Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 9267845" data-attributes="member: 6704184">No those features literally aren’t good. Like they’re ribbons most of the time, and they would be in an old school game where goblins and forests aren’t the whole campaign, too. They’re bad features because they are vastly too situational to be the primary features of a class (which the two level 1 features of a class should be). It’s not some historical vestige, it’s a design mistake. They weren’t trying to make a feature for written-on-stone-tablets-in-pictographs D&D, they were writing a feature for modern D&D, and screwed up. Literally all that is required to make them work is to either: broaden them dramatically while providing universal benefits as well, like the older UA Revised Rangerreplace them with lightly themed mechanics that are broadly useful in most environments (tundra = cord resistence and some benefit to con saves, forest = ignore difficult terrain and gain climb speed, etc)Replace them with expertise and something like 4e’s rangers quarryReplace them with bonus spells or similar features that they can pick several of that work against common traits and tactics irrespective of any monster type and wilderness knacks that target certain types of hazards irrespective of a terrain typeSome combination of the aboveAny discussion of old school D&D is not required for any of this.</blockquote>