D&D (2024) The Lackluster Ranger

[James Gasik]

That might be technically true if we interpret the lack of a direct reference to it exempting creatures with such speeds, but I think it's fair to say about 90% of tables do generally run it that way, including, I strongly suspect, the tables of the D&D designers.

I think that you could call for such a roll but it'd be in extremely exceptional circumstances, just like you might call for an athletics or acrobatics check in exceptionally high winds for a flyer, but would probably have a lower threshold for asking for rolls from someone in a hang-glider. Like, someone trying to swim with no swim speed in normal rapids would probably be asked for an Athletics check by most DMs, but I really think few DMs would call for the same for a being with a swim speed. And I suspect different DCs would be offered to someone with no swim speed trying to swim in 10ft waves in an ocean storm and someone with a 30ft swim speed in the same.

I'll concede the point, but it becomes very difficult to judge the merits of a feature that grants a different benefit based on house rules, no matter how common they might be. That's like saying "hey, I'm sure a lot of tables don't track encumbrance, so that makes Powerful Build a useless ability".

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'll concede the point, but it becomes very difficult to judge the merits of a feature that grants a different benefit based on house rules, no matter how common they might be. That's like saying "hey, I'm sure a lot of tables don't track encumbrance, so that makes Powerful Build a useless ability".

I think at a certain point you do probably have to factor in something being widely regarded as "how it works". And we are at that point with Climb/Swim speeds. Especially as we as DMs would have to make a lot of monsters make Athletics checks to climb and swim (and sometimes fly) that we generally do not - in fact, I can say in 5E I have never made a monster make any of those checks if they had the appropriate speed - even though I definitely would have made a PC doing the same w/o a climb/swim speed make the check. I mean have you?

Spiders and Vampires are specifically exempted in 5E I note though, but I think that is more to do with ceilings (whereas we'd probably just never say a monster with climb speed was going across a ceiling unless they were a spider/vamp).

So I do think here we do have to assess it as the vast number of people play it. I doubt many DMs or groups would be happy with some Rogue with no swim speed outperforming a Triton simply because he had Athletics and the Triton didn't and both had to make the same Athletics DC.

Re: Powerful Build, not using Encumbrance definitely makes it less useful, and I think always would be worth mentioning in any discussion of its value. But again we have a slightly odd situation where in practice, an awful lot of groups do a thing where they don't track encumbrance routinely, but when people are trying to pull/lift really heavy stuff (boulders, bodies of heavy monsters, solid gold reclining couches you found in the villain's chillout room, etc.), they do often consult the maximums, which are influenced by Powerful Build. I think that's probably the normative mode of play at this point.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Granting the class expertise is not the right thing IMO. Everyone has expertise, then what makes the Rogue special?

Again, giving the toys of one or two classes (Bards should not have it, either IMO!) is a big no-no and poor design.

i'm really going to have to disagree here, i think enforcing mutually exclusive ownership amd useage rights to certain features is the bane of achieving competent and effective martials (i consider ranger as honourary martial), they don't all need access to all the things but having access to a shared pool of mechanics which they get in different combinations to raise their baseline competencies, making them exclusive only prevents martials from being properly well rounded.

 

[ezo]

i'm really going to have to disagree here, i think enforcing mutually exclusive ownership amd useage rights to certain features is the bane of achieving competent and effective martials (i consider ranger as honourary martial), they don't all need access to all the things but having access to a shared pool of mechanics which they get in different combinations to raise their baseline competencies, making them exclusive only prevents martials from being properly well rounded.

Giving Rangers and other classes Expertise is a simple but sloppy solution IMO which devalues the feature.

There are other avenues to achieving this besides expertise:

• advantage (which is not easy to get on skill checks for an individual short of magic)
• flat bonus (but 5E avoids these like the plague...)
• variable bonus (a die roll instead of a flat bonus is more "5E")
• double ability modifier (not proficiency, something I always liked for Prodigy instead of double proficiency)
• allow rerolls (instead of advantage, like proficiency uses per long rest--popular with 5E)
• and probably others if I thought more about it.

For example, granting Rangers advantage to all ability checks in a favored terrain would help with exploration, stealth, "lore" checks, combat via Initiative and for surprise via Perception, etc. It wouldn't rely on "magic", but represent enhanced knowledge and practice and such in those terrains.

 

[Corinnguard]

The Bard, the Ranger and the Rogue are the expert classes in 5e and 5.5e. Why restrict Expertise to just one expert?

 

[ezo]

The Bard, the Ranger and the Rogue are the expert classes in 5e and 5.5e. Why restrict Expertise to just one expert?

The Bard should never have been an Expert class IMO. "Jack of all trades, master of NONE".

Ranger, see my other posts lol.

Rogue, expert but ONLY in Rogue skills. Non-Rogue skills cannot be chosen for Expertise.

That is how I would do it, unpopular as it might be.

 

[Ashrym]

The point was the Scout Rogue steps on the toes of the Ranger, weakening its role and position in the game.

It doesn't because of spells, fighting style, weapon proficiencies and subsequently weapon masteries, favored enemy and related abilities, roving, and tireless.

A scout is a nature themed rogue and not a replacement ranger. It's a spell-less alternative to a ranger as a nature themed choice.

Granting the class expertise is not the right thing IMO. Everyone has expertise

Everyone doesn't have expertise. Bards, rangers, rogues, even wizards, and anyone who spends the feat has expertise. More classes have weapon mastery hat can also be taken as a feat, and used more often as a combat application.

then what makes the Rogue special?

Sneak attack, cunning action, and reliable talent stand out. Plus evasion and uncanny dodge. Maybe free proficiency in thieves' tools.

If you think expertise defines rogues you might want to rethink that.

Again, giving the toys of one or two classes (Bards should not have it, either IMO!) is a big no-no and poor design.

What made expertise a rogue toy instead of a bard toy? It was introduced with both classes at the same time. It was also demonstrated in 2014 rangers under different wording tied to terrain.

All 3 are skill oriented classes.

2014 isn't that great at stealth without magic IME

Compared to whom? They're a DEX/WIS class that came with an extra skill proficiency, had stealth on the class list, and had the bonus with hide in plain sight and the vanish ability. That is better than other classes before magic and they also had magic.

Now they have access to expertise instead of HiPS and are more streamlined.

See the points above. Don't give everyone expertise, magic should not be the equilizer IMO.

Not everyone has expertise, but it is appropriate for the classes who do. Complaining other classes also have expertise is like arguing only fighters should have gotten weapon mastery or extra attack or a d10 hit die or heavy armor.

Your opinion is noted, but it doesn't outweigh anyone else's opinions.

Rogues can easily get Survival via background, so that is not a big deal.

At the cost of a different background and rangers pick up the benefits of a different background too. Rangers are WIS oriented and rogues are not making rangers inherently better.

The other features should help certainly, but with Rogues getting Reliable Talent at 7th level now... And of course with Cunning Action in combat Rogues can still move further than the Ranger??

A rogue doesn't gain a climbing or swimming speed, or shed exhaustion levels with a short rest. A rogue with a 30' move climbing or swimming and using the bonus action moves 30'. A ranger with roving adds +10' movement so moves 40' and still has their bonus action.

Rogues using cunning action have more mobility than most classes, but it's not hard for a ranger to increase further via longstrider and/or jump.

Exhaustion reduces all d20 rolls by 2*exhaustion level. The ability to easily remove that can be very advantageous.

Yep. Non-spellcasting "magical" Rangers are the middle-ground IMO.


To each their own--as seems to be the case with Ranger lol.

Right. This isn't that rangers are bad at what players are asking for. Some players think it's the wrong flavor of how rangers are good at some things.

 

[Corinnguard]

The Bard should never have been an Expert class IMO. "Jack of all trades, master of NONE".

Ranger, see my other posts lol.

Rogue, expert but ONLY in Rogue skills. Non-Rogue skills cannot be chosen for Expertise.

That is how I would do it, unpopular as it might be.

Rangers are Wilderness Survival experts.

"Rogue skills? Excuse me, but I don't see your name on these skills."

 

[Ashrym]

The Bard should never have been an Expert class IMO. "Jack of all trades, master of NONE".

Ranger, see my other posts lol.

Rogue, expert but ONLY in Rogue skills. Non-Rogue skills cannot be chosen for Expertise.

That is how I would do it, unpopular as it might be.

Your solution to the ranger "problem" after arguing rogue scouts step on ranger toes is to take away ranger options?

 

[ezo]

Your solution to the ranger "problem" after arguing rogue scouts step on ranger toes is to take away ranger options?

What "ranger options" am I taking away??

Oh, you mean something I am suggesting to replace with other features that don't take away the what should be uniques aspects of other classes.