[MENTION=6801228]Chaosmancer[/MENTION] just because WotC doesn’t want to take the disruptive step of putting out a revision to a class doesn’t mean they can’t look at other ways to increase satisfaction levels for different play styles. Feats, fighting styles, and spells all offer ways to give players more choice without the confusion of multiple versions of the class.
It will be tough having to give up a spell or a feat or a fighting style, but you can choose to do it or not. Either it’s worth the opportunity cost to you or not. Why is that a bad approach?
I'm not sure how disruptive a rewrite would be, after all, I don't think it has been disruptive for the UA to exist, nor the numerous homebrew ranger options.
Sure, getting an "official" new class would be different in tone, but I don't think it would necessarily be terribly disruptive.
As for why some of those options are bad, Fighting Styles are too early and aren't designed to handle that much mechanical wieght. Spells are already a precious resource and highly limited for low level rangers especially (the most important levels since the majority of people will play them). Feats are optional rules, but they are the best candidates for this. However, it would by necessity be a Beastmaster exclusive feat to be robust enough to alter the class. We only just recently got racial feats and I don't think we are seeing Class feats coming down the pipe and if we did they would still be broader than a subclass feat which is what this would end up being if it was to be useful enough.
And then, depending on what changes you make exactly, it is going to be a feat, costing resources, that essentially errata's the rules for the Beastmaster, which would immediately raise the question of why not just alter the class publicly instead of trying to do it sneakily and costing us resources.
I didn't say the Beastmaster Ranger is fine (though I do think the other subclasses are fine for the Ranger). I've said throughout the thread I think it could use some additional elements, but that I think they could be done without an alternative class or errata, but simply by publishing some additional options for the existing class. Like those I mentioned.
Guess I just feel like if you are going to change it, change it. Don't see a whole lot of point in "only kind of changing it".
The actual proposal I wrote (which I thought you read, as this was a summary of an earlier discussion in this thread) involved just aiding any allied creature of the beast sub-type. This would help with befriended animals found using the skill, or animals found using a variety of spells, or other animals in the party like a familiar. So even if you choose this fighting style and decide later to not choose beastmaster, it still has interesting utility.
Very few spells actually get beasts, remember most of the conjuring spells bring forth Fey Spirits that simply look like beasts. This would be a hard-line reading of RAW but it is important, same with familiars in most cases.
So really, it is a fighting style that assists you if you are the type to allow random wild animals to follow and fight for the party, or if you have a Beastmaster Ranger. I don't know about your table obviously, but at mine most wild animals don't end up getting befriended by the party and fighting alongside them.
The class does need assistance for those who do not view the beast as either mostly non-combat, or more disposable. I think you've mistaken my position for someone else's position.
It's not a stealth re-write. It's additional options to help those who want to play a beast master with a more aggressive beast, or a less disposable beast. You don't have to take these additional options at all, and a lot of people won't because they don't play the beastmaster that way (likely either keeping the beast out of combat most of the time, or treating the beast as more disposable and replaceable).
I'm wondering about WoTC's position. They are the people who would publish it after all. Their position seems to be that everything is fine with the Ranger, in which case why would they publish spells and feats designed specifically to fix the Beastmaster?
And, since the spells and feats would likely make the Beast more powerful and therefore better suited to combats it is already going to get involved in (remember, Vex was only able to keep Trinket fully out of combat due to a unique magic item) even people who don't want the companions in combat are going to want them, as a precaution. At least, that is my perspective on it.
Funny, I don't hear that complaint about the Champion fighter which is doing the same thing. As this edition has brought in a huge number of new players who have never played the game before, it's the new mainstream. It's what I was arguing before much earlier in this thread - I think a lot of newer players are more comfortable replacing the beast often, or keeping the beast mostly out of combat.
Um.... that is because the Champion fighter doesn't have a mechanic for hiring henchmen?
I'm kind of confused what you think I was talking about if you think the Champion Fighter needs to get involved.As I understand there was a large tradition of torch-bearers, men-at-arms, and other low level henchman types getting hired by players in 1e or 2e and sometimes even used as minesweepers for dungeon traps. Hence why I was comparing the disposable beast with that style of play. Champion Fighter has absolutely zero mechanical support for that.