D&D 5E It's official, WOTC hates Rangers (Tasha's version of Favored Foe is GARBAGE)

[Asisreo]

I feel the Exploration pillar of the game is being given a complete disservice in this discussion of late. There's some things I'd like to address.

The Exploration Pillar is supported quite well, all things considered. And I mean, all things considered.

There's this sort of separation of pillars in these discussions that really doesn't exist as much as it seems. While it may seem that "combat is codified with rules that exploration and social doesn't have," this is just incorrect.

A common example is that "Combat has AC, saves, and HP. What are the 'exploration HP, AC, and saves?'" The answer is that it's HP, AC, and Saves. These things don't disappear when combat is over, and can be quite relevant out-of-combat. The easiest example is traps and hazards. Certain traps will target saves and AC to reduce your HP and its entirely possible to reduce a character to 0 from exploration without even a hint of initiative.

Even in combat, there are actions entirely devoted to the exploration pillar like Interactions, Use an Object, and Search. Spells have uses both out-and-in combat. Even fireball can burn things down so long as they're flammable.

To say that there isn't any rules for exploration just isn't true. Background features, tools, vehicles, travel pace, most ability checks, feats, etc. The player's handbook in itself is full of exploration rules.

Another issue is that exploration isn't fairly judged based on the content that it has. Combat has some rules, but a game of generic HP sacks with standard movement, saves, attacks, and tactics will be boring. Likewise, a bog-standard exploration with generic roads, traps, hazards, lore, environments, and treasure will be boring too.

The next question which may be asked is "Why, then, is their a monster manual but not an 'Exploration Manual.' Why isn't their any exploration 'monsters' which I can plug into my game and not worry about homebrewing from scratch?" The good news is, that does exist in various forms. You have to look at the setting books and modules. For example, an example module of exploration was Tomb of Annihilation, which features Chult. You can homebrew your own densely populated and dangerous jungle, or you can open ToA and plop Chult down right where you need it to be. You can adjust the size, shape, NPC's, etc. Or you can keep things as they are and just run it.

Either way, its not as if exploration is devoid of fun, interesting rules. Its just these rules can be entangled into combat (or the social pillar, which is another topic).

 

[Minigiant]

feel the Exploration pillar of the game is being given a complete disservice in this discussion of late. There's some things I'd like to address.

The Exploration Pillar is supported quite well, all things considered. And I mean, all things considered.

There's this sort of separation of pillars in these discussions that really doesn't exist as much as it seems. While it may seem that "combat is codified with rules that exploration and social doesn't have," this is just incorrect.

The point is not that there aren't rules for the Exploration pillar.

The issue is that there are rules for the Exploration pillar for "Tiers 2, 3, and 4" in the core books.

So once your PCs hit mid levels or come into wealth, they can skip Tier 1 or "Real Life Earth" Exploration and the DM has no tools or advice for anything else.

Therefore if your DM isn't naturally skilled at it, the ranger shifts completely almost into a combat class. And in most editions, it doesn't hold up as parts of the class has power bound to systems that won't exist until the edition is 5+ years old.

 

[ClaytonCross]

The data says otherwise. The ranger is well-liked, just less well liked than what WotC aims for.

But lets be clear, I played a ranger because I wanted to roleplay a ranger... not because the class is any good. Also, I saw 0 complaints about the Favored foe shown in the previous UA because it is universally clear that rangers could use a little bump and it opened up duel sword builds which has been a long standing complaint along with best master being a week subclass. I know some people argue its fine in their game but every time I have seen that there was a comment "are you playing deadly serious combat campaign where keeping up on power level to the rest of the party matters?" and the reply is almost always "No". So your not wrong, its just not a viable argument as to Rangers being "good enough" because the reason is Roleplay in spite of the deficiencies. I for one love the two sword wielding melee ranger and have tried multiple times to make a solid build but couldn't make one that held up in combat intense games. I was asked to change character or be an archer with sharpshooter.... So my experience says Rangers do have a need for the previous version of Favored Foe (depending on campaign of course, a social campaign doesn't care about combat ability). I played a Duel wielding Ranger in 3rd Edition and loved it. When fighting Favored enemies in that addition I was striate scary, but not broken... so I don't know why 5e stripped it down so hard.

 

[Remathilis]

Sounds like the halfling class was the hills version of the ranger if you take out the stupid small size limitations.

Bonuses vs Large to fight giants
Bonus to stealth to hide behind hills
Bonus initiative to spring ambushes behind hills. Make them fight hoplite with spear and shield and you got the hills ranger.

Better than "Everything is a spell" method D&D defaults to.

The non-magical "ranger" pretty much lost its niche when D&D got a real robust skill system. When skills like Stealth, Survival, Perception, Nature, etc became usable by anyone who opted to become proficient, it really dug into the ranger's niche.

 

[Asisreo]

The point is not that there aren't rules for the Exploration pillar.

The issue is that there are rules for the Exploration pillar for "Tiers 2, 3, and 4" in the core books.

So once your PCs hit mid levels or come into wealth, they can skip Tier 1 or "Real Life Earth" Exploration and the DM has no tools or advice for anything else.

Therefore if your DM isn't naturally skilled at it, the ranger shifts completely almost into a combat class. And in most editions, it doesn't hold up as parts of the class has power bound to systems that won't exist until the edition is 5+ years old.

This is quite a surprising answer. I disagree nonetheless, but if anything, I would have thought the people would see the DM has more tools at these later tiers.

For example, the planes aren't something I imagine will pop up alot from levels 1-11, but from 12+, the planes have frequently made an appearance in my games.

For spells, there's the Magnificent Mansion or castles formed by Mold Earth. Some stay in their own demiplane while others reside in the skies.

Even the Monster Manual gives way for exploration by giving the lore of a monster. What would its environment look like? Also, do they have a tangible effect on their surroundings?

A high-level Ranger is more empowered at higher levels since not only is the breadth of their features and spells enhanced, they can also choose a better terrain type or monster type. The ones they've actually seen in earnest in an adventure.

As for official adventures, it is a shame they haven't focused more on high-level adventures. I hope planescape will be made so that higher-level adventures get the spotlight they deserve. As of now, only Dungeon of the Mad Mage and Descent into Avernus can even support higher level play.

 

[Don Durito]

The non-magical "ranger" pretty much lost its niche when D&D got a real robust skill system. When skills like Stealth, Survival, Perception, Nature, etc became usable by anyone who opted to become proficient, it really dug into the ranger's niche.

Yet we still have Rogues!

So clearly it is not impossible to make it work.

 

[Minigiant]

For example, the planes aren't something I imagine will pop up alot from levels 1-11, but from 12+, the planes have frequently made an appearance in my games.

Yeah but all the meaty mechanics are...

in adventure, campaign, and variants books that you have to purchase years after the edition launch.

A high-level Ranger is more empowered at higher levels since not only is the breadth of their features and spells enhanced, they can also choose a better terrain type or monster type. The ones they've actually seen in earnest in an adventure.

A high level ranger is empowered...

..when they release the adventure, campaign, and variant books many years after the edition launch.

I mean, they are just getting to "fixing" ranger...
now.

 

[Asisreo]

A high level ranger is empowered...

..when they release the adventure, campaign, and variant books many years after the edition launch.

I mean, they are just getting to "fixing" ranger...
now.

LMoP came out before the DMG did. Its an adventure where a Ranger's skills can easily be relevant either by taking beasts or goblin humanoid as your enemy and forest or mountain as your terrain.

There have been several adventuring books with terrain and enemy types relevant to Rangers since 5e's release. Plus, the "Ranger fixes" are basically something they've been doing since, what? 4 years? Nothing is happening just now except for racial adjustments, new tools, new subclass and variant features not meant to be a necessity for all players because that's just bad business.

And missing high-level adventures isn't really a Ranger issue. I've heard ill-prepared DM's tend to fail with fighters, barbarians, rogues, wizards, and monks at high-level for some reason or another. So Rangers aren't being singled out at high-level either.

 

[Minigiant]

The non-magical "ranger" pretty much lost its niche when D&D got a real robust skill system. When skills like Stealth, Survival, Perception, Nature, etc became usable by anyone who opted to become proficient, it really dug into the ranger's niche.

No, the nonmagical "ranger" lost its niche when monsters, mages, and obstacles got more magic and easier magic. Access to skillonly matter for opposed checks or with nice DMs. Ironically D&D loves putting tons of restrictions on ranerystuff that you can only beat with magic or a friendly DM.
Notice that the 2nd strongest version of the ranger is the 4e one "nonmagical" and worked because noncombat magic was tied to money.

LMoP came out before the DMG did. Its an adventure where a Ranger's skills can easily be relevant either by taking beasts or goblin humanoid as your enemy and forest or mountain as your terrain.

LMOP is a low level adventure. That's the point.

There have been several adventuring books with terrain and enemy types relevant to Rangers since 5e's release. Plus, the "Ranger fixes" are basically something they've been doing since, what? 4 years? Nothing is happening just now except for racial adjustments, new tools, new subclass and variant features not meant to be a necessity for all players because that's just bad business.

None of that is in the PHB orDMG. That;s the point.

And missing high-level adventures isn't really a Ranger issue. I've heard ill-prepared DM's tend to fail with fighters, barbarians, rogues, wizards, and monks at high-level for some reason or another. So Rangers aren't being singled out at high-level either.

Fighters and other near-pure combat classes can only ave to overcome the numerically rules that high level combat has. Because high level monster combat stats are listed in the MM.

Where is the rules for the elemental sandstorm that glasses you if you fail too many saves?

 

[Lanefan]

Oh, that stuff. There are already dozens of pages of it in the DMG.

You know why there isn't more?

Because it's borrrrrrrrrring.

To you, maybe. To me that stuff would be just what I'd want to see in a DMG (general exploration guidelines) and a setting book (weather conditions etc. specific to that setting, and their effects on play).