new favorite dump stat. It used to be Charisma, and everyone played rough, grumbling, dirt covered dungeon delvers. Then they overcompensated and made Charisma so useful that everyone is now dumping INT and playing a charming doofus character. It’s a good thing that's a likeable character trait anyway :D
But all stats are good in combat, for the character that excels at them. They all matter in that pillar. That's also the easiest pillar to understand. So these things means it's the most prone to optimization. You can coordinate your stat and feature choices to make you effective in combat. And for some classes, that also makes you automatically good in other pillars. The Bard can be combat optimized, and also accidentally be great at social interactions. The Wizard can be great in exploration, in the form of knowledge and investigation. The Rogue in exploration in the form of scouting and traps. Even the Ranger and Paladin just happen to also focus stats and skills towards another pillar other than combat.
Optimization usually means a laser focus, or min-maxing. So the Bard that wants to be good at spellcasting, also puts their skill proficiencies in social skills. To get the most out of their high Charisma. The rogue that wants to be good at sneak attacks and dodging also puts their expertise in exploration skills, to get the most out of their Dexterity.
Other classes have good skills for other pillars, they just don't normally use the same stats. That's why so many Barbarians fail at Intimidation and just stay out of social situations all together. It's not that they can't be pretty good at it. They can easily be at least as good as other party members in a lot of cases. But the problem is that it's not written down on their sheet. And sometimes that makes it hard to realize.
Since most social and exploration parts of the game are covered by skill checks most of the time, everyone looks at their skill bonuses to determine if they want to try something. Most special abilities that are made for these pillars come on the form of spells, or spell-like features. When an ability isn't made like that, you get the old Ranger's favored terrain. People who liked that, myself included, saw a written feature and felt that gave it more weight. We all fall into that trick of the mind at some point or other. "I can do this thing now." But we forget that we can still do things that aren't written down too. We think that "I can do this" somehow also means "I can't do things that aren't this."
And it turns out that expertise in Survival is just as good as most of those features, even better than some. Definitely better in a wider range of exploration situations and environments. But it doesn't look like it. It just looks like a bonus to a skill. It doesn't explicitly tell you what that means you can do with it. It doesn't tell you the dangers you might face in the wild where you need to roll Survival. So it doesn't look as good. If it weren't for the skill bonus, it would look like nothing at all. Even though almost every Ranger will have better Wisdom for spells, and better Dexterity for combat, and thus automatically be better at exploration skills. You just wouldn't instantly notice it.
Other classes suffer even more from this illusion. We think we are limited to the things on the paper or screen. In 1st and 2nd edition, there weren't skills at all. If you wanted to disarm your opponent, you just said you wanted to. The DM made up a roll to see if it works. Or they just let you do it. Then we got skills, and they were great for customizing characters and showing us what they were capable of. But while we had a host of new options, we subconsciously felt limited to those actions alone even more.
In 5th edition, the exploration and social pillars largely assume the same way of playing that they did back at the beginning. You say what you want to say to an NPC. You tell the DM how you want to scale a cliff or poke around some ruins. We usually just pick one of the skills to make a roll because it's easier. If it's not one of the skills you have proficiency in, we think we're bad at that activity. So people ask for more things to be written down. More explicit abilities. And the more we get them, the more we're constrained by them.
That's why spells feel so much more versatile than anything else in the game. This spell says I can open a locked door. That one says I can attack everyone around me. That one says I can make the floor slippery and the monsters have to make a save.
If we don't have a spell, we look at skills. Okay the thief can pick the lock maybe. That's an ability it says I have. Or the fighter and break it down maybe. It didn't say so on my character sheet, but we're out of options, so maybe roll a Strength check? I can also attack everyone around me, but the weapon profile and Action Surge ability don't specifically say that. I have to infer it. Because I get 3 attacks, and in the combat section of the rules it says I can move between each attack. I can also make the floor slippery and make people fall. Nothing at all on my character sheet says that. Nothing in the combat section says that. But I can buy a bucket of grease right? Or I can just throw myself on top of the monster and knock it down. Or I can pull this level and let that water flood the room. Do I have to roll something now? Maybe?
The further we get from explicit rules on our character sheet, the more we forget its an option. And the more we have to make up how to handle it on the spot. This leaves people asking for rules with more explicit options. New weapon types that tell them what to roll, details on components they can harvest from monsters and how much is needed for one potion. They want something quantifiable. Something they can spend hours trying to build around. Something they can balance against other abilities to compare them.
The social and exploration pillars are mostly covered by fewer explicit rules. They depend on a lot of guesswork and creativity. The abilities that affect them can't often be quantified and compared. So there nothing for people to optimize. There are still a million things you can do with any character in these pillars. It's just sometimes hard to see. The trick is presenting it correctly in the rules, and getting the balance right. So options don't become limitations.
Well yeah, your fighter has the capability to speak and maybe has persuasion skill, now go compete with bard and all of his spells in an intrigue campaign. It's like disassembling your PC to change thermal paste on CPU without even a screwdriver. Technically, you can do this. The result, however...
That reads like discouragement.
You're making excuses. Every game requires improvisation; the style of play doesn't matter. You could be running the most railroaded adventure possible and your players will still surprise you. Additionally, we need a shared definition of "sandbox" that I think we presently lack. I wouldn't call Tomb of Annihilation a sandbox, and that leans more heavily into exploration, specifically wilderness survival, more than any 5e adventure I can think of. A sandbox is a world where the players can pursue their own interests, tugging on any number of dangling threads or cutting their own path through the world. I would call Storm King's Thunder and the Explorer's Guide to Wildemount sandbox books. Neither of those books relies heavily on outdoor exploration or wilderness survival.
Hell, Strixhaven is a sandbox.
D&D has been doing exactly that, adding source books for other kinds of adventures, for decades. Since at least the 1980s. That formula hasn't changed.
And it has zero bearing on the topic at hand. You brought up the barbarian and how it has features (Danger Sense and the optional Primal Knowledge) to aid in the exploration pillar. What class feature does the Expert UA ranger get? Expertise can be used on anything, even social skills, and don't say it's spellcasting. That includes Favored Enemy and the "free" hunter's mark that still requires spell slots. The first obvious feature is Roving, and that's at 7th level. It's a decent feature at a decent level, but it's too late to be finally giving them anything specifically exploration related.
Danger Sense, technically, works in two pillars: combat and exploration. And their Primal Knowledge, if they choose Intimidation, can also go towards social interaction. A good feature should be able to hit two pillars, and the ranger doesn't really have anything. That's why I say it feels like a dungeoneer, and not a ranger.
As much as it is discouraging to tell a legless person that they'll have a hard time running a marathon. Though technically, they can try to crawl really fast...
Hah, I just recently started ToA as a revived wizard) Kinda feels like cheating that my character doesn't need to eat, drink, sleep, and breathe. Though I didn't expect it to be so heavy on survivalist theme. I call it sandbox when I make my own scenario - I just create a map, factions with conflicting interests in a status quo, then a crisis that breaks the status quo and opens opportunities for change, then let the players decide for themselves what they want to do, whom they align with, and what methods they use.
I'd say that sourcebooks provide more lore than mechanics. Tips on how to run horror, for example, are valuable, no arguing that, but sanity mechanic is still kinda in a fetal state in DMG. Van Richten could use a more developed fear/horror/sanity mechanic.
Well, it is actually expertise and spellcasting) I mean, like I said many times before, does the bard have any features that directly address the social pillar, which they are considered to rule? Actually, no, but their expertise and selection of spells help that greatly. Same with this ranger. And by all means, it is good when a feature offers choices and can be used for multiple goals. If the same features can make barbarian either a savage outlander, or a burly street thug who was raised in a ghetto, I'd say these features are definitely good. Options are better than no options.
Here is the problem with the 1DnD ranger and exploration: you get 4 expertises of which effectively 3 are going to be nature, survival and stealth giving you double PB in those skills - but you still have to roll and low rolls still occur. A scout rogue ( as of now) can take stealth and 3 other skills with expertise as a rogue, then gets nature and survival with expertise as a scout and then gets reliable talent. This means their worst roll on stuff the ranger should be the best at is 11+2xPB while the ranger’s worst roll is still 1+2xPB. The only thing a dual class scout rogue/Druid doesn’t get that a ranger does is the second attack (& they get more spells since rangers can’t get primal evocation spells and Druids can) With that and campaigns seldom reaching L15+ why be a ranger? The design of the base ranger (and at least a few subclasses) should make it clearly superior to the scout rogue and scout rogue/ Druid multiclass or there is no reason to have the ranger class - a half caster fighter subclass would provide the Gish chassis that the ranger now provides.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Well Gee... with how the Nat 1/20 rule in the first packet was written; one would almost think that reliable talent was taken into consideration...
(It is a fast fix for the issue not the best fix... IMO Reliable Talent should have never existed)
Also I wouldn't say that the PHB ranger features really added more than the current 1dnd expertise does anyway outside of adventures that only had one biome. They are universally easier to implement and use and allow for the ranger to get some flexibility in what they want to be good at. Maybe you want to make a ranger who is really good at medicine or at animal handling with a mount.
Personally I think that single biome adventures are boring anyway but that's me.
That problem existed before. I take it your criticism here is OneD&D doesn't fix it, so the ranger will always be better?
Anyone with expertise could also be better with religion than any cleric or paladin, or with Arcana than any wizard. There's no changing that.
Yes that problem has been around for quite a while. Yes it would have been nice if 1DnD had fixed it. I can think of several ways but one would be(have been?) to cut the number of expertises down and then grant expertise in one skill to selected classes and rule out expertise in those particular skills but allow proficiency in them.so the ranger gets expertise in survival, the Druid gets expertise in nature the rogue gets expertise in stealth etc. The ranger can take stealth but is never quite as good as the rogue, the rogue can take survival but is never as good as the ranger etc. That gives each class a distinguishing feature that later subclasses of other classes can’t usurp giving each class a distinct “feel”
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I also think having a survival/exploration focused book would help as well.
Give terrain a statblock and have some things only a ranger can overcome or assist with "defeating" said terrain
The Ranger Class: For when you want to BEAT THE EARTH INTO SUBMISSION
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
That's too limiting and a bad idea.
Do you mean something like this?
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5bd88db093a6320f071b1a50/t/5ea6dd92f93b9a23ab3502f8/1587994011868/TravelingExploring_v1.pdf
Granted, it doesn't have extensive Ranger-specific considerations, but it would provide a good base to build from.
Actually, yes. We have a sourcebook on horror (though I wish it had actual mechanics), but we also need sourcebooks dedicated to exploration/survival, highlighting stranded, primal, post-apocalyptic, expedition scenarios and the like; and a sourcebook about social aspect, with tips and mechanics on intrigue, detective work, espionage, business rivalry, etc.
Do you have a better suggestion?
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I don't need to, because I don't think that problem is actually a problem.
If you can acquire expertise, then you should have a say in where it goes. You shouldn't be pigeonholed into a single skill or two. If I can create an arcane trickster or eldritch knight with proficiency in the Arcana skill, then it should be a legal target for expertise. There's no good reason to deny someone that option.