D&D 5E "Can't become lost..."

[clearstream]

With a Ranger joining the party just as they are experiencing a navigation challenge, I need to decide how to rule on "Can't become lost..." My current thinking is that - When you are navigating your Wisdom (Survival) checks cannot fail except by magical means. The party travels in your desired direction. You need information about your destination in order to desire to go in the correct direction to get there.

 

[iserith]

Assuming you're using the PHB ranger, then it should be noted that the benefit of not getting lost except by magical means applies only to the favored terrain. Otherwise, as long as the ranger is navigating while traveling, then the party can't get lost. The ranger can't also undertake some other task while traveling that is at least as distracting as making a map, foraging, tracking, etc. But, unlike other classes, the ranger can navigate and keep watch for danger while in favored terrain.

So bottom line, if you want to avoid the risk of becoming lost, the party's ranger needs to be on that task the whole time.

 

[thethain]

It specifically lists that on its own line with no other conditionals.

So to me, I would rule that the ranger is fairly familiar with the entire path they have traveled (after being in favored terrain for 1 hour). I would limit it to mean lost by means of natural wilderness. If say someone carved a hedgerow in an area, he wouldn't automatically know the way through it. Furthermore he doesn't magically know a map of the area or the like.

Basically, the ranger in favored terrain can allow the party to retrace their steps back without error, and knows the general direction they are headed.

 

[Prakriti]

First question: Are you just looking for ways to have your party get kinda-sorta lost even though they have a Ranger with them? If so, then don't do it. You'd just be taking something cool away from your players.

If you want to make wilderness exploration more interesting, then there are plenty of ways to do it. Besides random encounters, you can add delays by introducing environmental hazards. Rain and snow can slow or halt a march for hours or days, for example. Sometimes the weather is supernatural. Think of Mount Caradhras in Lord of the Rings. Some malevolent force was trying to turn the fellowship back by burying them under several feet of snow. A grumpy hag or other malevolent creature can have similar effects.

Even if it's not supernatural, there are plenty of other ways to add 1d6 hours to a journey. Maybe a valley is unexpectedly flooded. Maybe the forest elves have expanded their territory, turning away all travelers. Maybe a gnoll encampment stands in the party's way. Maybe a mountain pass has been sealed shut by giants, who have made the mountain their new home. All these things might require lengthy detours or create wonderful roleplaying opportunities.

Always give your players a choice: Push on in the hard weather and risk exhaustion, or stop traveling for the day. Go around the gnoll encampment, or try to sneak through. Respect the elves and their territory, or persuade them to let you pass.

 

[Dualazi]

I would re-write it so that the ranger receives either expertise or advantage in their home turf. Contrary to Prakriti's opinion, I'm against the auto-succeed aspect of many of the class kits, but the ranger's especially. For one, it's contradictory to playing a master of the wilds, since it removes interactions rather than expanding them, which is the opposite of what you want to have happen. A skilled diplomat shouldn't auto-succeed on persuasion checks, he should be given new ways to leverage them. Secondly, depending on your campaign it can be a huge pain to separate the ranger from their chosen environs. For example, My current campaign features heavy amazonian rainforest for pretty much the entire region. Without becoming picky about the exact type or density of individual forest regions, a ranger just can't get lost there at all regardless of whether it has ever been explored or not.

 

[clearstream]

It specifically lists that on its own line with no other conditionals.

Agreed. On DMG 112 it explains exactly how a party gets lost. They fail a Wisdom (Survival) check. Therefore I rule that the thing a Ranger can't do is fail that Wisdom (Survival) check. DMG 112 goes on to say that what happens when you don't become lost is that you travel in your "desired direction".

So to me, I would rule that the ranger is fairly familiar with the entire path they have traveled (after being in favored terrain for 1 hour). I would limit it to mean lost by means of natural wilderness. If say someone carved a hedgerow in an area, he wouldn't automatically know the way through it. Furthermore he doesn't magically know a map of the area or the like.

I think you nail here what I am asking. Is there a difference between not becoming lost and automatically knowing the way to all destinations in favoured terrain? I think there is. I am proposing to rule that Rangers can't declare that they "desired" to reach the Hidden Vault of Monty Haul and expect their can't become lost" feature to lead them unerringly to it.

Basically, the ranger in favored terrain can allow the party to retrace their steps back without error, and knows the general direction they are headed.

I hope it doesn't feel like splitting hairs, but I would go slightly beyond that to say that in favoured terrain, a Ranger can always go in the direction that they intend to go. But this is not equivalent to knowing what that direction should be.

 

[Lanliss]

Man, I never knew that not getting lost meant you automatically get where you are going. For me, "You cannot get lost" means that if you want to backtrack you can, rather than wandering the woods for days on end. It doesn't give any sort of bonus towards reaching your destination, unless that destination is wherever you started.

For the rule, I think never failing a Wisdom survival check seems a bit off. They are a Binary thing, success means you reach your goal (IIRC), and failure means you are lost. I think you would be better off with an Evasion-like ability. "When you fail, you still know how to return along the path you came on, but do not reach your desired destination", as opposed to everyone else getting "You are lost". This way, you do not get anyone complaining that "Success" should have meant they reached their goal.

 

[clearstream]

Man, I never knew that not getting lost meant you automatically get where you are going. For me, "You cannot get lost" means that if you want to backtrack you can, rather than wandering the woods for days on end. It doesn't give any sort of bonus towards reaching your destination, unless that destination is wherever you started.

One sense of getting lost is not knowing where you are so I agree with you that a Ranger must know where they are well enough to backtrack. Another sense of getting lost is to fail to make progress toward a destination. It is this latter sense that I wanted to clarify. I feel like if they do know the correct direction to their destination then they must be able to unerringly head in that direction. Otherwise the ability feels a bit weak. On the other hand, they won't always know the correct direction to go.

For the rule, I think never failing a Wisdom survival check seems a bit off.

I should clarify, I think a Ranger cannot fail a Wisdom (Survival) check to become lost. They can fail other Wisdom (Survival) checks, for example to forage.

They are a Binary thing, success means you reach your goal (IIRC), and failure means you are lost. I think you would be better off with an Evasion-like ability. "When you fail, you still know how to return along the path you came on, but do not reach your desired destination", as opposed to everyone else getting "You are lost". This way, you do not get anyone complaining that "Success" should have meant they reached their goal.

Really I was just going from the wording here. Per PHB 91 a Ranger's group "can't become lost" implying that there is a process (become) and a state (lost). Then DMG 112 explains the process and the state. You become lost by failing a Wisdom (Survival) check to navigate. So a Ranger's inability to become lost is equivalent to an inability to fail a Wisdom (Survival) check to navigate. Seeing as the can't fail such a check, there is no need for them to make one.

I want to give the Ranger fair value for the ability.

 

[iserith]

I should clarify, I think a Ranger cannot fail a Wisdom (Survival) check to become lost. They can fail other Wisdom (Survival) checks, for example to forage.

So a Ranger's inability to become lost is equivalent to an inability to fail a Wisdom (Survival) check to navigate. Seeing as the can't fail such a check, there is no need for them to make one.

Right. And to go back to what I suggested in my initial post: (1) The ranger can't forage and navigate at the same time. (2) The ranger must still undertake the task of navigating for the party to gain the benefit of not getting lost. There's just no check on account of automatic success.

 

[jasper]

So you saying Christopher Columbus was a ranger? After all he didn't become lost to do discover a new way to India, he just ran against some stupid islands that popped up on the way.