D&D 5E Giving Ranger Expertise

Lanliss · Mar 26, 2017

I am thinking of giving Rangers in my games Expertise, at the same level as Bard. I feel like it fits their area very well (Expert woodsman/wildman), and honestly would fix one of the biggest problems I have seen people have with them. The fact that Fighter can be a ranger just as well as a Ranger can. Having Expertise would give them a nice boost to Survival (If they choose that), making their only real competition in the area the Rogue and Bard, who both lack the Nature related options in-class that ranger has. Thoughts?

Rhenny · Mar 27, 2017

I like the idea. From most reports, Rangers seem to lack that little bit of salt that makes them more palatable, and this might give more incentive to make a Ranger rather than a bow using dex fighter.

Afrodyte · Mar 27, 2017

Makes sense to me, and I have that option for ranger-esque experts in my True20 Next writeup.

MiraMels · Mar 27, 2017

Rangers already have expertise. Check the Natural Explorer class feature.

Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

Slit518 · Mar 27, 2017

I am actually surprised Rangers don't have Expertise, to be honest.

Lanliss · Mar 27, 2017

MiraMels said:
Rangers already have expertise. Check the Natural Explorer class feature.

Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

True, but that is a situational thing. It is much simpler, and more useful, to simply give them Expertise to put wherever they like. It does not make much sense that you can have double-proficiency in climbing a mountain, but only proficiency, or even no proficiency, in climbing a tree. Also this "expertise" isn't in the revised ranger, unless I missed it somewhere, and the revised one tends to be preferred at this point, as far I as I have seen anyway.

To clarify what I think the ranger should be, I consider them on a similar level to the fighter. "Ranger" is such a flexible archetype that they should be able to support a fair number of options. Fighter has various tools to allow this, but Ranger seems fairly lacking in the area, and Expertise would put them quite a bit closer to covering their broad range.

Saeviomagy · Mar 27, 2017

I'm of the opinion that everyone should have access to expertise. It seems weird that if you want to find obscure arcane lore, the guy you'll go to is a cleric, rogue or bard, but not a wizard (for instance), simply because they can't get expertise (arcana). Similarly you don't go to a a druid for nature lore. Or a fighter for pointers on athletics. Or...

I mean sure, for worldbuilding purposes you could just totally ignore the game mechanics, but that's a flaw in the mechanics in my opinion.

One free expertise per character would seem to fix that, and at the same time make starting characters that can automatically succeed at easy tasks within their bailiwick.

jodyjohnson · Mar 27, 2017

Another direction to go might be a "Natural Talent" ability where you can double your ability bonus on a specific type of check rather than double the proficiency bonus.

At the starting levels it could be better than Expertise but have diminishing returns earlier. And it wouldn't stack with any Expertise-like ability on the same skill which would probably be the fatal flaw from a KISS standpoint.

MiraMels · Mar 27, 2017

Lanliss said:
True, but that is a situational thing. It is much simpler, and more useful, to simply give them Expertise to put wherever they like. It does not make much sense that you can have double-proficiency in climbing a mountain, but only proficiency, or even no proficiency, in climbing a tree. Also this "expertise" isn't in the revised ranger, unless I missed it somewhere, and the revised one tends to be preferred at this point, as far I as I have seen anyway.

To clarify what I think the ranger should be, I consider them on a similar level to the fighter. "Ranger" is such a flexible archetype that they should be able to support a fair number of options. Fighter has various tools to allow this, but Ranger seems fairly lacking in the area, and Expertise would put them quite a bit closer to covering their broad range.

I mean? Situational is one way to put it, i guess. I see it as a class feature that can cover more skills than the rogue's and bard's Expertise class features, and it covers every skill you'd want expertise in to get that Expert Woodsman feel.

The fact that this feature is missing from the Revised Ranger was a hard turn away from
Ability Check oriented strengths for the class, and a harder focus on pure Combat. I'm not sure if I like it.

Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

TheCosmicKid · Mar 27, 2017

Saeviomagy said:
I mean sure, for worldbuilding purposes you could just totally ignore the game mechanics, but that's a flaw in the mechanics in my opinion.

No, it just implies that there exist "classes" outside the ones presented for adventurers in the PHB. Which has to the best of my knowledge always been an assumption in D&D. Rogues and bards are simply the sorts of adventurers whose role requires them to develop their mundane skills to that level at the expense of some magical or martial ability. That's something special, and I wouldn't want to take that away from them by giving every character a free expertise any more than I'd want to take the wonder of magic away from the wizard by giving every character a free spell. Now, that doesn't mean a player who wants their wizard to be an expert on Arcana should be totally shut out, of course. If NPCs can do it, PCs should be able to do it in principle. Maybe as a feat or a subclass, or in a pinch, they can just grab a level of rogue.

And I do agree with [MENTION=6801219]Lanliss[/MENTION] that the ranger ought to join the bard and the rogue as an expert class. It doesn't have to be complicated. Just throw a line in Natural Explorer giving it to them with Survival. Maybe another feature further down giving them another expertise of their choice, possibly limited to the list of ranger class skills. It's not going to break anything, it's not likely to step on the rogue or bard's toes (because they both get more and usually put them in different skills), and the ranger has no excuse not to rule over all in straight-up Survival checks.