Ranger Beast Master: errata will add new features to your animal companion!

[doctorbadwolf]

Exactly - and bleedingly obviously so.

Thank you Saelorn.

The argument only makes sense if it’s likely (not possible, but likely) that all characters will have no chance to succeed on the save. Otherwise, it should be as it is.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I thought the UA Ranger needed a lot more work to balance the class more. The problem for the ranger is more that the paladin is too strong rather than the ranger is too weak, issues with beast companions notwithstanding.

Holy cow! Some awesome person already done way better than a summary (and has done them for the other Happy Fun Hours as well if you are interested). Here's the alternate ranger class feature text:

https://thinkdm.wordpress.com/hfh/revised-ranger-2018/

It does lack Mike explaining his thinking. So I do still recommend listening to the VOD. Which can be found at:

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/338523993


(Another post edit): The other reason to listen to the cast is that the text is in extreme draft form. It's just a rough idea of where he might go. In fact, one of the alternate class features is a direct copy and past from a fighter subclass he worked on awhile back.

It wouldn't be worthwhile to try to figure out the balance of this stuff. He's just getting ideas down.

AD

I’m fine with using spell slots to boost the companion. I’m not ok with choosing between it and spells.

 

[CapnZapp]

The argument only makes sense if it’s likely (not possible, but likely) that all characters will have no chance to succeed on the save. Otherwise, it should be as it is.

No, asking a player to roll 23 on a twenty-sided die is never as it should be, even if I'm the only one out of a hundred. It is bad inelegant design, and it could easily have been averted by simply saying your saves are never worse than your proficiency bonus.

The fact this gives you a 3-in-20 shot at making Graz'zt's saves changes very little from a game balance perspective.

But it does a world of difference aesthetically.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

So is the issue basically that there isn't a side bar formally giving DMs the option to allow saves on a natural 20? Not really needed but I can see how some in organised play might like it.

I actually went to the Player's Handbook after reading this thread, and only then I realized that you don't automatically make a save on a natural 20. Not that my players have been saving against DC 21 anyway, but we've been considering 1 as an auto-fail and 20 as an auto-success in saving throws since we started playing 5e, and we'll just continue to do that.

 

[Asgorath]

I actually went to the Player's Handbook after reading this thread, and only then I realized that you don't automatically make a save on a natural 20. Not that my players have been saving against DC 21 anyway, but we've been considering 1 as an auto-fail and 20 as an auto-success in saving throws since we started playing 5e, and we'll just continue to do that.

Yeah, RAW has crit success and failure for attack rolls only, it doesn't apply to saving throws or ability checks. It's one of the rules I see people get wrong very regularly.

 

[dco]

I was told the ranger was unbalanced, later I was told they were alright and the lack of balance was a myth and now they are going to release an errata. Funny.

 

[5ekyu]

Yeah, RAW has crit success and failure for attack rolls only, it doesn't apply to saving throws or ability checks. It's one of the rules I see people get wrong very regularly.

Its a rule that i see people "discussing knowing wrong" frequently but very rarely have i seen it occur in play.

I mean it actually has to be a case of three rare cases - a 1 would be successful, a roll was called for anyway and a 1 was rolled (or the opposite) - and truth be told that trio of "rares" all popping up,like trip-bazingas at the casino slots just is not that common at my tables.

 

[5ekyu]

I was told the ranger was unbalanced, later I was told they were alright and the lack of balance was a myth and now they are going to release an errata. Funny.

Almost like balance is a subjective judgement... Odd.

 

[OB1]

I was told the ranger was unbalanced, later I was told they were alright and the lack of balance was a myth and now they are going to release an errata. Funny.

Balance in 5e isn’t on a tightrope, it’s on a meter wide suspension bridge. There is plenty of room to adjust without falling off.
This change wasn’t necessary for balance, but it does move the class closer to the middle of the bridge without changing the intended flavor of the class.

 

[Azzy]

See also full 9 level spellcasters...

"Because the other kids are doing it" isn't a winning argument.