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

[The Crimson Binome]

But Rangers are distinguishable for Fighters.
The issue is many people don't like the distinguishing features. But they are there.

I must have missed something. What is the Ranger's core identity, that isn't just wilderness survivalist?

 

[Mistwell]

I think all rangers should be able to choose one of 1) archery benefit, 2) two weapon fighting benefit, 3) animal companion.

Make sure 1 and 2 are at roughly equal to having an animal companion who can get a free attack, in addition to your regular attacks, every round.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The problem with having wilderness survivalist as a core identity is that in D&D that's about as useful as having "negotiating with merchants" as your core identity. Its utility is highly dependent upon campaign and DM.

 

[Minigiant]

I must have missed something. What is the Ranger's core identity, that isn't just wilderness survivalist?

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.

and

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.

Rangers are defenders of their civilization and self sufficient travelers.
The main job of the ranger is to hunt down and impale the wild enemies.
Track them down, travel to them, sneak up to them, fill them with arrows, bandage your wounds, and spot survivors looking for revenge.

 

[Li Shenron]

You can use conjure animal to temporarily summon an animal directly under your command (CR 2 but it's ultimately the DM's choice).

Good point. I guest it's just common to look at a class description and assume it says it all, but the spell list adds a lot of potential features to a class.

But then, a player who really wanted a pet for their PC could also buy and train an animal, but this option is never considered because they are afraid the DM will make it too slow or too limited to be used in combat. The reality is still that most of those who want a pet as a class feature want too much out of it. They want to play a PC-and-a-half who (in case the pet dies or becomes unavailable) is still as powerful. They want a pet who fights "effectively", meaning it doesn't die more often than the other PCs (but how can it then be of lower level?). They also want the pet to be useful out of combat. And they want it to be permanent so that they can roleplay the pet developing a social relationship with its owner PC and possibly others.

Now tell me, how isn't such pet simply another PC. That's why I say, if a player wants a pet wolf, tell them to roleplay 2 characters at once, a Ranger and a wolf. As long as the other players agree they don't feel it's unfair for them, end of story. No need for useless and unbalanced house rules.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Why limit the ranger to beasts? Why not bind an elemental companion? Why not befriended a hippogriff? Why not enslave a gnome*?

* Dragonquest 2nd Edition allows the beastmaster skill to be used on humanoids, transforming the beast master into a slave master (a choice which the game simultaneously allows and condemns).

 

[Stormonu]

As much as I love companions, familiars, hanger-ons and the like, there should be an option for those who don't.

However, I am entirely unhappy with how 5E has handled animal companions (and a few other things) for the ranger, and have been working on my own version.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Rangers are defenders of their civilization and self sufficient travelers.
The main job of the ranger is to hunt down and impale the wild enemies.
Track them down, travel to them, sneak up to them, fill them with arrows, bandage your wounds, and spot survivors looking for revenge.

The same can be said for a Fighter with a wilderness background. The Fighter identity covers defending, impaling enemies, and filling with arrows. The wilderness background identity covers being a self-sufficient traveler, hunting down, tracking, travelling, sneaking up, bandaging wounds, and spotting survivors.

The only thing left is motivation, about who you're defending and what you're fighting; but motivation is never sufficient justification for an entire class.

 

[Minigiant]

So is a fighter with a wilderness background. The Fighter identity covers defending, impaling enemies, and filling with arrows. The wilderness background identity covers being a self-sufficient traveler, hunting down, tracking, travelling, sneaking up, bandaging wounds, and spotting survivors.

The only thing left is motivation, about who you're defending and what you're fighting; but motivation is never sufficient justification for an entire class.

Yeah but not

The fighter's class features do not lend enough abilities to do the job in a fantasy environment. Look at what you said. "self-sufficient traveler, hunting down, tracking, travelling, sneaking up, bandaging wounds, and spotting survivors.". Look how many references to different skills and spells you have mentioned.

• self-sufficient traveler +1 Magic (Goodberry)
• hunting down & tracking + 1 Skill (Survival)+1 Magic (Hunter's Mark)
• traveling,+1 Magic (Longstrider/Jump)
• sneaking up +1 Skill (Stealth)
• bandaging wounds +1 Skill (Medicine) + 1 Magic (Medicine CLW/DetectPoison)
• spotting survivors. +1 Skill (Perception)

And that's with forgetting other elements and aspects like

• magical detecting +1 Magic ( Darkvision/DetectMagic)
• recalling info about nature +1Skill (Nature)
• communicating long distance +1 Magic (Animal Messenger)
• investigating rumors and other information in the wild+1 Magic (Speak with X)
• enhancing camp security +1 Magic (Alarm)

So there are several skills and magic elements that are part of a ranger's niche and a simple background won't cut it. And that's just the low tier stuff.

Now whether this is all deserving to be a class or some kind of big concept subclass + multiclass + feat + background combo is a whole other thing. But layering an animal companion out top of that is just adding more to analready strained archtype since the companion would need more skills and magic to help at the job.

It's why nonmagical rangers plans fall apart. You'd need to create a whole subsystem for rangery stuff.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

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 was aware of the fact that there is flavor text in the PHB, and I have to admit that this is nicely written, but to me, it sounds like a post-facto way to justify why there's an Aragorn class in D&D. It doesn't describe an archetype from folktales or literature, it's just a combination of traits cobbled together because of tradition, and not much else.

The word "Hunter", on the other hand, immediately conjures the image of an adventurer who specializes in tracking and killing dangerous beasts, using traps and trained animals, as well her knowledge of the wild and her skill with weapons. There are many examples of Hunters in myths, literatures and fairytales.

From that perspective, a Hunter character wouldn't get an "animal companion", she would get an animal trained for hunting, in other words, a hound (or some other kind of similar animal), which can track, locate, stalk, pursue and hold down game.