D&D 5E Ranger: Removing/changing rangers class features to make then non-depended on DM's charity.

[jodyjohnson]

If you want to house rule something knock yourself out. There's a forum for that.

But your reason stems from 'DMs not willing to go out of their way'. And that is a subject for general discussion.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Choosing to play a highly specialized character when you can't actually make sure your specialty matters is a poor choice - a player should adapt to the style of game they are playing, even if that means their Adventurer's League "ranger" character is actually something like a fighter with the outlander background.

If an entire core class can be written off as a "poor choice" in Adventurer's League, that class is badly written.

There is no "pitfall" to play around, at least not unless you are talking about how every class has options that can be poor choices in a particular campaign and suggesting that all of those also be removed - leaving only the most generally applicable options behind - so that players and DMs never have to talk about what kind of campaign they are playing in order to find characters that make sense as the protagonists.

No other class is defined by making such choices. Specialization is "opt-in" for everyone except the ranger. And there is no reason for the ranger to be this way.

No illusions or charms. No mounts. No abilities that only interact with traps and secret doors. No types of damage that any creature is immune to. No weapons too large to wield effectively in a narrow tunnel. And ever so minor by comparison: no favored enemies or terrains.

That's a pretty hefty strawman you're skewering there.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

If an entire core class can be written off as a "poor choice" in Adventurer's League, that class is badly written.

Good thing there isn't any class that can be written off in such a way.

No other class is defined by making such choices.

That's not relevant, since you aren't required to play the concept of a ranger via the ranger class.

Specialization is "opt-in" for everyone except the ranger.

Specialization is "opt-in" period. And the ranger is not the only class that happens to require the player to choose what their character specializes in (wizard, for example).

And there is no reason for the ranger to be this way.

Except that to remove the favored enemy and favored terrain options results in a character that may as well have been built as a fighter, rogue, druid, or some other class/blend of classes besides taking the ranger class.

That's a pretty hefty strawman you're skewering there.

You either don't actually know what a strawman is, because this isn't one - it's impossible for it to be, since it is my argument rather than someone else's - or you have decided that you'd rather try to attack me as a person by accusing me of badwrongdiscussion than try to actual address my argument that a person wanting to play a ranger concept character is no more or less at the whim of DM charity than any other character concept.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Good thing there isn't any class that can be written off in such a way.

You literally just said choosing ranger in AL is a poor choice.

That's not relevant, since you aren't required to play the concept of a ranger via the ranger class.

If the class called "ranger" is pushing ranger-concept characters into other classes, then -- and I repeat myself -- the class is badly written.

Specialization is "opt-in" period. And the ranger is not the only class that happens to require the player to choose what their character specializes in (wizard, for example).

Equivocation. The specialization that we're talking about is the sort that can be easily thwarted by the DM throwing a different scenario at you. This is not the case with most wizard specializations. There are not very many "you can't use evocations here!" adventures.

Also, for the record, I think the PHB is missing a universalist wizard option.

Except that to remove the favored enemy and favored terrain options results in a character that may as well have been built as a fighter, rogue, druid, or some other class/blend of classes besides taking the ranger class.

Rangers have class features that enhance their hunting, tracking, and survival skills. Fighters and rogues don't. Druids do but combine them with powerful magic rather than martial ability. Favored enemy and favored terrain are not the only possible way for a ranger to be good at hunting, tracking, and survival. Just as a thought experiment, take the PHB ranger and apply its favored enemy and terrain benefits to every enemy and terrain. Don't worry about balance for now (although honestly I think it's still fine) -- conceptually, is this class that displays a more generalized hunting, tracking, and survival competence somehow less of a ranger? Obviously not. Is it just a fighter, rogue, or druid? Obviously not.

You either don't actually know what a strawman is, because this isn't one - it's impossible for it to be, since it is my argument rather than someone else's - or you have decided that you'd rather try to attack me as a person by accusing me of badwrongdiscussion than try to actual address my argument that a person wanting to play a ranger concept character is no more or less at the whim of DM charity than any other character concept.

Well, that's a first for me -- someone accusing me of a personal attack when calling an argument a strawman is by definition an objection to the argument. And it seems you are the one who's unclear what a strawman is. When you argue against a position, then yes, that is "your argument", but if the position you are arguing against is not one that your opponent holds, your argument is a strawman. And that's exactly what you're doing here. You said that I was "talking about how every class has options that can be poor choices in a particular campaign and suggesting that all of those also be removed". I am not. I am talking about how the ranger class, uniquely, is forced into this choice, when there is no conceptual reason for it to do this.

 

[Greg K]

I think that it is evidence of a complete breakdown of a gaming relationship when someone equates getting to know which options are going to be useful, rather than useless, with "DM charity."

If your DM won't tell you what choices of character ability will work for the campaign at hand, it's time to find a new DM because that one has lost sight of the goal of everyone at the table having fun.

You seem to have failed to account that some of us don't know beyond the first session where the characters will be. We don't have use a "pre-planned" storyline or adventure path. We have a big world (or at least a continent). Characters can come from any of the various regions and nations and each of the players has a goal for their character. The DM throws out hooks related to those character goals and various things going on in the region of the world where the characters happen to be at the moment. However, where the party will be adventuring is determined by the players themselves by where they decide to have the characters venture.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

You literally just said choosing ranger in AL is a poor choice.

That's your misunderstanding. I said choosing to specialize when you don't have the info to make intelligence choices is a poor choice. I also happened to say that in the AL you can get the information necessary, since "what's this adventure about and where does it take place?" is information made available.

If the class called "ranger" is pushing ranger-concept characters into other classes, then -- and I repeat myself -- the class is badly written.

Now you are just misrepresenting what I said. I never said the ranger-concept characters are "pushed" anywhere; I said the ranger class isn't the only way to reach a ranger-concept character.

Equivocation. The specialization that we're talking about is the sort that can be easily thwarted by the DM throwing a different scenario at you.

No ruleset can ever prevent someone from aiming to misuse, abuse, or twist it in a way that reduces the fun of other people joining them for the game. So that a DM can be antagonistic towards the player by way of a bait & switch the leaves their specialized character with irrelevant abilities is irrelevant.

This is not the case with most wizard specializations. There are not very many "you can't use evocations here!" adventures.

False equivalence, since Evocations are a generalist category rather than a specialization. If you had chosen an accurate analog, fire damage-dealing evocations for example, then you would see that there are adventures along the lines of "fire doesn't work!".

Rangers have class features that enhance their hunting, tracking, and survival skills. Fighters and rogues don't.

But if you take the outlander background and proficiency in perception/survival (depends on your DM), you can reach all those same ends.

Druids do but combine them with powerful magic rather than martial ability.

5th edition druids can actually manage quite a lot of "martial ability" when you want them to.

Just as a thought experiment, take the PHB ranger and apply its favored enemy and terrain benefits to every enemy and terrain. Don't worry about balance for now (although honestly I think it's still fine) -- conceptually, is this class that displays a more generalized hunting, tracking, and survival competence somehow less of a ranger? Obviously not. Is it just a fighter, rogue, or druid? Obviously not.

Favored enemy and favored terrain don't really affect balance, they are ribbons after all. And since they are ribbons and their purpose is primarily flavor, making them universally applicable by way of them being universally applicable rather than by way of the story of "woods and underground ranger" taking place in the woods and underground... yeah, there is a distinct feeling of "less" there.

You said that I was "talking about how every class has options that can be poor choices in a particular campaign and suggesting that all of those also be removed".

No, I didn't. I said the argument that you are making is wrong.

I then said the equivalent of "unless I misunderstood what your argument is and you actually meant this."

when there is no conceptual reason for it to do this.

Except that the only reason is a conceptual one: that they actually favor something.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

You seem to have failed to account that some of us don't know beyond the first session where the characters will be. We don't have use a "pre-planned" storyline or adventure path. We have a big world (or at least a continent). Characters can come from any of the various regions and nations and each of the players has a goal for their character. The DM throws out hooks related to those character goals and various things going on in the region of the world where the characters happen to be at the moment. However, where the party will be adventuring is determined by the players themselves by where they decide to have the characters venture.

None of what you say here actually necessitates that what ends up happening in the campaign fall entirely outside whatever specialized options a player has chosen for their character.

The players choose the hooks to follow, so they choose ones that lead to things within their specialization. (i.e. a ranger favoring forests and orcs follows hooks that lead to one or both, rather than exclusively hooks that obviously go elsewhere and deal with other enemies)

The DM chooses the hooks to throw the players, so they choose ones that aren't completely contrary to the characters' abilities. (i.e. not throwing nothing but undead and construct related hooks at a party heavily specialized in mind-affecting spells, and not having every hook lead into a dungeon when the party consists of characters with character-building resources dedicated to mounts)

 

[Horwath]

None of what you say here actually necessitates that what ends up happening in the campaign fall entirely outside whatever specialized options a player has chosen for their character.

The players choose the hooks to follow, so they choose ones that lead to things within their specialization. (i.e. a ranger favoring forests and orcs follows hooks that lead to one or both, rather than exclusively hooks that obviously go elsewhere and deal with other enemies)

The DM chooses the hooks to throw the players, so they choose ones that aren't completely contrary to the characters' abilities. (i.e. not throwing nothing but undead and construct related hooks at a party heavily specialized in mind-affecting spells, and not having every hook lead into a dungeon when the party consists of characters with character-building resources dedicated to mounts)

so the story must revolve around one characters narrow abilities?
Or the player of that character feel cheated out of not having 100% of his character coming to life?


That is another example of bad design.

 

[Sunseeker]

If your DM won't tell you what choices of character ability will work for the campaign at hand, it's time to find a new DM because that one has lost sight of the goal of everyone at the table having fun.

This makes sense in games with a very defined theme. Clerics of light and life do well in Undead or demon-themed games. Less so in druidic, naturey or elemental themed games. In a game that generally covered a variety of environments, I don't think the onus should be on the DM to tell their players what will, or will not be a useful skill. Maybe you'll fight undead today and those turning skills will be highly useful, maybe you'll fight earth elementals tomorrow and it won't. But the only reason you're fighting earth elementals today is because you went left instead of right at the signpost. If you had gone right, you'd be fighting sea monsters.

I'm not sure why the DM would be expected to tell you that you'll be fighting elementals tomorrow when the DM doesn't actually know if you'll be fighting elementals, since he doesn't know if that's where you're going to go. Yeah, fire spells suck against fire-monsters.

To me it sounds like you're thinking of it backwards instead of asking what will work, ask what won't, but then that should be obvious. If you're in the desert, the Favored Terrain: Forests might not be so useful.

 

[Minigiant]

It all comes down to DM education, something D&D does poorly.

DM mostly learn by failure and specialized build and focused classes suffer the most.

Instead of teaching DMs, D&D attempts to idiotproof the system. Sneak attack works on everything. Favored enemy is a ribbon feature. Clerics have another use of Channel Divinity other than turn undead.

But it never teaches DMs. D&D just hopes no one screws up. And thus... DMs screw up.