D&D 5E If all Rangers had an animal companion ...

[LuisCarlos17f]

It's more about storytelling than gameplay. Lots of players love a monster pet as ally. Sometimes I think about the option of the "demi-PCs", as squires, monster mounts or animal companions. How to avoid the group to become too powerful? Easy, the distribution of the XPs rewards is like an extra PC. And we know WotC would like to publish a module about PCs with their own warbands for skimirshes games.

 

[Marandahir]

I don’t know what a Ranger is. As an archetype, it makes absolutely no sense to me. I say, let’s call the class "Hunter" (a word with much clearer, much richer connotations) and rebuild the whole class from the ground up. Adding an animal companion to that class would make perfect sense.

A Ranger is a person who ranges. That is to say, travels far and wide, an expert survivalist and explorer. The class is literally about the exploration tier of D&D. The reason people say the Ranger sucks is largely because people ignore most of the exploration tier of the game (rations, equipment, encumbrance, sleep hours, night watches, foraging, wilderness exploration challenges, etc).

The class has a partial martialist bend because Rangers are also historic terms for expeditionary military units, often mounted. And they have a partial magical bend because of game ties to the Druid and because Aragorn and Legolas, the two major fantasy inspirations for the class, had subtle abilities related to nature that came into play.

Hunter is just one type of Ranger.

 

[Minigiant]

I don’t know what a Ranger is. As an archetype, it makes absolutely no sense to me. I say, let’s call the class "Hunter" (a word with much clearer, much richer connotations) and rebuild the whole class from the ground up. Adding an animal companion to that class would make perfect sense.

Deadly Hunters
Warriors of the wilderness, rangers specialize in hunting the monsters that threaten the edges of civilization—humanoid raiders, rampaging beasts and monstrosities, terrible giants, and deadly dragons. They learn to track their quarry as a predator does, moving stealthily through the wilds and hiding themselves in brush and rubble. Rangers focus their combat training on techniques that are particularly useful against their specific favored foes.

Thanks to their familiarity with the wilds, rangers acquire the ability to cast spells that harness nature’s power, much as a druid does. Their spells, like their combat abilities, emphasize speed, stealth, and the hunt. A ranger’s talents and abilities are honed with deadly focus on the grim task of protecting the borderlands.

Independent Adventurers
Though a ranger might make a living as a hunter, a guide, or a tracker, a ranger’s true calling is to defend the outskirts of civilization from the ravages of monsters and humanoid hordes that press in from the wild. In some places, rangers gather in secretive orders or join forces with druidic circles. Many rangers, though, are independent almost to a fault, knowing that, when a dragon or a band of orcs attacks, a ranger might be the first—and possibly the last—line of defense.

This fierce independence makes rangers well suited to adventuring, since they are accustomed to life far from the comforts of a dry bed and a hot bath. Faced with city-bred adventurers who grouse and whine about the hardships of the wild, rangers respond with some mixture of amusement, frustration, and compassion. But they quickly learn that other adventurers who can carry their own weight in a fight against civilization’s foes are worth any extra burden. Coddled city folk might not know how to feed themselves or find fresh water in the wild, but they make up for it in other ways.

I think the thing that confuses people is that the Ranger is the only D&D base class that is an occupation by default. By default, being a ranger is a job. You can roleplay it as a lifestyle, path, or calling. But the base assumption is that being a ranger is your occupation. It's like having a blacksmith class.

So the animal companions inclusion is based on whether animal companions are necessary for the job. And for the majority of rangers, it's not.

 

[Richards]

I once played a ranger/rogue in a short campaign made specifically to introduce my nephew to D&D. He ran a barbarian/cleric, we were the only two players, and I was definitely filling the sidekick role while he was the main hero. So, when it came time to get an animal companion, I didn't want anything flashy that would steal any limelight from the main PC hero, so I went with a snail that my PC found on the beach. He did pretty much nothing all campaign but sit perched on my PC's left shoulder, but it was all kinds of fun role-playing with me talking to my snail (even before I was able to cast the speak with animals spell) and pretending that he answered back.

Johnathan

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think the thing that confuses people is that the Ranger is the only D&D base class that is an occupation by default. By default, being a ranger is a job. You can roleplay it as a lifestyle, path, or calling. But the base assumption is that being a ranger is your occupation. It's like having a blacksmith class.

So the animal companions inclusion is based on whether animal companions are necessary for the job. And for the majority of rangers, it's not.

I dunno. Maybe if you wander by yourself in the wilderness for years on end a companion of some sort is, in fact, necessary.

Even if it's just your horse.

 

[Xeviat]

I wish more of the "nos" would speak up as to why. The explanations for why people want the ranger to have a companion are very compelling to me.

If the Ranger were built more as a Druid/Rogue (not getting fighting style and extra attack), their animal companion could be their extra damage feature and extra HP feature. (Saying Second Wind need a buff is odd to me, though, as second wind is better over the course of 2 short rests and 1 long rest than lay on hands until level 8, and even then Second Wind is a bonus action)

A Fighter or Rogue subclass, or multiclassing of the two, works well for a non-magical ranger to me. World of Warcraft's Hunter is a pet class. Pillar's of Eternity's Ranger is a pet class. It really feels like something many people associate with Rangers, and it would give them a strong identity difference.

Now, the Paladin has Find Steed (CR 1/2 Warhorse) and Greater Find Steed (CR 2 pegasis), so a CR 1/4 animal companion 1st level spell seems like it would be just fine. Then the Beast Master could be more of the Darr the Beast Master type thing, with permanent speak with animals and a beefier animal companion. That could be a way to redo things.

 

[Minigiant]

World of Warcraft's Hunter is a pet class. Pillar's of Eternity's Ranger is a pet class. It really feels like something many people associate with Rangers, and it would give them a strong identity difference.

Sounds like a bit of circular thought because those games based their Rangers off the the 3E ranger. So the 5e ranger should have a base feature due to inspirationof games that took inspiration for an edition which first gave ever ranger an companion. And a terrible one at that.

I dunno. Maybe if you wander by yourself in the wilderness for years on end a companion of some sort is, in fact, necessary.

Even if it's just your horse.

Why is it necessary though?

This is the key issue? If seem like people want to give rangers an animal companion because they either want a "pet" class or they are just choosing something unique for the class to have.

This is instead of asking "What kinds of class features would every ranger have?" and "Is an animal companion one of them?"

I'm not against animal companions as a ranger option but it doesn't seem like a base class feature like favored enemy/terrain or spellcasting.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This is the key issue? If seem like people want to give rangers an animal companion because they either want a "pet" class or they are just choosing something unique for the class to have.

If you can't distinguish between two classes by looking at them, then one of those classes is redundant. It has no reason to exist.

If backgrounds didn't exist independently of class, then we could distinguish between fighters and rangers because rangers are wilderness survivalists. Since 5E makes the background an entirely independent variable from class, though, we can already accurately model a non-magical pet-free ranger as just a fighter with a wilderness background. By giving rangers a pet as their defining feature, it justifies their existence.

 

[coolAlias]

I don’t know what a Ranger is. As an archetype, it makes absolutely no sense to me. I say, let’s call the class "Hunter" (a word with much clearer, much richer connotations) and rebuild the whole class from the ground up. Adding an animal companion to that class would make perfect sense.

Per Wikipedia, "Rangers were full-time soldiers employed by colonial governments to patrol between fixed frontier fortifications in reconnaissance providing early warning of raids. In offensive operations, they were scouts and guides, locating villages and other targets for taskforces drawn from the militia or other colonial troops."

I believe that is fairly similar to what the archetype was intended to be / has been in D&D, it's just that that type of game seems to have mostly gone out of style. 5e seems to be more about heroicly charging in to save the day rather than carefully reconnoitering an enemy position and employing detailed strategies and tactics to take them out, at least in the company I've played.

 

[Minigiant]

If you can't distinguish between two classes by looking at them, then one of those classes is redundant. It has no reason to exist.

If backgrounds didn't exist independently of class, then we could distinguish between fighters and rangers because rangers are wilderness survivalists. Since 5E makes the background an entirely independent variable from class, though, we can already accurately model a non-magical pet-free ranger as just a fighter with a wilderness background. By giving rangers a pet as their defining feature, it justifies their existence.

But Rangers are distinguishable for Fighters.
The issue is many people don't like the distinguishing features. But they are there.
Some people disagree with the implementation.
Some don't like the class archetype at all.
However ranger are distinguishable and purposely built if you look at them as intended.

Also fighters stink at doing what the ranger class says it does in the book. Even if you give them a custom background, fighters stink at ranging in a fantasy wilderness.