D&D 5E The Future of the Ranger

[Thurmas]

Not sure we're still on track...

Isn't the point of contention for this thread (timetable speculation aside) whether the Ranger can be "fixed" without throwing the PHB chassi to the wayside?

I don't think it can, or indeed that it is useful to sacrifice anything significant to retain PHB compatability.

But others clearly do. I don't understand how, however.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

I don't believe it can either. I think some of the features from the class provide a good framework and guide for needed 5E features, but where they fall in the class and how they are implemented fall short. When I made my version of the class, a work still in progress, I changed and/or moved the level gain of nearly every class feature of note. I think the only reason to try to do so is to keep continuity with the PHB, but I think that is a disservice to the class.

 

[Remathilis]

Not sure we're still on track...

Isn't the point of contention for this thread (timetable speculation aside) whether the Ranger can be "fixed" without throwing the PHB chassi to the wayside?

I don't think it can, or indeed that it is useful to sacrifice anything significant to retain PHB compatability.

But others clearly do. I don't understand how, however.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Depends on how you define fixed.

The 2nd UA ranger doesn't change the ranger table significantly. What it mostly did was broaden the uses of thier abilities, gave combat uses to the otherwise ribbon favored enemy and terrain, and move extra attack to the subclass. Those changes can still be doing via "alternative class features" and some clever work arounds. The chassis are pretty much the same, unlike the 1st UA Spirit-based ranger.

 

[Xeviat]

It is just amazing how military and police dogs will keep doing what they are trained to do once given that first command, until they are commanded again to stop. These rules would require that police officer or soldier every six seconds to tell the dog to attack and not get to do anything themselves to the criminal/enemy. Use common sense, people, and apply real world function to this. Ranger tells his pet to attack or guard or whatever it is trained to do and it will keep doing that until it is commanded to stop or is no longer capable of doing the task.

The problem is that there is limited space in the Ranger to fit in the extra damage from a pet. The most it can do, based on the Hunter's design, is between an extra 1d8 or an extra entire attack. That's without the added benefits of having an additional unit on the field to take up space and potentially take a few hits. The ranger's subclass doesn't have much oomph at 3rd level, unless you're okay with the pet's attack being far less than the 2d4+2 of a wolf, or more.

A familiar has it's own actions, but it cannot attack. Yet, it can help, which could be described as it attacking. I was saying that the ranger could take the attack action and give up an attack for the pet to take an attack with its action. Considering some of the pets have attacks that are more effective than a single ranger weapon attack (situationally or not, I'm looking at you giant poisonous snake), this could be made to be a viable choice.

I'm not saying the PHB beast master's pet is great. Clearly a lot of people don't like that it doesn't have independent actions. But if you don't want it to overshadow the other ranger builds, it does need to be balanced in line with them.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

The problem is that there is limited space in the Ranger to fit in the extra damage from a pet.

If only there weren't all that space in the core class taken up by spellcasting.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm not saying the PHB beast master's pet is great. Clearly a lot of people don't like that it doesn't have independent actions. But if you don't want it to overshadow the other ranger builds, it does need to be balanced in line with them.

Clearly the solution is to abandon this balance goal. As you say, the mere presence of another warm body on the battlefield is itself such a boon that the pet cannot be allowed to actually do much, if balance is to be retained.

But having a Beastmaster in the party means you share the spotlight with two, not one, creatures.

The solution therefore is to add one of those sidebars, where the subclass is explicitly said to require DM approval and the consent of the rest of the party.

(Then you can keep the crippled, hobbling Beastmaster of the PHB for those cases where balance must be upheld, such as AL play perhaps. By this I mostly mean there's no reason to actually deprecate the PHB class and subclass)


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Li Shenron]

The trouble, as I see it, is that unless the PHB pet is commanded by the ranger, it sits around like an idiot without defending itself, running away, or doing much of anything at all. Surely, if combat broke out, a trained attack wolf would do something (attacking, running away, etc.) without needing to be told.

That's because the pet works more like a mere extra weapon in the Ranger's hand. The weapon would not attack on its own, would it?

That said, it's not technically really sitting around. Without a cost to the Ranger's actions, it's moving around the battlefield working as a meat shield, providing flanking (and possibly cover), and making opportunity attacks.

My point being, its still another body that soaks up damage. Every attack and hit point taken against your beast is an attack and hit points not taken from you or another party member. Same with every attack against you is an attack not against your beast or another party member. You effectively have an entire extra party member to spread attacks around and soak up damage. Having a beast is extremely powerful for more then just a single attack it can do.

Exactly, although I wouldn't call it "extremely" powerful

Use common sense, people, and apply real world function to this.

No, it's not possible. The BeastMaster was not designed around common sense, it was designed for a specific subset of D&D players who wanted a pet-based option, and insisted for it to be baked into the mechanics. Sadly, this required a gamist design, because such character option could not result in a PC more powerful than others (which is really the case if it works as an NPC).

As a consequence, the 'pet' works essentially as an extension of the character. As such, it cannot follow the same free narrative as a generic trained animal which is practically an NPC. In many ways, the 'pet' is worse than an animal NPC.

But it is not fair to compare the two, and then complain that everybody else can buy & train a wolf and have it work better, while the Ranger is stuck with an inferior pet... the Ranger isn't stuck, and can also buy & train a wolf just like everybody else does. The advantage of the Beastmaster is that the 'pet' is guaranteed to work as described, not subject to the DM's whims, not cost money or time, and not require roleplay. It is even easy to replace. If the DM requires a roleplay cost or training time, she's making the mistake of treating the pet as an NPC and thus making the player pay twice for it.

In other words, if you want a real animal companion like Driz'zt panther Gwenhyvar, you should ask your DM for an animal NPC, not a beastmaster's pet, and then be prepared to pay for it by taking care of it, feeding it, training it, and protecting it as if it was another PC.

But that's not what the Beastmaster does... what he does is basically provide an expendable party addition at no cost for use in exploration and as a meat shield in combat. If it helps, consider thinking about an evil-aligned beastmaster character rather than a good-aligned one.

 

[Mephista]

Not sure we're still on track...

Isn't the point of contention for this thread (timetable speculation aside) whether the Ranger can be "fixed" without throwing the PHB chassi to the wayside?

I don't think it can, or indeed that it is useful to sacrifice anything significant to retain PHB compatability.

But others clearly do. I don't understand how, however.

Well, lets look at the revised ranger, shall we?

Hunter subclass hasn't really changed. All the subclasses seem to be at the same level as the phb ranger. The only change is the addition of the level five Conclave feaure that, so far, is pretty much Extra Attack for everyone but Beastmaster, and even then? Its an extra attack for the beast, easily reproducible by the level 3 beastmaster feature. So, any and all ranger subclasses still work, no matter what version of the game we're talking about.

The core Ranger features have the same names and levels as the Revised Ranger's. The only difference is that the Revised Ranger's features have massive upgrades in power and utility. Well, no, I was wrong, there are a few differences. Land's Stride and Fleet of Foot are different, but that's still same level, easily tweaked. You lose Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer "improvement" levels, but its easy to fix by making the Revised version of those abilities scale with new abilities at those levels instead of all at once. Favored Enemy can boost damage and new types at improved levels, and natural explorer can basically split up the three combat abilities so you pick one at 3, 6 and 10, you pick the ability each time.

So, basically, all we need to do is release a pdf of these new features, and say "Hey, here's new versions of the old abilities. Choose which version to use when you gain the ability in Ranger." Almost invariably, we'll end up using the Revised version, since its a pretty clear upgrade. But that's a possibility of how it can be done.

In short, just release a document with the new versions of Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer, Primeval Awareness, Land's Stride and Hide in Plain Sight, and then the new Beastmaster subclass. And done.

Its basically an errata, but you can choose to use the fixed version or not, so its not technically an errata.

 

[Mephista]

The problem is that there is limited space in the Ranger to fit in the extra damage from a pet. The most it can do, based on the Hunter's design, is between an extra 1d8 or an extra entire attack. That's without the added benefits of having an additional unit on the field to take up space and potentially take a few hits. The ranger's subclass doesn't have much oomph at 3rd level, unless you're okay with the pet's attack being far less than the 2d4+2 of a wolf, or more.

Not quite true. There's a slight issue that, since the pet doesn't benefit from Hunter's Mark, the increase of damage is actually higher than the extra 1d8. There's also the opportunity loss of feats - a hunter using something like SS/CBM is more effective than a beastmaster with them. Fighting Styles and Favored Enemy (assuming revised) are also less effective on a Beastmaster than on a Hunter or Stalker.

Things look simple, but they're actually quite a bit more complicated than at first glance.

That's because the pet works more like a mere extra weapon in the Ranger's hand. The weapon would not attack on its own, would it?

Is that not the heart of the reason why so many people dislike the ranger pet? More than mechanics, you need to have the right FEEL to the subclass above all else. If you don't? Then you have a massive backlash. Isn't that why we had all these major playtests to get the feel of the game right to start with?

People don't want the image or feeling of duel-wielding a rapier and panther. It feels stunted and janky, and its unpopular.

No, it's not possible. The BeastMaster was not designed around common sense, it was designed for a specific subset of D&D players who wanted a pet-based option, and insisted for it to be baked into the mechanics. Sadly, this required a gamist design, because such character option could not result in a PC more powerful than others (which is really the case if it works as an NPC).

That's a bunch of BS. I'm sorry. Conjure X spells work fine. Undead minions work fine. Familiars work fine.

The fact that only the ranger pet is acting different is the strange thing here. Out of all the different pets one can have, the Ranger is the one that has different mechanics. Maybe if all the pets acted the same, that'd be one thing. But Ranger is the clear deviant here.

 

[CapnZapp]

words

Lots of words, in fact.

But it all reads as if you are unaware you're listing the exact reasons why people hate the PHB Beastmaster.



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[BookBarbarian]

Well, to be honest, most of the time the rogue never gets to use thieves cant either.

You can always change thieves cant to scout signals

Sure.

I can also re-fluff Ranger spells to not be spells.

I can also just keep Playing the UA Scout Fighter.

So there are a couple of ways I can player the "Ranger" I want.