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

[NotAYakk]

Yeah, a lot of the ranger's issues stem from DM failure's to make it worthwhile and interesting. Of course, the ranger design is vulnerable to it in ways other classes aren't...

Putting extra load on the DM to make a class work is bad design.

Any character can work with enough DM effort.

Making it take a pile extra DM work is proof of a problem, not proof there isn't one, basically.

 

[billd91]

Putting extra load on the DM to make a class work is bad design.

Any character can work with enough DM effort.

Making it take a pile extra DM work is proof of a problem, not proof there isn't one, basically.

I don't really agree with that. It's tantamount to also saying a DM doesn't need to do any work to integrate the agendas of the PCs or customize anything for the class mix at all.
If the DM is doing any work to customize for his mix of players and their PCs, then engaging in a little work to help the ranger's abilities shine is not really extra. It's the same appropriate diligence he's engaging in for everything else.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Yeah, sorry for not finding a way to make your "Favored Terrain: Desert" and "Favored Enemy: Giants" work in Out of the Abyss, which I think has exactly two giants to fight and zero desert.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Yeah, sorry for not finding a way to make your "Favored Terrain: Desert" and "Favored Enemy: Giants" work in Out of the Abyss, which I think has exactly two giants to fight and zero desert.

Good thing that the player 1. Knew they were playing Out of the Abyss and didn’t pick Desert and Giants OR 2. Picked Desert and Giants b/c that’s what they wanted to do at character creation for their own reasons AND they get to choose experientially appropriate Terrain/Enemy at level 6.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Good thing that the player 1. Knew they were playing Out of the Abyss and didn’t pick Desert and Giants OR 2. Picked Desert and Giants b/c that’s what they wanted to do at character creation for their own reasons AND they get to choose experientially appropriate Terrain/Enemy at level 6.

The only way to know the Stone Giants aren't there to be fought and that there's only one Fomorian is to read the adventure ahead of time, something most DMs frown upon. It's just bad design to make the player have to correctly predict an adventure's direction when choosing a class feature, and then expect the DM to change the adventure if the player guesses wrong.

 

[billd91]

The only way to know the Stone Giants aren't there to be fought and that there's only one Fomorian is to read the adventure ahead of time, something most DMs frown upon. It's just bad design to make the player have to correctly predict an adventure's direction when choosing a class feature, and then expect the DM to change the adventure if the player guesses wrong.

No it isn't - it's bad communication between the DM and the player. You'd have the same problem with someone bringing a paladin to a piracy campaign.

 

[NotAYakk]

No it isn't - it's bad communication between the DM and the player. You'd have the same problem with someone bringing a paladin to a piracy campaign.

Lots of paladins work fine in a piracy campaign.

Some might not.

I don't really agree with that. It's tantamount to also saying a DM doesn't need to do any work to integrate the agendas of the PCs or customize anything for the class mix at all.
If the DM is doing any work to customize for his mix of players and their PCs, then engaging in a little work to help the ranger's abilities shine is not really extra. It's the same appropriate diligence he's engaging in for everything else.

No, it isn't tantamount.

I'm saying that from level 1 to level 2, if the DM doesn't inject into the game stuff aimed directly at the Ranger PC's build choices, the Ranger PC is literally "another class with fewer abilities".

No other class has that feature. None. Zilch.

"Little work" -- the abilities literally do nothing unless they dictate what territory and monsters the DM uses.

And what is worse, as many people have shown, if they do dictate what territory and monsters the DM uses, the Ranger ends up about as good as the Wizard is at low levels, and progressively gets worse at the knowledge checks compared to wizards or lore bards or rogues who want to know things. And the other feature either removes exploration challenges from the game, or does nothing if you want to cross different terrain than you picked.

So even in games where the DM does pick monsters and terrain to suit the Ranger starting at level 1, the features don't shine.

It would be like if Paladin divine smite only worked on undead and fiends, and it gave you an advantage on charisma attribute checks for the next minute on the smited creature (no damage!). Except that is the only feature Paladins got at level 1, and they lost heavy armor. Ok ok, we can also give them "True believer: select a faith. You can ignore paperwork requirements when working with that faith as they recognize you as a true believer, and your tithing costs to stay in good graces with that church are halved."

Could you make a game where that is useful? Yes. Does it take a lot of work for the DM and constrain the campaign? Ayep. Are there lots of campaigns where it would be utterly irrelevant? Yes.

 

[GlassJaw]

No it isn't - it's bad communication between the DM and the player. You'd have the same problem with someone bringing a paladin to a piracy campaign.

While I disagree that it's "bad communication", it's also the only class that has such a requirement. So why have it at all then?

It's clear from all the ranger revisions that there are plenty of options to make the ranger work without any handshake agreement between the player and DM.

 

[fearsomepirate]

No it isn't - it's bad communication between the DM and the player.

A player feature that requires me to take an inventory of all the potential encounters in a published adventure so I can communicate to him which favored enemies are good choices is bad game design. I don't have to police anybody else's character sheet this way. Choose whatever Warlock pact you want. Graduate from whatever Bard College you want. Take whichever Paladin Oath suits you. You'll be fine. But Rangers? Yeah, quick, let me scan the adventure first to make sure you didn't screw up your character sheet.

As @NotAYakk said, Ranger is the only class where this is an issue. The problem is the ribbon-based nature of the Ranger. Ribbon abilities may never, ever come up in play. This isn't a big deal if they aren't central to the class design. But for the 5e Ranger, a pile of ribbon abilities, none of which will ever necessarily be useful, is the center of the design.

 

[el-remmen]

What is the definition of a "ribbon" ability? I only recently saw this being used and it also was in regard to rangers.