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

[AaronOfBarbaria]

so the story must revolve around one characters narrow abilities?

Nope. It must revolve around the whole party, but that party should be one which the story actually meshes with rather than a disparate group of people with entirely different stories that would make sense all being crammed into a singular story that doesn't fit.

Or the player of that character feel cheated out of not having 100% of his character coming to life?

100% isn't the right number. A player complaining that their character isn't in their chosen specialty 100% of the time is a different thing from a player complaining that their character isn't in their chosen specialty often enough.

That is another example of bad design.

Nope. Just an example of you misinterpreting my statements.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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.

You're saying that some ranger-concept characters cannot or should not be built with the ranger class: yes or no?

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!".

But wizards aren't required to specialize in evocations of a particular damage type. You're changing your argument. You originally said, "the ranger is not the only class that happens to require the player to choose what their character specializes in (wizard, for example)."

And if wizards were required to make this choice, then yes, they'd be in a similar situation to the ranger -- although still not all the way there, because fire immunity is rarer than not-being-an-orc.

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

No. What you're saying is like saying that you can build a rogue-concept character with the fighter and the criminal background. Yes, you'll be proficient with Stealth and Deception, but none of your class features do anything distinctive and cool on that front; they're just "hit people hard" abilities. The rogue class exists because there can be more to trickster archetype characters than a couple of skill proficiencies. Same deal with the ranger class and the woodsman archetype.

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

So can 5th edition clerics, but if I told you to build your fighter as a cleric, you'd be quite justified in telling me to go jump in a lake. Why can't you just build him as a fighter, and get actual fighter class features instead of class features you don't want?

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.

But not every ranger has that kind of flavor. In fact, most don't! I'd go so far as to say that they tend to display outstanding resourcefulness and adaptability, the exact opposites of the specialization these class features impose. Living alone in the wilderness requires a generalist approach, because you never know what you're going to have to handle tomorrow.

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."

So the substance of your argument was just "There is no 'pitfall' to play around"? Seven words of bare contradiction? The other hundred-odd words of you going off on the removal of all situational choices were... what, exactly?

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

Why? There's nothing in the ranger concept that says they show this kind of favor any more than any other class -- and, again, I'd argue that most rangers in fiction actively don't. So why doesn't some other class have favored enemy instead? Or why isn't it a feat?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

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.

I don't see why not.

Actually, I don't see how the DM isn't covering telling what will or will not be useful simply by saying "This campaign will take place in wide variety of environments," since that tells the players that any environment-based specialization is less likely to be useful, so they should expect it not to come up often or choose not to be environmentally specialized.

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.

I'm not saying that the DM has to tell the players every monster they'll face throughout the campaign. I'm saying the DM should say what, if anything, is going to be featured (i.e. "I plan on using a lot of undead in this campaign" or "I'm going to stay away from anything extraplanar") and not go out of their way to make what else is likely to be faced hard to guess (like how some DMs decide to stop using orcs the moment a ranger character has favored enemy orcs, even when their adventures take place in locations that orcs would normally be).

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.

You can call that backwards, but it is the same end result: the player is aware of what options are likely to be good to take and which ones aren't - and the DM didn't have to do anything special to facilitate the result other than not deliberately make the players' choices the wrong ones after the fact.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

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

I don't think that is nearly as true as people claim that it is... of course, my opinion on that is skewed by my own personal experience of learning to DM AD&D by reading the 2nd edition DMG by myself having had no other exposure to the game besides the books at the age of 12, and identifying not only what it took to DM a game, but what advice the book gave me that was absolutely terrible advice that should never be followed, and that the 5th edition DMG reads as being much more helpful to the uninitiated and containing less instances of terrible advice that should never be followed.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think that is nearly as true as people claim that it is... of course, my opinion on that is skewed by my own personal experience of learning to DM AD&D by reading the 2nd edition DMG by myself having had no other exposure to the game besides the books at the age of 12, and identifying not only what it took to DM a game, but what advice the book gave me that was absolutely terrible advice that should never be followed, and that the 5th edition DMG reads as being much more helpful to the uninitiated and containing less instances of terrible advice that should never be followed.

5th edition is pretty decent on teaching. But it used to be bad and that's how the community has become so harsh on design teams.

Because it used to be bad and relied on self discovered system mastery as if that was a quality to be admired.

The other half of 5th's success rate was the idiotproofing and overall clarity on the very basics on option.

However the missing element, design notes, still keep new DMs from knowing why things are in place the way it is and how to use the elements.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

You're saying that some ranger-concept characters cannot or should not be built with the ranger class: yes or no?

Cannot or should not ever be built with the ranger class? No, I'm not saying that.

But wizards aren't required to specialize in evocations of a particular damage type. You're changing your argument. You originally said, "the ranger is not the only class that happens to require the player to choose what their character specializes in (wizard, for example)."

I'm not changing my argument at all, you are just have difficulty understanding it. Wizards have limits as to how many spells they can have at their disposal (less strict than other classes, but still enough to be an issue), so they either limit themselves to a particular damage type or limit themselves by choosing more damage-dealing spells rather than spells with other effects.

And if wizards were required to make this choice, then yes, they'd be in a similar situation to the ranger -- although still not all the way there, because fire immunity is rarer than not-being-an-orc.

That entirely depends on how you are determining rarity - a campaign that involves more than 100 orcs and only 1 fire immune enemy demonstrates what I mean.

No. What you're saying is like saying that you can build a rogue-concept character with the fighter and the criminal background. Yes, you'll be proficient with Stealth and Deception, but none of your class features do anything distinctive and cool on that front; they're just "hit people hard" abilities. The rogue class exists because there can be more to trickster archetype characters than a couple of skill proficiencies. Same deal with the ranger class and the woodsman archetype.

What you say here doesn't even appear to contradict what I said.

So can 5th edition clerics, but if I told you to build your fighter as a cleric, you'd be quite justified in telling me to go jump in a lake. Why can't you just build him as a fighter, and get actual fighter class features instead of class features you don't want?

A war domain cleric does fit the idea I had for the character, and I'll just downplay the spells aspect by mostly using unobtrusive things like shield of faith and aid.

You can jump in a lake if you want, but I won't tell you off for helping me get a character within the concept I wanted just because the mechanics came pre-labelled with a name other than the one I attached to the concept - that'd be unreasonable.

But not every ranger has that kind of flavor. In fact, most don't! I'd go so far as to say that they tend to display outstanding resourcefulness and adaptability, the exact opposites of the specialization these class features impose. Living alone in the wilderness requires a generalist approach, because you never know what you're going to have to handle tomorrow.

You've lost me entirely. Guy goes out into the woods and learns to life off the land through resourcefuleness and adaptability, guy gets favored terrain forest... not at all the opposite.

So the substance of your argument was just "There is no 'pitfall' to play around"? Seven words of bare contradiction? The other hundred-odd words of you going off on the removal of all situational choices were... what, exactly?

Elaboration. You know, that thing which prevents the Lord of the Rings Trilogy from being "A bunch of folks decided this ring needed destroyed so they got together and decided this hobbit should throw it in a volcano and these other guys should help him along because of wars and monsters and such. The plan succeeded."

Why? There's nothing in the ranger concept that says they show this kind of favor any more than any other class

I don't find that to be true. The concept of the ranger, boiled down, is that they are watchers (meaning guard, not monitor) of the wilderness. That heavily implies that they have their post (bit of land) and they keep to it - like how a city guard patrols the city, rather than every city in a nation - so they become intimately familiar with the terrain of their post, not every single bit of wilderness possible on this or any world.

and, again, I'd argue that most rangers in fiction actively don't.

I'd argue that outside of D&D novels there are no D&D rangers in fiction, not even the sources of inspiration from which the ranger class draws. And that trying to make D&D beholden to any and every bit of fiction out in the world is ridiculous.

So why doesn't some other class have favored enemy instead?

It's a ribbon that fits the flavor of the ranger class because of prior game versions. No other class has a legacy to suggest the ribbon fits.

Or why isn't it a feat?

Because spending a feat on a ribbon is an awful thing to present as an option, which is the same reason all feats that provide ribbons that are actually in the game also give an ability score boost if not multiple ribbons.

Oh, and because making a core feature (albeit a ribbon of one) of a class into a feat and thus requiring optional rules to be used in order to get it is bad design.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I'm not changing my argument at all, you are just have difficulty understanding it. Wizards have limits as to how many spells they can have at their disposal (less strict than other classes, but still enough to be an issue), so they either limit themselves to a particular damage type or limit themselves by choosing more damage-dealing spells rather than spells with other effects.

Okay, let's roll with that. Spell selection is still opt-in specialization. It's a lot more flexibility than a ranger gets. A ranger can't choose diversity over specialization, or change his specialization entirely every day.

What you say here doesn't even appear to contradict what I said.

So you would have no objection to the 6E rogue class coming out with a weird and un-rogue-like class feature, because "rogue" characters for whom that class feature doesn't fit can just be built as fighters instead?

A war domain cleric does fit the idea I had for the character, and I'll just downplay the spells aspect by mostly using unobtrusive things like shield of faith and aid.

...or you can just play a fighter.

You've lost me entirely. Guy goes out into the woods and learns to life off the land through resourcefuleness and adaptability, guy gets favored terrain forest... not at all the opposite.

Resourcefulness and adaptivity mean he can also figure out how to live in mountains, swamps, and plains. He can adapt. I'm saying that, if anything, ranger class features should emphasize getting the most out of every situation, rather than excelling in specific situations.

I don't find that to be true. The concept of the ranger, boiled down, is that they are watchers (meaning guard, not monitor) of the wilderness. That heavily implies that they have their post (bit of land) and they keep to it - like how a city guard patrols the city, rather than every city in a nation - so they become intimately familiar with the terrain of their post, not every single bit of wilderness possible on this or any world.

That is an awfully constrained concept. No other class makes that kind of assumption about the character. It's especially bizarre for the one class which dictates "your character is not widely traveled" to be the ranger.

I'd argue that outside of D&D novels there are no D&D rangers in fiction, not even the sources of inspiration from which the ranger class draws. And that trying to make D&D beholden to any and every bit of fiction out in the world is ridiculous.

No, what's ridiculous is embracing this alienation from the sources of the class' inspiration rather than taking it as a sign that something has gone amiss. Why on earth is it a good thing that the D&D ranger is this weird and unique creature, rather than an embodiment of a classic fantasy character archetype? Why would it be a bad thing if newcomers to the game who like Aragorn could actually play their Aragorn-esque character as a ranger?

Hell, not even the D&D rangers in fiction line up particularly well with the argument that favored enemy and terrain are essential to the class. Make a list of Drizz't's distinctive abilities that make him appealing as an adventure hero. I doubt "favored enemy: goblins" is going to make the cut. I for one didn't even know it was canonically goblins until I looked it up.

It's a ribbon that fits the flavor of the ranger class because of prior game versions. No other class has a legacy to suggest the ribbon fits.

Ah. There it is. "The ranger should be this way because the ranger has always been this way."

No. The ranger should not have been this way in prior game versions, either. Because all the arguments I'm presenting now would have been just as applicable back then. The legacy argument does not work. It is fundamentally circular.

Because spending a feat on a ribbon is an awful thing to present as an option, which is the same reason all feats that provide ribbons that are actually in the game also give an ability score boost if not multiple ribbons.

Come on, dude. Did you consider the possibility that it could be modified to be appropriate as a feat, such as by adding an ability score boost or even the actual combat bonuses that a lot of grognards have been asking for? We're talking about favored enemy on the conceptual level, not the 5E ability verbatim.

Oh, and because making a core feature (albeit a ribbon of one) of a class into a feat and thus requiring optional rules to be used in order to get it is bad design.

Circular argument again. I am asking why it should be a core feature of the ranger.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Okay, let's roll with that. Spell selection is still opt-in specialization.

As is having the ranger class, but now I'm just repeating myself.

It's a lot more flexibility than a ranger gets.

I disagree.

A ranger can't choose diversity over specialization

The ranger class might not be able to, but a "ranger" can.

or change his specialization entirely every day.

Neither can a wizard outside of a white room.

So you would have no objection to the 6E rogue class coming out with a weird and un-rogue-like class feature, because "rogue" characters for whom that class feature doesn't fit can just be built as fighters instead?

Nice loaded question.

...or you can just play a fighter.

You are the one that proposed the hypothetical situation in which I want to play a fighter character but the fighter mechanics are getting in my way so you suggest I play a cleric.

Resourcefulness and adaptivity mean he can also figure out how to live in mountains, swamps, and plains. He can adapt.

Yeah, gain some more levels and get a new favored terrain.

I'm saying that, if anything, ranger class features should emphasize getting the most out of every situation, rather than excelling in specific situations.

No, a character should not intentionally be built so that it is always perfectly ready for every possible situation - you are asking that the ranger get the exact thing that people accused spellcasters of having (thought they don't, outside of white-room theory) and insisted the game was broken because of.

That is an awfully constrained concept. No other class makes that kind of assumption about the character. It's especially bizarre for the one class which dictates "your character is not widely traveled" to be the ranger.

That's what happens when the class originates from the comparatively narrow concepts that ranger does.

Why on earth is it a good thing that the D&D ranger is this weird and unique creature, rather than an embodiment of a classic fantasy character archetype?

It's good that it isn't an embodiment of the one specific fantasy character that a particular person thinks is the archetype. It's also good that the characters that people think are the archetypical representation and so wildly varied that each and every one has some hits and some misses when compared to the D&D ranger (like how Robin hood lives in the wood, uses stealth rather than brute force, but has no other traits of the ranger class).

Why would it be a bad thing if newcomers to the game who like Aragorn could actually play their Aragorn-esque character as a ranger?

Who said it would be bad? Why can't these newcomers go right ahead and play an Aragorn-esque ranger as is? I see nothing stopping them.

Hell, not even the D&D rangers in fiction line up particularly well with the argument that favored enemy and terrain are essential to the class. Make a list of Drizz't's distinctive abilities that make him appealing as an adventure hero. I doubt "favored enemy: goblins" is going to make the cut. I for one didn't even know it was canonically goblins until I looked it up.

That's on the author, not the D&D game.

Ah. There it is. "The ranger should be this way because the ranger has always been this way."

Um... what? No. I, in fact, count favored enemy and favored terrain being ribbons as being a change from the way that a ranger has always been, and a good one, because core features of the class' balance shouldn't be so fickle as that.

No. The ranger should not have been this way in prior game versions, either. Because all the arguments I'm presenting now would have been just as applicable back then. The legacy argument does not work. It is fundamentally circular.

No, it isn't circular to say "that was included for basically no reason but so that people hoping to find it because like some prior edition version of this class found it, rather than an excuse to claim WotC is trying to ruin the game by entirely taking away the feature they thought was cool."

Come on, dude. Did you consider the possibility that it could be modified to be appropriate as a feat, such as by adding an ability score boost or even the actual combat bonuses that a lot of grognards have been asking for? We're talking about favored enemy on the conceptual level, not the 5E ability verbatim.

I could have assumed things you hadn't stated, which you apparently expected that I do, but... you know what they say about assumption?

I don't assume. Not if I don't absolutely have to.

Circular argument again. I am asking why it should be a core feature of the ranger.

Because without those core features, why is it a separate class in the first place? (which, to be honest, I really don't think ranger should be given how limited its concept coverage is compared to other classes)

 

[AtomicPope]

not really.

Fighters extra action, extra crit range, extra-extra attacks, extra feats, save rerolls, second wind, etc. works against everything and everywhere. For example.

Especially during a diplomatic roleplaying encounter.

 

[Mephista]

While I'm not a fan of some statements made in here, trying to say that the Ranger class is perfect for every game if you ask the DM before hand is silly. If someone wanted to play a Ranger in my game, and asked me, my answer would be "I don't know." Hells, my homebrew setting is an island with a mix of open plains, mountains, forests, volcanoes, swamp, a frozen wasteland, plus a Underdark expy. There's a very good chance we'll hit all of them. What Favored Enemies? I don't know, there's a good chance of anything. Its a fantasy kitchen sink on this small island.

For me, the issue is easily solved by a collection of house rules. The simple fact that we need to house rule the Ranger to make it work is a flaw, however. Core books should be written with an eye to make them widely applicable to as many style games as possible. The Ranger fails this test. So, yes, I think that the Ranger is problematic.