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

[Don Durito]

The big problems with the melee ranger remain:

They are either MAD (Strength based melee Ranger with Great Weapon)
Have action economy issues (Two Weapon Fighting - and this is a problem of fiddly annoyance which is distinct from whether it is underpowered or not)
Or thematically innappropriate (Rapier + Shield users).

Plus there's the whole nonsense about having to maintain concentration to keep their class features up.

 

[Don Durito]

Dude, there is food (and water) everywhere in the jungle. They're teeming with life. We're not talking about the Arctic or Desert here.

And no, you dont have to roll. You're never (ever) lost aside from magical means, difficult terrain (jungle, swamps, snow) never slows down your travel, and you always can find food and water for yourself and10 people (assuming Outlander background as well) provided that the land offers berries, small game, water, and so forth.

I know of no jungle in the world that does not offer boundless small game, water, and edible plants.

Yeah it's pretty clear.

"You have an excellent memory for maps and geography, and you can always recall the general layout of terrain, settlements, and other features around you. In addition, you can find food and fresh water for yourself and up to five other people each day, provided that the land offers berries, small game, water, and so forth"

The Outlander background doesn't say "you find food and water if it's reasonable and plausible" - it just says you find them. It's ridiculous (Even in the middle of Taklamakan desert you find enough food for five people?), but that's what it says (One is reminded about the earlier discussion in either this thread or the other about the lazy forest bias in Ranger design). A GM may say that's patently ridiculous and want to reinterpret it in a different way, but it is what it is.

I played a Ranger in a Dark Sun 4E game and I basically optimised the fun out of it. I wanted to be so good at surviving in the desert that I had really good stats and effective permanent Advantage (it wasn't even the auto-success of the 5E ranger). I never failed a roll in the desert. It wasn't fun, after awhile I found myself wishing my character wasn't quite so damn good all the time. That experience, and seeing similar things from the GM's side, really made me appreciate the design goal of bounded accuracy.

 

[Don Durito]

Thinking about these things objectively, do these things that had been "skipped" sound like fun? Were you really excited for your character to be lost, starved, and slowed?

Most of these things don't matter, they should be skipped regardless, but that's DM-dependent. Either way, I don't think this constitutes, necessarily, an "effective use of your features."

Yes. They're part of the game. D&D is a game that's all about attrition and this is a form of attrition. PCs who are hungry have to make decisions. They may have to push on to the nearest settlement and risk exhaustion.

Being hungry is a decision point. What do you do? Being lost is a decision point? What do you do? How do you find your bearings?

They bring the focus back to the here and now. They force the game out of a montage of hills and valleys to an immediate point of action.

They help make the game be more than a series of curated GM encounters placed in their path. They help the journey feel like a struggle with a victory to be won.

 

[Flamestrike]

The Outlander background doesn't say "you find food and water if it's reasonable and plausible" - it just says you find them. It's ridiculous (Even in the middle of Taklamakan desert you find enough food for five people?),

In the middle of the desert you'll run afoul of the clause 'provided there is enough water, small game and berries' around.

In the jungle, those conditions are met.

 

[Asisreo]

Dude, there is food (and water) everywhere in the jungle. They're teeming with life. We're not talking about the Arctic or Desert here.

Which Jungle are we talking about? The Amazon rainforest? Chult? Or is it just a general jungle?

A jungle can still be a jungle while also devoid of anything edible to nonnative creatures. In fact, Chult's water is not fit to drink unless its boiled so there's already a precedent.

You're never (ever) lost aside from magical means, difficult terrain (jungle, swamps, snow) never slows down your travel, and you always can find food and water for yourself and10 people (assuming Outlander background as well) provided that the land offers berries, small game, water, and so forth.

I know of no jungle in the world that does not offer boundless small game, water, and edible plants.

You're thinking of our world. I know no forest with any such creature as an "owlbear."

But all of that is pretty irrelevant. Even without a Ranger, getting food was never difficult to begin with. If the area is so ripe with food anyways, its a DC 10 with 1d6+1 pounds every opportunity (no set time) and they can live for about 4 days with a single pound of food without any adverse effects. If the jungle is that ripe with food, a Ranger hardly makes a difference in that department.

Unless you're on a time limit, what does difficult terrain accomplish? Its useful, but who cares if taking 5 days or 10 days is exactly the same.

Finally, yes you never get lost, but again, you don't know where your destination is unless you specifically are told what direction and how far. Otherwise, you may walk the wrong direction or miss the location completely. You're not "lost" because you know where you are, but you don't know where your destination is. (Even if you're an outlander, if your location isn't on a map you've seen, it's location is still a mystery to you).

 

[Don Durito]

In the middle of the desert you'll run afoul of the clause 'provided there is enough water, small game and berries' around.

In the jungle, those conditions are met.

So you will. How did I miss that? Just tired I guess. That's a little more sensible I guess. (I haven't used backgrounds as written for quite some time).

It still seems dumb...you will automatically succeed at finding food unless you don't at which point this feature does nothing for you.

If only the game had some kind of unified system to help you determine how likely you are to succeed at something,

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Personally I would have much preferred a rule that simply lets you know Hunters Mark, lets you cast it Wis mod times per day.

Then scale it thus:

At 6th level you cast or shift Hunters Mark to a new target as a reaction when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack.

At 11th level, it no longer requires Concentration, and damage increases to 1d8 (in line with Paladin improved divine smite).

At 17th level you get (advantage to saves?) from effects generated by your Favoured foe.

I like that, though I actually prefer to leave HM as it is, and make some of the other ranger spells non-concentration. Hail of Thorns and such can just be “as a bonus action when you hit”.

 

[Asisreo]

Yes. They're part of the game. D&D is a game that's all about attrition and this is a form of attrition. PCs who are hungry have to make decisions. They may have to push on to the nearest settlement and risk exhaustion.

Being hungry is a decision point. What do you do? Being lost is a decision point? What do you do? How do you find your bearings?

They bring the focus back to the here and now. They force the game out of a montage of hills and valleys to an immediate point of action.

They help make the game be more than a series of curated GM encounters placed in their path. They help the journey feel like a struggle with a victory to be won.

That's all well and good, but is that fun? In my experience, hardly. Especially not to players who aren't actually making decisions because the choice between starving and taking the time to look for food is hardly a choice.

Getting unlost isn't a decision, its a chore because it has to be done. You really can't proceed with the adventure in earnest if you're constantly going the wrong way, so that's not even a decision.

"The party gets lost, what do you do?"
The only real response is "I want to re-establish myself" which consists of rolling again until congrats! You can now continue playing the game.

Lose-lose decisions are almost always very unfun because it feels like the DM tried to screw you over from the start. And just because its a form of attrition and that's the type of game you play doesn't mean that its any fun even in that context.

What's fun isn't based on just tedious tasks to challenge the party, its based on catering to your players desires for the game. If they desire grueling treks through the wilderness, fine. But you'll need to do more than push them through a bog-standard forest.

 

[Flamestrike]

Which Jungle are we talking about? The Amazon rainforest? Chult? Or is it just a general jungle?

A jungle can still be a jungle while also devoid of anything edible to nonnative creatures. In fact, Chult's water is not fit to drink unless its boiled so there's already a precedent.

Any jungle. Jungles are literally teeming with life (and water).

And the Outlander background makes no mention of being 'native' to the area in order to find food and water. As long as the area you're in has reasonable access to water and food (small game, edible fruits, berries and nuts), you find it.

Jungles are full of small game. Birds of paradise, turtles, fish, monkeys, lizards, frogs, snakes, scorpions, spiders etc. As for water, that's everywhere as well; it literally rains nearly constantly, and there are rivers everywhere (plus water from vines, dried up creek beds, palm fronds catching water etc).

Unless you're in some weird jungle that is devoid of life. But literally the instant you step into a jungle, you can hear that life all around you.

If you're in a survival situation there are few places you'd rather be other than the jungle. Of course, the bad thing about jungles is they're pains in the ass to move through and easy to get lost in (although neither is an issue for the Ranger), they're hot (although this is a blessing in most survival situations as well), and generally full of biting insects and disease.

 

[Flamestrike]

It still seems dumb...you will automatically succeed at finding food unless you don't at which point this feature does nothing for you.

You automatically succeed, unless there is no chance of succeeding.

The rules are normally:

Foraging Characters can gather food and water as the party travels at a normal or slow pace. A foraging character makes a Wisdom (Survival) check whenever you call for it, with the DC determined by the abundance of food and water in the region. Abundant food and water sources = DC 10, Limited food and water sources 15, Very little, if any, food and water sources = DC 20.

Unless the DM says 'There is 'less than very little' food and water sources nearly, you simply succeed.