D&D 5E Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour, Nov 27 2018

Jefe Bergenstein · Dec 7, 2018

Parmandur said:
Sure, they are absolutely comparable in mathematical terms: the Ranger Beast is better than the Paladin Mount in every way, except that it can come back. But the Ranger pet is replaceable, and probably should be retrievable on an individual level: easy enough for a DM to supply, and the mega-Beastie seems to have that built-in.

What? No it isnt. You want to tout the ranger's companion for exploration, for some reason. A basic animal vs a telepathic, independently acting creature that understands common. The only thing the ranger's is really better at is having more HP. It's attack bonus doesn't matter much, because it's a zero sum game in giving your action to the stupid beast.

And again, one pile of garbage is your entire subclass feature on an already bad chassis. The other is gravy on on a great class.

But hey, lets wring our hands about just letting the crappy wolf bite someone on it's own.

Parmandur · Dec 7, 2018

ehren37 said:
What? No it isnt. You want to tout the ranger's companion for exploration, for some reason. A basic animal vs a telepathic, independently acting creature that understands common. The only thing the ranger's is really better at is having more HP. It's attack bonus doesn't matter much, because it's a zero sum game in giving your action to the stupid beast.

And again, one pile of garbage is your entire subclass feature on an already bad chassis. The other is gravy on on a great class.

But hey, lets wring our hands about just letting the crappy wolf bite someone on it's own.

It's not hand-wringing, it's math. The wolf has a much better attack than a warhorse, and the HP is not a small bonus: that's the core of the game, damage given and taken.

It was an ill-conceived subclass, I think, flavor wise: something weaker like the mount spell, or beefier like the emerging new summon rules, is far better. The beastmaster works fine, but doesn't do what people want it to do (be a WoW Hunter beast, really). And yes, the exploration portion is not insignificant.

doctorbadwolf · Dec 7, 2018

ehren37 said:
The point being, it's automatically handed out to paladins, regardless of subclass. The mount is intelligent, acts independently, can communicate telepathically within a mile, and shares spells (which the sorry BM has to wait until level 15 to do!). I think it sums up nicely how terribly the BM was designed.

And a whole subclass should definately be better than a spell.

In fact, if we use the DMG andMearl's translating spells into class features guidelines, the entire BM subclass is less than the extra spells feature of the Xanathar's subclasses.

It would be easy to put in an alternate feature at level 3 for BMs that give them a bumped up Find Familiar (and ability to cast it as a ritual), that gets better at the levels where you would get extra spells if the subclass had that feature. This would be a more magical BM, which some players specifically want, would immediately solve the durability issues since it takes either an action or ten minutes as a ritual to bring it back, and would deliver on the exploration pet.

The current BM can't even get info from his supposedly exploration focused class feature, without burning spell slots.

doctorbadwolf · Dec 7, 2018

SkidAce said:
Re: above,

Quick beasty companion idea, when it would die, it may stay alive with exhaustion instead. Maybe multiple levels if multiple death saves or medicine saves are failed.

That way you never "lose" it, "don't worry PandaBear, I'll save you (medicine check).

It only means you may need to care/roleplay/"run to the woods, PandaBear", it until you can heal it up.

But as long as you live it lives.

Just a thought that came to me.

That could certainly work. I think I may develop my idea for a "Fey Beast Tamer" subclass for bards and just make it an alternater Ranger BM, honestly.

ehren37 said:
What? No it isnt. You want to tout the ranger's companion for exploration, for some reason. A basic animal vs a telepathic, independently acting creature that understands common. The only thing the ranger's is really better at is having more HP. It's attack bonus doesn't matter much, because it's a zero sum game in giving your action to the stupid beast.

And again, one pile of garbage is your entire subclass feature on an already bad chassis. The other is gravy on on a great class.

But hey, lets wring our hands about just letting the crappy wolf bite someone on it's own.

Apparently they replied to me and then blocked me, so that's...weird.

Anyway, I agree that they aren't comparable in any meaningful way. Counting the BM's HP as healing for calculating power isn't actually something that works out. The lower the HP, the fewer rounds you can assume it will be in the fight. If it gets hit and is almost dead,most players won't keep it in melee. If it gets hit and goes down, the player doesn't have a subclass until they can get a new pet, and they are stuck with what is in the area.

Mearls has said before that his preference is to take anything that is basically a spell and make it a spell. So do that here, and make the companion a spell that all rangers and druids have, but that BM rangers get significant bonuses to.

Azzy · Dec 7, 2018

doctorbadwolf said:
Mearls has said before that his preference is to take anything that is basically a spell and make it a spell. So do that here, and make the companion a spell that all rangers and druids have, but that BM rangers get significant bonuses to.

That would probablyu be the best bet. Maybe reinvent the "Animal Friendship" spell from 1e/2e.

Parmandur · Dec 7, 2018

Azzy said:
That would probablyu be the best bet. Maybe reinvent the "Animal Friendship" spell from 1e/2e.

It would be easier to see the comparability with the Mount, but that would end up with a less potent and even more disposable companion than the Beastmaster currently gets, albeit with their own turn and more easily retrievable.

As it is, the Beastmaster already gets something significantly better than the Mount, but not as satisfactory for certain playstyles that the idea of a "beast master" specifically evokes to people familiar with Fantasy video games and media.

I'm pretty excited by this Ranger variant, giving a supremely robust beast companion, hitting that Hunter vibe (still limited to Medium, though). I could see these principles working for a Summoner base Class interestingly.

doctorbadwolf · Dec 7, 2018

SkidAce said:
Re: above,

Quick beasty companion idea, when it would die, it may stay alive with exhaustion instead. Maybe multiple levels if multiple death saves or medicine saves are failed.

That way you never "lose" it, "don't worry PandaBear, I'll save you (medicine check).

It only means you may need to care/roleplay/"run to the woods, PandaBear", it until you can heal it up.

But as long as you live it lives.

Just a thought that came to me.

Azzy said:
That would probablyu be the best bet. Maybe reinvent the "Animal Friendship" spell from 1e/2e.

I think 3/.5e had a similar spell set for summoning a single creature at a time, right?

Definitely a lot of precedent to choose from.

The other way to go is to simply change the HP scaling to use HD with a bonus from proficiency, and either give it a turn, or give it an attack on the ranger's turn without using the Ranger's actions.

The bottom line is, the BM is presented as a combat ally and exploration buddy, and delivers on neither. The PHB Ranger would be better off with the Find Familiar spell and literally any other subclass.

I may do some playtesting of just literally using Find Steed with the addendum that it needn't be a mount, and that it loses multi-attack. I'll look at the spells power byDMG chart relative to the extra spell feature that other subclasses get, to see how the pet can improve with levels.

But, the Revised Ranger version of the BM isn't overpowered. IT's in line with other Ranger sub-classes.

My other DM thinks that the Ranger will be in line with other classes if we simply add the happy fun hour alternate natural explorer and favored enemy features,and the 1/SR free use of Primeval Awareness, rather than replacing anything.

For now, the RR BM in our group isn't overshadowing anyone, so it's not a big deal.

Azzy · Dec 7, 2018

Parmandur said:
It would be easier to see the comparability with the Mount, but that would end up with a less potent and even more disposable companion than the Beastmaster currently gets, albeit with their own turn and more easily retrievable.

Going with what the docyor is suggesting is a Beastmaster subclass that actively augments the capability of such a spell.

Parmandur · Dec 7, 2018

Azzy said:
Going with what the docyor is suggesting is a Beastmaster subclass that actively augments the capability of such a spell.

The issue is, that the Beastmaster Ranger already pours all the mathematical subclass value into the Beast as is. In order to get a more powerful Beast, something somewhere has to give in the main Class economy, such as spell slots or combat prowess.

Azzy · Dec 7, 2018

Parmandur said:
The issue is, that the Beastmaster Ranger already pours all the mathematical subclass value into the Beast as is. In order to get a more powerful Beast, something somewhere has to give in the main Class economy, such as spell slots or combat prowess.

And yet, the paladin can summon a steed and still have a subclass that does other things. Perhaps the beastmaster as it is is just a weak subclass especially when comparing it and the ranger base class with the paladin and any of its subclasses. :/

D&D 5E Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour, Nov 27 2018

Jefe Bergenstein

Legend

Parmandur

Book-Friend

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ

Parmandur

Book-Friend

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ

Parmandur

Book-Friend

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ

Similar Threads