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

[Helldritch]

Ranger have a small problem that is easily solved.
1) Hunter's mark should not be concentration. This opens up flame arrow as an additionnal source of damage for the ranger. So far, this has worked wonders for our rangers which are now quite happy.
2) Hunter's mark also proc on pet attack. Again, beast rangers are now quite happy.
3) A beast will always follow the last order given as a bonus action. Pets do not attack unless directed otherwise, will not change target either.

So far these simple 3 modifications has put the ranger on par with the other melee classes.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

The mechanical reflection of a core identity is not, itself, that identity. Being a self-sufficient traveller does not require Goodberry; proficiency in Survival should be sufficient to claim that identity. If it's not, then that should certainly be addressed, but that's a problem with execution rather than concept.

And, given that the background is intended to cover that territory, there's no reason to cram those things into the class. If half of the wilderness identity is tied up with the Ranger class, then that creates issue with both non-Ranger wilderness characters and non-wilderness Ranger characters. The most coherent solution is to remove those aspects from the Ranger class, and replace them with something distinct in order to justify its existence. If someone wants their Ranger to be a self-sufficient traveller, then they should be forced into taking an appropriate background, just like everyone else.

 

[Minigiant]

The mechanical reflection of a core identity is not, itself, part of that identity. Being a self-sufficient traveller does not require Goodberry; proficiency in Survival should be sufficient to claim that identity. If it's not, then that should certainly be addressed, but that's a problem with execution rather than concept.

The ranger mechanics are based on the narrative identity and the way the world mechanics handles them. If D&D wasn't so stingy and restrictive of what Survival could do and what "must be a magical effect", a lot of wilderness survival would not be spells.

And, given that the background is intended to cover that territory, there's no reason to cram those things into the class.

Again, the ranger is not just a wildnerness survivor. It's a tracker, scout, liaison, guard etc.

If half of the wilderness identity is tied up with the Ranger class, then that creates issue with both non-Ranger wilderness characters and non-wilderness Ranger characters. The most coherent solution is to remove those aspects from the Ranger class, and replace them with something distinct in order to justify its existence. If someone wants their Ranger to be a self-sufficient traveller, then they should be forced into taking an appropriate background, just like everyone else.

Well isn't that the point? The whole point of the ranger.

That people don't usually live off the grid in D&D because of the hordes, beasts, dragons, giants, fey, and cultists that dwell in the wild.

...unless you are a ranger (or druid or shaman)

That anytime you see some rando living in the wild alone, he or she is secretly some high powered level 15 something or other+ and can slap around teenage dragons and orc warbands stay clear of the area.

And that there is a whole class dedicated to keeping all that crap from getting into the towns and cities? Because only rangers and druids are equipped to survive out there?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I certainly would be fine with them all having an animal companion. Then beastmaster could be a subclass that can tame more powerful and fantastic beasts.

Though I am unhappy how the pets currently work. They definitely should have their own full set of actions and be able to act independently; otherwise they feel like remote-controlled robots instead of actual animals.

 

[Azzy]

As long as there's an option to opt out without gimping the character, then sure, why not?

 

[jgsugden]

They all can in my games.

I added a first level spell for druids, rangers and nature clerics. It works like find steed. It calls a beast to be your loyal companion. The beast can have a CR equal to 1/2 of the spell level used to cast it. It is a normal beast except it is fiercely loyal to you and can understand your commands. The DM controls it as it is an NPC. The beast uses your proficiency bonus, can add your proficiency bonus to damage in place of the strength or dexterity modifier it has, and can either use it's natural hp total, or can calculate hp based upon your CLASS level, gaining 3 + it's con bonus hps per CLASS level you've obtained.

 

[jayoungr]

"My hat for pet classes knows no limits"

“Baby: Your tattoo says 'hat'?

JD: Yeah, it used to say 'hate'. But to increase my chances of employment I had the E removed.

Baby: How's that working out for you?

JD: Who doesn't like hats?”

--Baby Driver

 

[NotAYakk]

They all can in my games.

I added a first level spell for druids, rangers and nature clerics. It works like find steed. It calls a beast to be your loyal companion. The beast can have a CR equal to 1/2 of the spell level used to cast it. It is a normal beast except it is fiercely loyal to you and can understand your commands. The DM controls it as it is an NPC. The beast uses your proficiency bonus, can add your proficiency bonus to damage in place of the strength or dexterity modifier it has, and can either use it's natural hp total, or can calculate hp based upon your CLASS level, gaining 3 + it's con bonus hps per CLASS level you've obtained.

Spells in 5e are supposed to scale based on slot level, not class level.

I'd word that as a class feature of the 3 different classes, not a spell.

 

[Guest 6801328]

One of the problems with implementing a full-time companion in D&D is that the philosophy of the game...or maybe just the ingrained philosophy of its players...doesn't really support the kind of abstract, plot-proof sidekick that you find in games like The One Ring. That is, it's assumed that a pet (or henchman or whatever) has its own AC and HP and all that. Which mean they can die, which is problematic if its a big part of your class's power.

It's too bad, because there is so much more flexibility with the abstract/plot-proof approach.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

One of the problems with implementing a full-time companion in D&D is that the philosophy of the game...or maybe just the ingrained philosophy of its players...doesn't really support the kind of abstract, plot-proof sidekick that you find in games like The One Ring. That is, it's assumed that a pet (or henchman or whatever) has its own AC and HP and all that. Which mean they can die, which is problematic if its a big part of your class's power.

Sure, they can die, but your magic sword can get stolen too. Add unlike the sword, the pet rules can easily be written so that you can easily acquire a new one. (Granted, it would still be super sad.) Or alternatively you could make them to just be magically respawnable, though to me that feels way too computer-gamey and makes the pets feel less real.