D&D 5E Revised Ranger Play Report... (level 3 to 4, beastmaster)

[pukunui]

Why is the DM presenting content the players find boring and then forcing them to take a ranger to get past it? I hate to keep pointing the finger at the DM in this thread, but...

What I'm getting from you is that there's no such thing as bad rules, just bad DMs. Is that correct?

 

[iserith]

So, you were looking for a specific set or type of data because you assumed, in advance, that the problem could only be localized there? Um. Ok. That doesn't seem useful to me, but whatever.

No, I said that this is the first (not only) place I look when I have an issue with a rule and suggested we take a look at your game in the same way.

My specific game has a problem with this class feature because my DM looked at the feature and instantly started to worry about how much work it would be for him to both prepare games if I used it in certain frustrating ways and adjudicate during play if he failed to prepare for certain unexpected uses. He told me as much, as he didn't want me to get frustrated at the table, and he didn't want to get frustrated at the table either. I said no problem, I get your logic. I asked if I could still try and use it. He said sure, but it might not always give me the information I want (even if it would in the RAW) and might sometimes require a skill check to give me the information I want. I said no problem.

The specific issues your DM cited are:

I don’t want to constantly be telling you how many of x humanoids are in a 5 mile radius of you. That sounds super annoying for me a GM.


But RAW it’s stupid IMO. For instance, if you did it in a town or city, based on the rules, I’d be expected to tell you exactly how many of each type of humanoid is currently in the town or city, which would be ridiculous. “Well Dave there are 2450 humans, 123 dwarves, 41 halflings, 12 gnomes, 8 half orcs, 11 half elves, 13 dragon born, 23 elves, 1 gnoll, 4 orcs, 6 goblins etc…” No thanks.


I don’t mind letting you use it to determine if your favoured enemy might be around, but given that “humanoids” are pretty common and a broad category I think it would be “pinging” quite often. I was thinking that maybe a knowledge nature check combined with the ability could give additional info. For example, if you rolled high you might get a sense of what types are in the area, and even higher might give some sense of numbers.

An accounting of specific humanoids are not an issue if the DM is giving out numbers for type, not type and tag. (Thanks, @Horwath.)

The other issue is that often I don’t want to have to commit to what creatures are in a specific area because it makes it harder for me later- like if I forget about a certain monster type that I had planned to use in the adventure and you don’t detect it because I forgot, so now it looks weird if they suddenly appear. Or if I just don’t know at the time, and don’t really want to think about it or commit to exactly what creatures are within 5 miles.

@pukunui already gave a fictional example to explain away "inconsistencies" like this: The creature wasn't in range at that time and now it is. If that or some other explanation is not feasible given the fictional circumstances at that moment, then the DM just subs in another monster. Easy.

But how likely is it that the DM is going to forget a monster will be used? Thumb through notes or module and you have the answer. If you have no notes that suggest what monsters are in the area, then you just commit to an answer in the moment and treat it as immutable fact, writing it down so you don't forget. That said, I think the likelihood is pretty high that there's a specific reason why the player is asking for the information in the first place and the DM should get this reasoning before committing to an answer. "I want to see if there are any humanoids within 5 miles of camp so we know whether to double the watch during our long rest." Or "I want to go hunting for the nourishing meat and valuable pelts of any notable beasts in the area." The result of the adventurer's action should be easy to narrate here without needing to go into great detail on numbers and groups - just honor the player's goal and you're good.

 

[iserith]

What I'm getting from you is that there's no such thing as bad rules, just bad DMs. Is that correct?

There are plenty of both. It's worth examining both angles, don't you think? That's what I do. Because maybe sometimes the problem isn't the rule - maybe it's me.

 

[Cyber-Dave]

An accounting of specific humanoids are not an issue if the DM is giving out numbers for type, not type and tag. (Thanks, @Horwath.)

Why would you assume that my DM would not be bothered by giving out numbers for type as well? Not to mention, my DM gave examples. Those should be considered as exemplary, not complete. You seem to really want my DM to be ok with the power after Horwath's rather good point. I don't want to speak for my DM. He can do that on his own. Based on what he has said to me so far, however, I do not think he would be ok with the power if it didn't name type and tag. I think his issues are far more broad than, "it informs the player of type and tag," or he would have just told me, "I don't plan to tell you what tag the humanoids in the area are." Quite frankly, I think he would be equally annoyed to have to regularly tell me, "there are 28 humanoids 5 miles to the east, 13 4 miles to the west, over 100 back south in the direction of the city you just came from, and 1 dragon 4 miles north of you."

@pukunui already gave a fictional example to explain away "inconsistencies" like this: The creature wasn't in range at that time and now it is. If that or some other explanation is not feasible given the fictional circumstances at that moment, then the DM just subs in another monster. Easy.

But how likely is it that the DM is going to forget a monster will be used? Thumb through notes or module and you have the answer. If you have no notes that suggest what monsters are in the area, then you just commit to an answer in the moment and treat it as immutable fact, writing it down so you don't forget.

The fact that you find it easy is irrelevant. Point is, what he would have to do to adjudicate the power as written makes the game less fun for him, no matter what you think about that. In fact, despite pukunui's examples, he has said that holds true for him as well. That is a valuable observation in and of itself. If enough players share that subjective opinion of the power as written, it should be modified before appearing in official print. If it is a subjective opinion only held by a vast minority, that minority can houserule as required to fix the problem. That is all. This is just anecdotal feedback from my table, which makes me question why you are trying so hard to argue that this anecdotal feedback should not be considered valid. I can't figure out what YOUR goal is in this thread. Are you saying that the subjective feedback from my table is "wrong," and we do not have the "right" to feel the way we do? If not, what are you trying to argue with? Can you please explain your motivation and what you are hoping to achieve? Perhaps that would help resolve this discussion...

That said, I think the likelihood is pretty high that there's a specific reason why the player is asking for the information in the first place and the DM should get this reasoning before committing to an answer. "I want to see if there are any humanoids within 5 miles of camp so we know whether to double the watch during our long rest." Or "I want to go hunting for the nourishing meat and valuable pelts of any notable beasts in the area." The result of the adventurer's action should be easy to narrate here without needing to go into great detail on numbers and groups - just honor the player's goal and you're good.

I agree. I believe that this is probably why, up to now, my DM has allowed me to learn what I want to learn without forcing me to make any rolls. The fact remains, however, that the power as written made his hairs stand on end and make him leery of its use. It sounds like a lot of other people have a similar problem, though I can't be certain. I would rather it didn't do that to my DM, let alone a lot of other people.

 

[HomegrownHydra]

Iserith, what kind of mechanics would you consider problematic enough to change? Or to put it another way, when problems occur during play, where do you draw the line for blaming the game designer rather than the DM?

 

[discosoc]

The exploration pillar encompasses a huge swath of the game (see Basic Rules, page 5). At best, they win at the travel/tracking aspect of the exploration pillar and I think that's okay because it's rather the ranger's shtick, wouldn't you say?

I'm personally not a fan of class features that nullify major non-combat aspects of gameplay. It's like, why bother having rations and rules for thirst and starvation when a class or background can remove the challenge completely. A class ability that lets the entire party passively ignore difficult terrain just means one more mechanic stripped away from the game. It's the kind of ability that sounds cool, and might even shine in one or two situations (having to outrun people in a swamp or something), but otherwise just results in less out-of-combat stuff to experience.

Even spells like Goodberry bother me for the same basic reason.

 

[iserith]

Why would you assume that my DM would not be bothered by giving out numbers for type as well? Not to mention, my DM gave examples. Those should be considered as exemplary, not complete. You seem to really want my DM to be ok with the power after Horwath's rather good point. I don't want to speak for my DM. He can do that on his own. Based on what he has said to me so far, however, I do not think he would be ok with the power if it didn't name type and tag. I think his issues are far more broad than, "it informs the player of type and tag," or he would have just told me, "I don't plan to tell you what tag the humanoids in the area are." Quite frankly, I think he would be equally annoyed to have to regularly tell me, "there are 28 humanoids 5 miles to the east, 13 4 miles to the west, over 100 back south in the direction of the city you just came from, and 1 dragon 4 miles north of you."

I don't really want your DM to do anything in particular. I don't know him or her and thus can't be given to care. An issue was cited. A solution that doesn't change the rules was given. That suggests to me, preference aside which I cannot argue against, there is no issue with this aspect of the class feature.

As I stated upthread with regard to the numbers of groups, the DM needn't be that specific in my view as long as he or she knows the player's goal. Is the ranger trying to find a dragon he heard about in town? Is the ranger trying to track down the 28 mercenaries that pillaged her home town? Once clear, there really isn't in my opinion anything hard for the DM to do.

The fact that you find it easy is irrelevant. Point is, what he would have to do to adjudicate the power as written makes the game less fun for him, no matter what you think about that. In fact, despite pukunui's examples, he has said that holds true for him as well. That is a valuable observation in and of itself. If enough players share that subjective opinion of the power as written, it should be modified before appearing in official print. If it is a subjective opinion only held by a vast minority, that minority can houserule as required to fix the problem. That is all. This is just anecdotal feedback from my table, which makes me question why you are trying so hard to argue that this anecdotal feedback should not be considered valid. I can't figure out what YOUR goal is in this thread. Are you saying that the subjective feedback from my table is "wrong," and we do not have the "right" to feel the way we do? If not, what are you trying to argue with? Can you please explain your motivation and what you are hoping to achieve? Perhaps that would help resolve this discussion...

My goal for this aspect of the thread, at this point in the discussion, is to examine what specific ways others play the game or other DMs run the game that make the power problematic for you. As I have noted in other threads, I'm interested in how others play the game. That's why I run so many pickup games, watch actual play videos/podcasts, and engage in discussions as to approach. This class feature seems so innocuous to me based on my experience with it (four different players of UA rangers) that I'm wondering why I'm getting a different result.

I agree. I believe that this is probably why, up to now, my DM has allowed me to learn what I want to learn without forcing me to make any rolls. The fact remains, however, that the power as written made his hairs stand on end and make him leery of its use. It sounds like a lot of other people have a similar problem, though I can't be certain. I would rather it didn't do that to my DM, let alone a lot of other people.

How much of this do you suppose is just fear of something on paper that doesn't amount to much in play? I know I reserved my review of the UA ranger until I had seen it in play. A lot of other posters just started reacting or theorizing.

 

[iserith]

Iserith, what kind of mechanics would you consider problematic enough to change? Or to put it another way, when problems occur during play, where do you draw the line for blaming the game designer rather than the DM?

I don't think I've had any issue with the D&D 5e mechanics in play so far.

 

[iserith]

I'm personally not a fan of class features that nullify major non-combat aspects of gameplay. It's like, why bother having rations and rules for thirst and starvation when a class or background can remove the challenge completely. A class ability that lets the entire party passively ignore difficult terrain just means one more mechanic stripped away from the game. It's the kind of ability that sounds cool, and might even shine in one or two situations (having to outrun people in a swamp or something), but otherwise just results in less out-of-combat stuff to experience.

Even spells like Goodberry bother me for the same basic reason.

I'm okay with it. I mean, I see it as part of particular niches, a way to establish those archetypes with useful mechanics. As well, I run a lot of games and these sorts of class features or spells rarely even come up in every party, every adventure, every campaign. I wonder if other groups have players that will always make sure characters with these features are in the party. Or are you guys seeing it "only sometimes" like I do? If a group is seeing it a lot, could it be the players aren't really into the same things the DM is or perhaps the way it is presented and handled at the table?

 

[Cyber-Dave]

A solution that doesn't change the rules was given. That suggests to me, preference aside which I cannot argue against, there is no issue with this aspect of the class feature.

The problem is, it's a solution that--in the context of this thread--only fixes the "problem" for the one person who doesn't have that problem to begin with. That isn't a solution. Even Pukunui, who you cited as part of your "solution," notes that he continues to dislike the power as written. Part of your solution, in terms of process, is exactly what makes the game less fun for my DM. The other part is largely what we have been practicing, but its only working because, if I accidentally step outside my DMs comfort zone, I have already expressed that I will not be bothered by any alternative process of adjudicating the ability. That isn't what is written in the books, so again, your "solution that doesn't change the rules" isn't working for anybody but you in this thread...

My goal for this aspect of the thread, at this point in the discussion, is to examine what specific ways others play the game or other DMs run the game that make the power problematic for you. As I have noted in other threads, I'm interested in how others play the game. That's why I run so many pickup games, watch actual play videos/podcasts, and engage in discussions as to approach. This class feature seems so innocuous to me based on my experience with it (four different players of UA rangers) that I'm wondering why I'm getting a different result.

If your goal is to find out how and why other people play the game the way they do, and what makes elements of the game problematic for them, may I suggest that you stop trying to tell people who are giving you that information why it isn't actually problematic for them. They are likely to stop giving you the information you want if you do that, which will be counter-productive to your stated goal. It is problematic for them. If it wasn't, they wouldn't say it was. Whether you agree with their reasons is irrelevant as to whether it is problematic for them. Their core values don't need to match yours. As to why you are getting a different result, it seems to be because you hold a different set of pre-positional values. You think it isn't a big deal for people to jot down a few notes based on the data they give the ranger and to modify their plans as a result. They find that doing so makes the game more tedious and less fun. You think its totally cool that the power obviates certain challenges instead of providing benefits to them. Other people find that less fun. You think it's ok that a resource free 3rd level power is a much more potent version of a 4th level spell. Some people don't. Given those differences in values, you are going to evaluate the result of the mechanic differently.

How much of this do you suppose is just fear of something on paper that doesn't amount to much in play? I know I reserved my review of the UA ranger until I had seen it in play. A lot of other posters just started reacting or theorizing.

Honestly, both my DM and I are or were really worried about coordinated attack. Yet, we plan to use it as written to see how it plays out for ourselves. (Moreover, I am a little less worried, as the modifications I need to make to my playstyle in order to avoid stepping on the toes of the cleric will end up drastically reducing my actual as opposed to theoretical DPR. Likewise, if I wasn't worried about our cleric getting annoyed, then the overall group action economy that is keeping my current playstyle going is lowering our overall group DPR virtually as much as my beast is raising it. I think coordinated attack will continue to play into my observation.) My DM is worried about some of the higher level abilities that don't bother me at all. He is still willing, if we ever end up playing that level, checking out the way they work for himself. Even this ability, which he has warned me might not always work as per the rules as written, has up to now. Do some people jump to theorycrafting fears? Yes. I don't think that is the case here. The power is ripe for abuse. The only thing that hasn't made it a pain already is that I am not trying to abuse it. Making it less ripe for abuse is all people want. Because, sometimes, constantly trying to ward off potential or accidental abuses makes the game less fun in and of itself. Using the ability is less fun for me because I constantly have to worry about making the game less fun for my DM. I see that as an issue, and I don't see it as being his fault.