D&D 5E Giving Ranger Expertise

[happyhermit]

Allowing rangers to be good at what they are meant to be is just a side effect. My primary reasoning is that Expertise fits the ranger perfectly, since they are the only "expert" class that doesn't have it. All of the other classes are much more general in their total concept. The only other additional class I might give expertise is Wizard, and then not until a much higher level than normal. I would say that around level 11-13 they could be considered Experts of their craft.

Of course, my ideas tend to throw balance to the wind, in the interest of what I read as a hole that needs to be filled. For example, I am also considering giving fighters a single Weapon expertise, allowing them to add twice their proficiency to a single weapon type. Because "Fighting man" should be expert at fighting.

Sorry if I came off negative, was mostly just thinking out loud. After seeing 5e with and without expertise I think I am leaning towards wanting it and other pure numerical boosts to skills to be a very small part of the game if there at all. I won't get into why I have mixed feelings about it's effects because it's OT, suffice it to say it doesn't seem to add to any of the reasons we are playing 5e.

From a balance perspective I think you probably have a reasonable proposition though, sorry if it seems like I was dumping on your idea.

 

[Lanliss]

Sorry if I came off negative, was mostly just thinking out loud. After seeing 5e with and without expertise I think I am leaning towards wanting it and other pure numerical boosts to skills to be a very small part of the game if there at all. I won't get into why I have mixed feelings about it's effects because it's OT, suffice it to say it doesn't seem to add to any of the reasons we are playing 5e.

From a balance perspective I think you probably have a reasonable proposition though, sorry if it seems like I was dumping on your idea.

You didn't seem that way at all. I was just mentioning that it would help with the whole "Wanna be a ranger, just play fighter" thing, not the main goal.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I have found advantage to work well enough for situations where people are doing what they should be good at ie; Wizard with wizardy stuff or a ranger climbing trees and it doesn't have any detrimental side effects.

The detrimental side effect is that advantage doesn't stack with itself. If a character always has advantage because of a class feature, then they get no benefit from working to create a situational advantage. For instance, if the rogue got advantage to Stealth instead of expertise in Stealth, there would be no reason for them to do cool things like deploying smoke bombs or knocking out the lights, because those things would normally provide advantage and they already have it. But with expertise, they can get their flat bonus from expertise and still have room to generate advantage through smart play.

That is not to say that it's never a good idea to provide advantage as a class feature. It's just a good idea when you want to override other sources of advantage. For instance, the avenger's Vow of Enmity provides advantage on attack rolls, meaning the avenger gains no benefit from attacking from stealth, holding the high ground, or otherwise creating a combat advantage. This is flavorful because you expect the avenger to come straight at their enemies, striking with implacable consistency. But a similar feature on a rogue or ranger or some other "sneaky" class would be a bad fit.

 

[happyhermit]

The detrimental side effect is that advantage doesn't stack with itself. If a character always has advantage because of a class feature, then they get no benefit from working to create a situational advantage. For instance, if the rogue got advantage to Stealth instead of expertise in Stealth, there would be no reason for them to do cool things like deploying smoke bombs or knocking out the lights, because those things would normally provide advantage and they already have it. But with expertise, they can get their flat bonus from expertise and still have room to generate advantage through smart play.

That is not to say that it's never a good idea to provide advantage as a class feature. It's just a good idea when you want to override other sources of advantage. For instance, the avenger's Vow of Enmity provides advantage on attack rolls, meaning the avenger gains no benefit from attacking from stealth, holding the high ground, or otherwise creating a combat advantage. This is flavorful because you expect the avenger to come straight at their enemies, striking with implacable consistency. But a similar feature on a rogue or ranger or some other "sneaky" class would be a bad fit.

I probably should have phrased it differently, you are right that players not looking for interesting sources of advantage could be a detrimental side effect. On the other hand, I have found myself at this point most often favouring a non-cancelling variation of adv/dis, the only real detriment being players potentially doing too much fishing for adv/dis so there's that.

My point (if I had one) was simply that adv. alone was doing a good enough job for us (RAW or not), and that we have some issues with expertise but this thread isn't really the place for that discussion.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

The Revised Ranger doesn't lose any out of combat utility actually. It just does it differently.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sorry if I came off negative, was mostly just thinking out loud. After seeing 5e with and without expertise I think I am leaning towards wanting it and other pure numerical boosts to skills to be a very small part of the game if there at all. I won't get into why I have mixed feelings about it's effects because it's OT, suffice it to say it doesn't seem to add to any of the reasons we are playing 5e.

From a balance perspective I think you probably have a reasonable proposition though, sorry if it seems like I was dumping on your idea.

I'm considering changing Expertise to adding a d4/d6/d8 by level to rolls with that skill or tool, because I also want numerical bonuses reduced even further, and a die bonus is at least less sure of a thing.

 

[MiraMels]

The Revised Ranger doesn't lose any out of combat utility actually. It just does it differently.

Alright, that's fair. If you don't mind explaining how it gets that out of combat utility back, I'd love to hear it, because i just glanced back over the playtest PDF and i still don't see it.

But the revised ranger certainly doesn't have any features that double your proficiency bonus, which is the primary topic of this thread.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Alright, that's fair. If you don't mind explaining how it gets that out of combat utility back, I'd love to hear it, because i just glanced back over the playtest PDF and i still don't see it.

But the revised ranger certainly doesn't have any features that double your proficiency bonus, which is the primary topic of this thread.

Read Natural Explorer, after the combat/ambush stuff:

In addition, you are skilled at navigating the wilderness. You gain the following benefits when traveling for an hour or more:
• Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel.
• Your group can’t become lost except by magical means.
• Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger.
• If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace.
• When you forage, you find twice as much food as you normally would.
• While tracking other creatures, you also learn their exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area.

Those add up to automatic success on a wide range of what would normally be skill checks, mostly in Survival and nature.

Oh you also ignore difficult terrain.

Then you've got Favored Enemy:

Beginning at 1st level, you have significant experience studying, tracking, hunting, and even talking to a certain type of enemy commonly encountered in the wilds.
Choose a type of favored enemy: beasts, fey, humanoids, monstrosities, or undead. You gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with weapon attacks against creatures of the chosen type. Additionally, you have advantage on Wisdom (Survival) checks to track your favored enemies, as well as on Intelligence checks to recall information about them.
When you gain this feature, you also learn one language of your choice, typically one spoken by your favored enemy or creatures associated with it. However, you are free to pick any language you wish to learn.

90% of that is out of combat utility.

And then Primeval Awareness, which I won't bother quoting, is entirely out of combat utility. And, bonus!, it mimics the old "animal empathy" feature! Excellent!

And then all the rest of the features at later levels, tons of exploration features all over the class, without even getting into the spell list.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I think a feat that grants expertise in a single skill of the players choice wouldn't step on the Rogue or Bards shoes any more than Magic Initiate or Martial Adept. I think it would help players play certain Tropes without multiclassing, which I would like.

 

[MiraMels]

That's...exactly what the Ranger already has, but worse. They traded the Expertise away in exchange for those bullet points always working, instead of only working in chosen terrains. The expertise is the workhorse of that class feature, not the travel benefits. Also, since the Revised Ranger gets fewer total creatures as Favored Enemies, the ability check bonuses are more limited.

The Wild Empathy feature is cool though, I'll give you that.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app