D&D 5E Is favored enemy and natural explorer really that bad?

[auburn2]

Inspired by the thread on favored foe, I figure I will talk about favored enemy.

With XGE and Tasha's I no longer think the Ranger is underpowered, even without the new optional features. Using a few of the subclasses, the Ranger class holds up well even without the new features. That said, how bad are the oroginal 1st-level abilities.

1. Favored Enemy: Everyone really complains about favored enemy and has been since the PHB, but I don't see it as that bad. Advantage on intelligence checks against a whole group of enemies and an extra language is pretty cool. Not effective in combat, but broadly useful in general. the tracking feature is less useful.

Favored Foe is better in combat and if you are building a combat-focused character I get why this would maybe be a better choice, but I don't think it is a better ability overall especially if you are building a skill character.

2. Natural explorer: NAtural explorer usefulness depends entirely on the game and DM. In an outdoor campaign, if your DM is rolling for you to get lost or slowing you in difficult terrain,find food etc, this ability is actually OP for a 1st-level ability .... especially the never lost part. Playing Tomb of Annihilation at 1st level my party was lost so often that I chose to multiclass to Ranger at level 2 with a character who happened to have a 13 Wisdom and dex. This was not even remotely in my original build idea for that character but we needed a solution to being lost all the time. This 1-level dip completely changed the nature of our game.

I like the idea of Deft explorer and as a character who likes skill monkeys I really like the idea of expertise in a skill and am drawn to it. I think this is way inferior to natural explorer if you are playing the kind of outdoor game noted above, but better in just about every other game.

Thoughts?

 

[el-remmen]

I added a small damage bonus to Favored enemy and some minor tweaks to the groups that could be chosen.

I started this thread about it, but have already made a couple of tweaks based on suggestions.

I think Natural Explorer is fine regardless if a DM is detailed about travel/exploration or tend to handwave it. In the first case, they have a better chance to succeed and in the second case it is easy to just say "Since Nora the Ranger knows the mountains well, you make it through safely" when otherwise there might have been an avalanche zone or a random encounter.

Then again, I am not much for a random roll for events or getting lost type of style and prefer to narrativize that within the framework of what the PCs are supposed to be capable of.

 

[Krachek]

You state a good point : usefulness depends entirely on the game and DM.
The rest of the story is a snow ball effect.

 

[jgsugden]

Ranger, overall, has never been underpowered. Some of the builds (beastmaster) were not successful, but overall the class was just fine. Hunters were competitive from day one. If you compare them to a Great Weapon Master Paladin they deal less damage overall - but they had so many more tricks up their sleeves.

As such, these two lesser abilities - which were more about the character of the class than the power of the class - have always been fine. That being said, I do prefer the replacements.

 

[Retreater]

2. Natural explorer: NAtural explorer usefulness depends entirely on the game and DM. In an outdoor campaign, if your DM is rolling for you to get lost or slowing you in difficult terrain,find food etc, this ability is actually OP for a 1st-level ability .... especially the never lost part. Playing Tomb of Annihilation at 1st level my party was lost so often that I chose to multiclass to Ranger at level 2 with a character who happened to have a 13 Wisdom and dex. This was not even remotely in my original build idea for that character but we needed a solution to being lost all the time. This 1-level dip completely changed the nature of our game.

Here's why I don't like this one. If these elements matter to a campaign, with this ranger ability, they no longer matter. If they don't matter to a campaign, then it doesn't matter if the ranger has the ability. It basically shuts down an entire component of a pillar of play and completely negates a style of campaign (wilderness survival, which has been a key feature in several campaigns such as Tomb of Annihilation and Rime of the Frostmaiden). That whole feature exists just for DMs to find a way to circumvent it. It's an example of bad design.

 

[Li Shenron]

They've never been bad abilities, but the mistake of Favored Enemy was to give it the same name of an old combat-oriented ability, with which players inevitably compared it and wondered where had the damage bonus go. The REAL favored enemy ability in 5e is the set of Hunter special abilities against a type of creature.

Favored terrain is good but they could have been more generous with the amount of terrains. Maybe instead of 1/2/3 they could have gone with 2/4/6 or even 2/4/all. The usual problem is hypothetical, that as soon as you choose a favored something your DM will want something else in the adventures.

 

[auburn2]

Here's why I don't like this one. If these elements matter to a campaign, with this ranger ability, they no longer matter. If they don't matter to a campaign, then it doesn't matter if the ranger has the ability. It basically shuts down an entire component of a pillar of play and completely negates a style of campaign (wilderness survival, which has been a key feature in several campaigns such as Tomb of Annihilation and Rime of the Frostmaiden). That whole feature exists just for DMs to find a way to circumvent it. It's an example of bad design.

Maybe. I can say TOA was a lot more fun after we had a Ranger. It was almost impossible to get anything done before that. The DM was running it like the campaign book said to I think.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Ranger is a lot more satisfying (and not over-powered) if you give them all of the alternate features in addition to the standard features.

 

[IndigoTraveler]

Ranger is a lot more satisfying (and not over-powered) if you give them all of the alternate features in addition to the standard features.

That sounds like doing that with the Revised Ranger would be super fun.

But then again I've always preferred the Revised Ranger, but could never understand why people weren't for it as the "fix" to the PHB Ranger.

Shrugs

 

[Charlaquin]

Here's why I don't like this one. If these elements matter to a campaign, with this ranger ability, they no longer matter. If they don't matter to a campaign, then it doesn't matter if the ranger has the ability. It basically shuts down an entire component of a pillar of play and completely negates a style of campaign (wilderness survival, which has been a key feature in several campaigns such as Tomb of Annihilation and Rime of the Frostmaiden). That whole feature exists just for DMs to find a way to circumvent it. It's an example of bad design.

This,

They've never been bad abilities, but the mistake of Favored Enemy was to give it the same name of an old combat-oriented ability, with which players inevitably compared it and wondered where had the damage bonus go. The REAL favored enemy ability in 5e is the set of Hunter special abilities against a type of creature.

And this.

Favored enemy is fine, and the reason the Favored Foe damage boost is so middling is that it’s made to replace a feature that was never meant to boost the class’s damage, and doesn’t need to do so.