also I noticed “agilemind” you keep saying druids can’t be warriors and the only full-caster are clerics, but have you ever heard of shillelagh, with hunter’s mark you can jump in with two magic clubs, a lvl 1 dpr 19 with +3 wis, you don’t even need a fighting stat
Even with all the math and it's relative values being a factor of ranger, the spells might change and balance can be adjusted.
Few people have problems with ranger damage numbers. It's the flavor, and mechanics that support ranger narrative that is the problem.
When you have an adventure job that involves guiding, tracking or survival ranger should be the top choice.
For me the one ranger looses it's gameplay value from:
1. The only unique trait being free concentration hunter's mark. Even though many players see it as a build trap during certain senarios.
2. Only one expert feature. As previously discussed experts are established to have expertise + a second skill boon.
3. Vast deviation from historical features ( re-building previous edition characters that function similarly. It doesn't have to be close just a similar tone. Like comparing 2e strah¹d and 5e one)
4. Not supporting archetypes. It's harder to build favorite characters from fiction that match the role they play. The narrative the mechanics enforce are too controlled.
Now I could put up with one or two of these but all together it makes ranger less interesting and less fun. Especially since we had functional options with tasha's.
also I noticed “agilemind” you keep saying druids can’t be warriors and the only full-caster are clerics, but have you ever heard of shillelagh, with hunter’s mark you can jump in with two magic clubs, a lvl 1 dpr 19 with +3 wis, you don’t even need a fighting stat
Shocking to you perhaps but since I have played a druid for 2 years I have heard of Shillelagh, though I'm pleased you know how to google "druid melee build". But you're still wrong. You can only have 1 object under the effect of Shillelagh at a time, it takes 2 turns to set this up so you only have a potential 17 damage on round 3 of combat, and your defenses are trash since you've only got light armour proficiency so you're MAD needing DEX, CON, and WIS and only a d8 hit die. AC of 13-14 and 10 hit points is not going to keep you alive to get to that 3rd round. Plus you are so losing concentration on that Hunter's Mark which slams you down to a pitiful 1d8+3+1d4. Not to mention that as soon as the party hits level 5 clerics get Spiritual Guardians to augment their melee while druid gets just long-range concentration spells.
When you have an adventure job that involves guiding, tracking or survival ranger should be the top choice.
It is because it is the only one class that prioritizes Wisdom and gets expertise. They are also the best class for Stealth since they get Pass without Trace, Expertise, and will max out their Dex. Note that Pass without Trace is significantly better than reliable talent for stealth since the maximum benefit of reliable talent is +9 (increasing a nat 1 to a 10) whereas Pass without Trace always gives a +10.
There are only two classes in the game that get Survival as a class-list skill : Ranger and Druid. Of those only Ranger gets Expertise making them the best Survival class in the game. Guiding, tracking and survival are all classed under the Survival skill so Ranger is the top choice for them. Only now they are the top choice always for those aspects of the game. Whereas the 5e Ranger was only the top choice for guiding, tracking and survival if you happened to be in the right terrain.
E.g. going on an epic wilderness adventure to race to the north pole?
5e Ranger : well for the 10 days we're in a forest or crossing the mountains I can help! One Ranger: I will guide us the whole way through swamps, across mountains, through the deep dark woods, across grassy step, or in the desert, and as we trudge through the polar snow!
also I noticed “agilemind” you keep saying druids can’t be warriors and the only full-caster are clerics, but have you ever heard of shillelagh, with hunter’s mark you can jump in with two magic clubs, a lvl 1 dpr 19 with +3 wis, you don’t even need a fighting stat
Shocking to you perhaps but since I have played a druid for 2 years I have heard of Shillelagh, though I'm pleased you know how to google "druid melee build". But you're still wrong. You can only have 1 object under the effect of Shillelagh at a time, it takes 2 turns to set this up so you only have a potential 17 damage on round 3 of combat, and your defenses are trash since you've only got light armour proficiency so you're MAD needing DEX, CON, and WIS and only a d8 hit die. AC of 13-14 and 10 hit points is not going to keep you alive to get to that 3rd round. Plus you are so losing concentration on that Hunter's Mark which slams you down to a pitiful 1d8+3+1d4. Not to mention that as soon as the party hits level 5 clerics get Spiritual Guardians to augment their melee while druid gets just long-range concentration spells.
for a fact a didn’t google the build, or any other, I just read the books and how do you come to 17 dpr and 10 hp, and you can use it if you can surprise the enemy already in the first round.and at least I did my research better than you , hunter’s mark is 1d6.
When you have an adventure job that involves guiding, tracking or survival ranger should be the top choice.
It is because it is the only one class that prioritizes Wisdom and gets expertise. They are also the best class for Stealth since they get Pass without Trace, Expertise, and will max out their Dex. Note that Pass without Trace is significantly better than reliable talent for stealth since the maximum benefit of reliable talent is +9 (increasing a nat 1 to a 10) whereas Pass without Trace always gives a +10.
There are only two classes in the game that get Survival as a class-list skill : Ranger and Druid. Of those only Ranger gets Expertise making them the best Survival class in the game. Guiding, tracking and survival are all classed under the Survival skill so Ranger is the top choice for them. Only now they are the top choice always for those aspects of the game. Whereas the 5e Ranger was only the top choice for guiding, tracking and survival if you happened to be in the right terrain.
E.g. going on an epic wilderness adventure to race to the north pole?
5e Ranger : well for the 10 days we're in a forest or crossing the mountains I can help! One Ranger: I will guide us the whole way through swamps, across mountains, through the deep dark woods, across grassy step, or in the desert, and as we trudge through the polar snow!
expertise is +30% chance on checks, but twice food, no getting lost, no slowing, no surprises and great bonuses to tracking, and favored enemy is +100% chance.natural explorer works in 37,5% of the places out city
When you have an adventure job that involves guiding, tracking or survival ranger should be the top choice.
It is because it is the only one class that prioritizes Wisdom and gets expertise. They are also the best class for Stealth since they get Pass without Trace, Expertise, and will max out their Dex. Note that Pass without Trace is significantly better than reliable talent for stealth since the maximum benefit of reliable talent is +9 (increasing a nat 1 to a 10) whereas Pass without Trace always gives a +10.
There are only two classes in the game that get Survival as a class-list skill : Ranger and Druid. Of those only Ranger gets Expertise making them the best Survival class in the game. Guiding, tracking and survival are all classed under the Survival skill so Ranger is the top choice for them. Only now they are the top choice always for those aspects of the game. Whereas the 5e Ranger was only the top choice for guiding, tracking and survival if you happened to be in the right terrain.
E.g. going on an epic wilderness adventure to race to the north pole?
5e Ranger : well for the 10 days we're in a forest or crossing the mountains I can help! One Ranger: I will guide us the whole way through swamps, across mountains, through the deep dark woods, across grassy step, or in the desert, and as we trudge through the polar snow!
This is such a tunnel vision veiw ( which is becoming a predictable pattern).
Any class can get any skill via backgrounds or feats. And because of the design of the 6 stat system any class (but especially sad ones) can have decent wisdom.
It's actually a charm point of Rpgs to have secondary stats become the uniqueness to yor character. A wisdom wizard is different from a charisma one.
In particular ranger Is a mad class. Meaning very often builds require unique stat and skill distribution. Often times this means Rangers will bypass wisdom over strength, constitution or intelligence. (I've even seen a charisma rangers)
However the skill and stat system is still a secondary backup for the points that aren't defined. This is good because it allows any class an attempt to complete any job and prevent "soft locking" adventure design.
However this also means that relying on the skill system as an class core feature is directly inferior as it's the generic backup option. Often vague and up to the dm. (Which is still suffers the same complaints that some of the phb features had.)
The bard has a system that even if the right skills won't work they can rely on partial assistance or their main features (spell casting and inspiration)
Rogues on the other hand support their skills (focused on subterfuge) with reliability (in all the necessary skills unlike p.w.o.t) and recovery. Meaning even if the first approach fails the can escape(dash) or hide and discover a new approach, Often with no resource costs.
Now the ranger main system relies on half-casting which can do minor adjustments but realistically the spells for guiding, tracking and detection are just inferior in scope to spells designed for other tasks like damage, communication or fast transportation. The survival fuction spells are also poorly designed but often because they are too strong and really intended as cost solutions for full casting classes like druid. (Goodberies, conjure etc)
You keep arguing that the old design is bad as justification against all such features. Lets set that aside and instead focus. In this thread the point is whether or not one/5er ranger actually does a job of being a ranger.
One dnd has damage and movement and is cleaner to read. I Those are good things But there is no defining traits that give it a narrative role. This means it's a good gish and a bad ranger.
The ranger's defining traits are it's association with Primal Magic - which focuses on nature-based magic, battlefield manipulation, and utility - and it's focus on weapons. It's narrative role is to be the dude out in the wilderness chopping through vegetation and fighting off animals / monsters. Whereas the druid's role is to be the dude out in the wilderness befriending animals and talking to vegetation. And the Rogue's role is to be the dude in a city sneaking into buildings and following people through crowded streets. And the Bard's role is to seduce everything with an intelligence of 8 or higher.
The ranger's defining traits are it's association with Primal Magic - which focuses on nature-based magic, battlefield manipulation, and utility - and it's focus on weapons. It's narrative role is to be the dude out in the wilderness chopping through vegetation and fighting off animals / monsters. Whereas the druid's role is to be the dude out in the wilderness befriending animals and talking to vegetation. And the Rogue's role is to be the dude in a city sneaking into buildings and following people through crowded streets. And the Bard's role is to seduce everything with an intelligence of 8 or higher.
no ranger isn’t only fighter/druid but roguelike and unique scouting too
Having said all that, Agilemind isn't entirely wrong. The ranger began as a fighter kit back in 1st edition. It wasn't truly rogue-like, and scouting can be done by anyone. As has been pointed out, any class can get any skill from any background. Hell, there's no requirement that a ranger engages in scouting. They don't need to have Expertise in Stealth, let alone the skill proficiency, or have pass without trace prepared. They're not wrong if they don't have those things, and you shouldn't be pigeonholing.
The ranger's defining traits are it's association with Primal Magic - which focuses on nature-based magic, battlefield manipulation, and utility - and it's focus on weapons. It's narrative role is to be the dude out in the wilderness chopping through vegetation and fighting off animals / monsters. Whereas the druid's role is to be the dude out in the wilderness befriending animals and talking to vegetation. And the Rogue's role is to be the dude in a city sneaking into buildings and following people through crowded streets. And the Bard's role is to seduce everything with an intelligence of 8 or higher.
no ranger isn’t only fighter/druid but roguelike and unique scouting too
Unique features don't make a class good, otherwise Monk would be hands-down the best class in the game because they get nothing but unique features. It's not, because those unique features are niche, situational, and often useless - just like 5e's ranger-specific features. In 5e, Rogue was simply a better scout than Ranger, as was druid, as was Wizard, as was Warlock. One time out of twenty, the Ranger could match them, and maybe one time out of 100 exceed them. One D&D Ranger can choose to be a better wilderness scout that either Rogue or Druid, but they don't have to if they don't want to, they can choose to out-rogue the rogue in city exploration, or out-fight the fighter in combat, or out-smart the Wizard in knowing things, or tree-hug better than the druid if they want to. 5e Ranger couldn't do any of those things.
The ranger's defining traits are it's association with Primal Magic - which focuses on nature-based magic, battlefield manipulation, and utility - and it's focus on weapons. It's narrative role is to be the dude out in the wilderness chopping through vegetation and fighting off animals / monsters. Whereas the druid's role is to be the dude out in the wilderness befriending animals and talking to vegetation. And the Rogue's role is to be the dude in a city sneaking into buildings and following people through crowded streets. And the Bard's role is to seduce everything with an intelligence of 8 or higher.
no ranger isn’t only fighter/druid but roguelike and unique scouting too
Unique features don't make a class good, otherwise Monk would be hands-down the best class in the game because they get nothing but unique features. It's not, because those unique features are niche, situational, and often useless - just like 5e's ranger-specific features. In 5e, Rogue was simply a better scout than Ranger, as was druid, as was Wizard, as was Warlock. One time out of twenty, the Ranger could match them, and maybe one time out of 100 exceed them. One D&D Ranger can choose to be a better wilderness scout that either Rogue or Druid, but they don't have to if they don't want to, they can choose to out-rogue the rogue in city exploration, or out-fight the fighter in combat, or out-smart the Wizard in knowing things, or tree-hug better than the druid if they want to. 5e Ranger couldn't do any of those things.
Having said all that, Agilemind isn't entirely wrong. The ranger began as a fighter kit back in 1st edition. It wasn't truly rogue-like, and scouting can be done by anyone. As has been pointed out, any class can get any skill from any background. Hell, there's no requirement that a ranger engages in scouting. They don't need to have Expertise in Stealth, let alone the skill proficiency, or have pass without trace prepared. They're not wrong if they don't have those things, and you shouldn't be pigeonholing.
[REDACTED]
sixth:Fighting and magic too aren’t unique or necessary, but they make out a big part of the defining treats still, and scouting is just as hard ruled as fighting and magic with primeval awareness, favored enemy and natural explorer(fun fact they are all gone in one dnd)so he is entirely wrong yes, because he has a hard statement(something I recommend to you) that isn’t right
seventh:I am not , agilemind is, he literally said: “the rangers defining threats are it’s association with Primal magic- -and it’s focus on weapons”
you said I pigeonhole, and I say he did more than me.
You can say that all you want, but it doesn't make it true. Your entire argument boils down to: "Ranger should autosucceed at tracking and treking b/c tracking and treking it what a ranger is. Versatility doesn't matter, Combat power doesn't matter. If your ranger can't track it is useless."
Whereas my argument is : "Ranger should be good at lots of things across in lots of situations and lots of environments. A ranger that is more versatile including power in combat is better."
Whereas my argument is : "Ranger should be good at lots of things across in lots of situations and lots of environments. A ranger that is more versatile including power in combat is better. .........
Not once in all the previous discussion did I get an indication that conclusion was your desire.
If anything I got the impression that only combat matters and flexible tools aren't worth time at the table.
There seems to be huge dissonance between your goal and the outcome because of certain forgone assumptions.
There seems to be huge dissonance between your goal and the outcome because of certain forgone assumptions.
The only "forgone assumption" I am making as you put it is that the typical D&D campaign involves many different terrains / locations / settings and many different kinds of enemies. If you're in a campaign exclusively in the forest, exclusively fighting dragons sure 5e ranger is pretty good, but IME that is not realistic. At the very least there will be stuff in cities (which are not an option for favoured terrain), in caves (also not an option for favoured terrain), in ruins (also not an option for favoured terrain), and several wilderness terrains including forest, grassland, swamp, and mountains. Even in BG:Avernus you encounter dragons, giants, monstrosities, fey, and fiends, you're not exclusively encountering one type of enemy.
So Expertise trumps favoured enemy and favoured terrain because it is far far far more versatile.
I also clearly stated that Ritual casting and the ability to change your prepared spells makes One Ranger much better than 5e Ranger in terms of versatility in utility, and combat options so they can actually change their approach to counter the enemy strengths and exploit their weaknesses.
That forgone assumption is part of where you are giving an incomplete picture. IT also shows a prior bias blind spot against certain uses of such abilities. I haven't even really tried to justify any of the phb 'Situational' options returning(in this thread), yet you still return to your favored enemy Of phb Distain. You are creating a 'situation' where it doesn't work meanwhile downplaying where it does. Creating a ironic cyclical complaint. The ranger situational abilities are bad because of the situations I put them in.
However I was also referring to the assumption That spells and skills expertise covers the gambit of tools to to Justify the class design.
I want options like ignoring difficult terrain instead of a flat Movement bonus, I want options for ambushes instead of just ''disappear mid turn.' I want features to show my unique expertise That would differentiate my class from a scout rogue with a druid dip.
That forgone assumption is part of where you are giving an incomplete picture. IT also shows a prior bias blind spot against certain uses of such abilities. I haven't even really tried to justify any of the phb 'Situational' options returning(in this thread), yet you still return to your favored enemy Of phb Distain. You are creating a 'situation' where it doesn't work meanwhile downplaying where it does. Creating a ironic cyclical complaint. The ranger situational abilities are bad because of the situations I put them in.
However I was also referring to the assumption That spells and skills expertise covers the gambit of tools to to Justify the class design.
I want options like ignoring difficult terrain instead of a flat Movement bonus, I want options for ambushes instead of just ''disappear mid turn.' I want features to show my unique expertise That would differentiate my class from a scout rogue with a druid dip.
Prove it! Give common situations in a typical fantasy campaign where these abilities are useful. Because here are a bunch of common situations where they are useless: 1) Tracking an unknown enemy - perhaps you just have a body to go off of, or just stories of the local farmers, but while you know a big bad monster is out there you don't know what creature type it is. Sure you could spend all of your spell slots guessing what type it might be with your Primeval awareness (which still won't tell you where the thing is) but that's a huge waste of resources. 1.5) The enemy is uses disguises - Of sure you've even seen the BBEG but they were in disguise so while the looked like a humanoid they are actually a vampire (undead) or a dragon, or maybe they looked like a hag but were actually a fiend not fey, or maybe they look like an elemental but are actually a construct.
2) Roads exist between your origin and your destination - most places you need to go have roads to them because lots of people want to go there, no worries about getting lost, no worries about difficult terrain... 2.1) You aren't in a rush - difficult terrain doesn't matter if getting somewhere in 4 days vs 6 days makes no difference. 2.2) Someone in your party has a long-range teleport or ability to make people fly or walk on water - now the party can just circumvent the difficult terrain entirely.
3) Your DM lets everyone make camoflage using natural materials because it doesn't take a genius to cover yourself with leaves or mud to hide to set up an ambush. 3.5) Someone has Meld Into Stone which is the perfect camoflage far better than any mud or leaves.
4) The enemies of interest aren't your favoured foes. Maybe you picked dragons for narrative reasons and now the campaign has shifted to a vampire-conspiracy, maybe you picked fey and now you've discovered a devil-conspiracy instead...
"I want unique features so I feel unique" isn't a good argument either. Again just look at Monk, they have a huge number of unique features but is a terribly weak class.
you said I pigeonhole, and I say he did more than me.
You can say that all you want, but it doesn't make it true. Your entire argument boils down to: "Ranger should autosucceed at tracking and treking b/c tracking and treking it what a ranger is. Versatility doesn't matter, Combat power doesn't matter. If your ranger can't track it is useless."
Whereas my argument is : "Ranger should be good at lots of things across in lots of situations and lots of environments. A ranger that is more versatile including power in combat is better."
no, I don’t say that is the main part, I say it is important and you say the defining traits are magic and weapons and that erasing the non-weapon non-magic features in exchange for free prepared spells is good
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
also I noticed “agilemind” you keep saying druids can’t be warriors and the only full-caster are clerics, but have you ever heard of shillelagh, with hunter’s mark you can jump in with two magic clubs, a lvl 1 dpr 19 with +3 wis, you don’t even need a fighting stat
Even with all the math and it's relative values being a factor of ranger, the spells might change and balance can be adjusted.
Few people have problems with ranger damage numbers. It's the flavor, and mechanics that support ranger narrative that is the problem.
When you have an adventure job that involves guiding, tracking or survival ranger should be the top choice.
For me the one ranger looses it's gameplay value from:
1. The only unique trait being free concentration hunter's mark. Even though many players see it as a build trap during certain senarios.
2. Only one expert feature. As previously discussed experts are established to have expertise + a second skill boon.
3. Vast deviation from historical features ( re-building previous edition characters that function similarly. It doesn't have to be close just a similar tone. Like comparing 2e strah¹d and 5e one)
4. Not supporting archetypes. It's harder to build favorite characters from fiction that match the role they play. The narrative the mechanics enforce are too controlled.
Now I could put up with one or two of these but all together it makes ranger less interesting and less fun. Especially since we had functional options with tasha's.
Shocking to you perhaps but since I have played a druid for 2 years I have heard of Shillelagh, though I'm pleased you know how to google "druid melee build". But you're still wrong. You can only have 1 object under the effect of Shillelagh at a time, it takes 2 turns to set this up so you only have a potential 17 damage on round 3 of combat, and your defenses are trash since you've only got light armour proficiency so you're MAD needing DEX, CON, and WIS and only a d8 hit die. AC of 13-14 and 10 hit points is not going to keep you alive to get to that 3rd round. Plus you are so losing concentration on that Hunter's Mark which slams you down to a pitiful 1d8+3+1d4. Not to mention that as soon as the party hits level 5 clerics get Spiritual Guardians to augment their melee while druid gets just long-range concentration spells.
It is because it is the only one class that prioritizes Wisdom and gets expertise. They are also the best class for Stealth since they get Pass without Trace, Expertise, and will max out their Dex. Note that Pass without Trace is significantly better than reliable talent for stealth since the maximum benefit of reliable talent is +9 (increasing a nat 1 to a 10) whereas Pass without Trace always gives a +10.
There are only two classes in the game that get Survival as a class-list skill : Ranger and Druid. Of those only Ranger gets Expertise making them the best Survival class in the game. Guiding, tracking and survival are all classed under the Survival skill so Ranger is the top choice for them. Only now they are the top choice always for those aspects of the game. Whereas the 5e Ranger was only the top choice for guiding, tracking and survival if you happened to be in the right terrain.
E.g. going on an epic wilderness adventure to race to the north pole?
5e Ranger : well for the 10 days we're in a forest or crossing the mountains I can help!
One Ranger: I will guide us the whole way through swamps, across mountains, through the deep dark woods, across grassy step, or in the desert, and as we trudge through the polar snow!
for a fact a didn’t google the build, or any other, I just read the books and how do you come to 17 dpr and 10 hp, and you can use it if you can surprise the enemy already in the first round.and at least I did my research better than you , hunter’s mark is 1d6.
expertise is +30% chance on checks, but twice food, no getting lost, no slowing, no surprises and great bonuses to tracking, and favored enemy is +100% chance.natural explorer works in 37,5% of the places out city
This is such a tunnel vision veiw ( which is becoming a predictable pattern).
Any class can get any skill via backgrounds or feats. And because of the design of the 6 stat system any class (but especially sad ones) can have decent wisdom.
It's actually a charm point of Rpgs to have secondary stats become the uniqueness to yor character. A wisdom wizard is different from a charisma one.
In particular ranger Is a mad class. Meaning very often builds require unique stat and skill distribution. Often times this means Rangers will bypass wisdom over strength, constitution or intelligence. (I've even seen a charisma rangers)
However the skill and stat system is still a secondary backup for the points that aren't defined. This is good because it allows any class an attempt to complete any job and prevent "soft locking" adventure design.
However this also means that relying on the skill system as an class core feature is directly inferior as it's the generic backup option. Often vague and up to the dm. (Which is still suffers the same complaints that some of the phb features had.)
The bard has a system that even if the right skills won't work they can rely on partial assistance or their main features (spell casting and inspiration)
Rogues on the other hand support their skills (focused on subterfuge) with reliability (in all the necessary skills unlike p.w.o.t) and recovery. Meaning even if the first approach fails the can escape(dash) or hide and discover a new approach, Often with no resource costs.
Now the ranger main system relies on half-casting which can do minor adjustments but realistically the spells for guiding, tracking and detection are just inferior in scope to spells designed for other tasks like damage, communication or fast transportation. The survival fuction spells are also poorly designed but often because they are too strong and really intended as cost solutions for full casting classes like druid. (Goodberies, conjure etc)
You keep arguing that the old design is bad as justification against all such features. Lets set that aside and instead focus. In this thread the point is whether or not one/5er ranger actually does a job of being a ranger.
One dnd has damage and movement and is cleaner to read. I Those are good things But there is no defining traits that give it a narrative role. This means it's a good gish and a bad ranger.
The ranger's defining traits are it's association with Primal Magic - which focuses on nature-based magic, battlefield manipulation, and utility - and it's focus on weapons. It's narrative role is to be the dude out in the wilderness chopping through vegetation and fighting off animals / monsters. Whereas the druid's role is to be the dude out in the wilderness befriending animals and talking to vegetation. And the Rogue's role is to be the dude in a city sneaking into buildings and following people through crowded streets. And the Bard's role is to seduce everything with an intelligence of 8 or higher.
no ranger isn’t only fighter/druid but roguelike and unique scouting too
[REDACTED]
Having said all that, Agilemind isn't entirely wrong. The ranger began as a fighter kit back in 1st edition. It wasn't truly rogue-like, and scouting can be done by anyone. As has been pointed out, any class can get any skill from any background. Hell, there's no requirement that a ranger engages in scouting. They don't need to have Expertise in Stealth, let alone the skill proficiency, or have pass without trace prepared. They're not wrong if they don't have those things, and you shouldn't be pigeonholing.
Unique features don't make a class good, otherwise Monk would be hands-down the best class in the game because they get nothing but unique features. It's not, because those unique features are niche, situational, and often useless - just like 5e's ranger-specific features. In 5e, Rogue was simply a better scout than Ranger, as was druid, as was Wizard, as was Warlock. One time out of twenty, the Ranger could match them, and maybe one time out of 100 exceed them. One D&D Ranger can choose to be a better wilderness scout that either Rogue or Druid, but they don't have to if they don't want to, they can choose to out-rogue the rogue in city exploration, or out-fight the fighter in combat, or out-smart the Wizard in knowing things, or tree-hug better than the druid if they want to. 5e Ranger couldn't do any of those things.
Any favored "something" should be removed, features attached to a specific kind of terrain or creature is limiting.
Also remember that with the new prepared spells system for Primal, the Ranger could change the spells prepared to adapt the situation.
no but you ignore them
[REDACTED]
sixth:Fighting and magic too aren’t unique or necessary, but they make out a big part of the defining treats still, and scouting is just as hard ruled as fighting and magic with primeval awareness, favored enemy and natural explorer(fun fact they are all gone in one dnd)so he is entirely wrong yes, because he has a hard statement(something I recommend to you) that isn’t right
seventh:I am not , agilemind is, he literally said: “the rangers defining threats are it’s association with Primal magic- -and it’s focus on weapons”
You can say that all you want, but it doesn't make it true. Your entire argument boils down to: "Ranger should autosucceed at tracking and treking b/c tracking and treking it what a ranger is. Versatility doesn't matter, Combat power doesn't matter. If your ranger can't track it is useless."
Whereas my argument is : "Ranger should be good at lots of things across in lots of situations and lots of environments. A ranger that is more versatile including power in combat is better."
Quote from Agilemind:
Whereas my argument is : "Ranger should be good at lots of things across in lots of situations and lots of environments. A ranger that is more versatile including power in combat is better. .........
Not once in all the previous discussion did I get an indication that conclusion was your desire.
If anything I got the impression that only combat matters and flexible tools aren't worth time at the table.
There seems to be huge dissonance between your goal and the outcome because of certain forgone assumptions.
The only "forgone assumption" I am making as you put it is that the typical D&D campaign involves many different terrains / locations / settings and many different kinds of enemies. If you're in a campaign exclusively in the forest, exclusively fighting dragons sure 5e ranger is pretty good, but IME that is not realistic. At the very least there will be stuff in cities (which are not an option for favoured terrain), in caves (also not an option for favoured terrain), in ruins (also not an option for favoured terrain), and several wilderness terrains including forest, grassland, swamp, and mountains. Even in BG:Avernus you encounter dragons, giants, monstrosities, fey, and fiends, you're not exclusively encountering one type of enemy.
So Expertise trumps favoured enemy and favoured terrain because it is far far far more versatile.
I also clearly stated that Ritual casting and the ability to change your prepared spells makes One Ranger much better than 5e Ranger in terms of versatility in utility, and combat options so they can actually change their approach to counter the enemy strengths and exploit their weaknesses.
That forgone assumption is part of where you are giving an incomplete picture. IT also shows a
prior biasblind spot against certain uses of such abilities. I haven't even really tried to justify any of the phb 'Situational' options returning(in this thread), yet you still return to your favored enemy Of phb Distain. You are creating a 'situation' where it doesn't work meanwhile downplaying where it does. Creating a ironic cyclical complaint. The ranger situational abilities are bad because of the situations I put them in.However I was also referring to the assumption That spells and skills expertise covers the gambit of tools to to Justify the class design.
I want options like ignoring difficult terrain instead of a flat Movement bonus, I want options for ambushes instead of just ''disappear mid turn.' I want features to show my unique expertise That would differentiate my class from a scout rogue with a druid dip.
Prove it! Give common situations in a typical fantasy campaign where these abilities are useful. Because here are a bunch of common situations where they are useless:
1) Tracking an unknown enemy - perhaps you just have a body to go off of, or just stories of the local farmers, but while you know a big bad monster is out there you don't know what creature type it is. Sure you could spend all of your spell slots guessing what type it might be with your Primeval awareness (which still won't tell you where the thing is) but that's a huge waste of resources.
1.5) The enemy is uses disguises - Of sure you've even seen the BBEG but they were in disguise so while the looked like a humanoid they are actually a vampire (undead) or a dragon, or maybe they looked like a hag but were actually a fiend not fey, or maybe they look like an elemental but are actually a construct.
2) Roads exist between your origin and your destination - most places you need to go have roads to them because lots of people want to go there, no worries about getting lost, no worries about difficult terrain...
2.1) You aren't in a rush - difficult terrain doesn't matter if getting somewhere in 4 days vs 6 days makes no difference.
2.2) Someone in your party has a long-range teleport or ability to make people fly or walk on water - now the party can just circumvent the difficult terrain entirely.
3) Your DM lets everyone make camoflage using natural materials because it doesn't take a genius to cover yourself with leaves or mud to hide to set up an ambush.
3.5) Someone has Meld Into Stone which is the perfect camoflage far better than any mud or leaves.
4) The enemies of interest aren't your favoured foes. Maybe you picked dragons for narrative reasons and now the campaign has shifted to a vampire-conspiracy, maybe you picked fey and now you've discovered a devil-conspiracy instead...
"I want unique features so I feel unique" isn't a good argument either. Again just look at Monk, they have a huge number of unique features but is a terribly weak class.
no, I don’t say that is the main part, I say it is important and you say the defining traits are magic and weapons and that erasing the non-weapon non-magic features in exchange for free prepared spells is good