Mike Mearls Discusses Possible Alternate Class Features for the Ranger on Happy Fun Hour 11/20

[Ratskinner]

Why? Just because people only played 3E, 4E, and Pathfinder? Or because of Drizz't?

Most of the Rangers I have played were in 1E and 2E, so no pets. If I wanted a pet back in those days, I would have had a Ranger/Wizard multi-class with a familiar. And the reason I think it should be a Barbarian subclass is because of the Beastmaster movies.

enh? I played a 1e Ranger like a year ago and had a whole storybook full of pets; Griffons, Giant Owls, I think a couple of bears. Just have to roll well on the followers table. (Granted that's at 9th or something.)

 

[cbwjm]

enh? I played a 1e Ranger like a year ago and had a whole storybook full of pets; Griffons, Giant Owls, I think a couple of bears. Just have to roll well on the followers table. (Granted that's at 9th or something.)

There was also the animal friendship spell that gained you animal companions although I'm only familiar with the 2e version so I'm not certain if it works the same in 1e or even the level the ranger would gain it in 1e.

 

[Jester David]

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, but there's always a druid in our groups.

I saw like three different people (all women) pick the druid as their first character in 3e. It has some appeal.
But, clearly, it’s not the favourite...

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Why? Just because people only played 3E, 4E, and Pathfinder? Or because of Drizz't?

Most of the Rangers I have played were in 1E and 2E, so no pets.

I'm not familiar with 1e AD&D, but that would not be the case with 2e, where about half of the followers a ranger could attract were common animals. They were also adept with both trained and untamed creatures, and, beginning at 8th level, could cast the priest spell animal friendship to get animal companions.

While I'd not oppose a barbarian pet-based subclass, rangers have been using animal companions for almost 30 years now (from what I know). Maybe you don't like them or don't feel they're important at all, but it's been an important part of at least one ranger archetype for quite some time.

 

[Jester David]

Too good for dipping sadly! I'd probably split the difference. The beast companions will get their con bonus when they spend their hit dice (although the errata was vague on what dice the beasts should get - a compromise would be giving the beast its base hit dice but letting it share the benefit of the ranger spending their own hit dice). I don't think you need to widen the gap by adding con to hit points, although adding the con bonus from the animal's base hit dice might not be unbalanced and would add slight variation.

I think adding half proficiecy bonus to damage might scrape by (a berserk two weapon Ranger would get +15 damage per round against favoured enemies).

The other benefits just need to be spread out. Advantage on initiative and attacks could be nice to add at level 5 perhaps.

It’s actually less than the revised ranger currently gets, as it only has advantage on the first attack. And doesn’t ignore difficult terrain.
Which is still pretty good for dipping, admittedly. However, it does need something at first level, and right now it gets two ribbons. (Natural Explorer is okay, but you’re unlikely to use it at first and second level, which tend to be single locations.)

I considered half proficiency. But that’s only +1 for most of the game. It wouldn’t go up until level 9. And it’s a comparable damage per round boost to many of the fighter’s fighting styles (but still only applies to a tenth of the creatures in the game).

Beast companions really need more hit points. They have less than a wizard with 10 Con (as they don’t get max at first level). Adding their Con modifier helps a bit, and gives you some benefit for a high Con beast rather than Str or Dex.
(And in the rules as written, beasts never gain more Hit Dice. Which is pretty much BS.)

 

[Eltab]

I think the monk complaints were mostly about perception rather than in practice.

Especially as they {Druids} have a lot of aspects to manage, requiring knowledge of spells and animal for wild shapes.

I enjoyed playing my Monk. I could reliably hit once (sometimes more) a turn. My DPR was not spectacular but steady. With a little showboating, I could draw Team Monster's attention so they would not notice my allies the Fighter, Wizard, and Rogue getting into position to do their things. I knew I was a Skirmisher not a Tank and played accordingly.

4e had another take on handling stats when "Druid changes into an animal", which I preferred. Apparently I am in a minority on that point. -sigh-

 

[Pauln6]

It’s actually less than the revised ranger currently gets, as it only has advantage on the first attack. And doesn’t ignore difficult terrain.
Which is still pretty good for dipping, admittedly. However, it does need something at first level, and right now it gets two ribbons. (Natural Explorer is okay, but you’re unlikely to use it at first and second level, which tend to be single locations.)

I considered half proficiency. But that’s only +1 for most of the game. It wouldn’t go up until level 9. And it’s a comparable damage per round boost to many of the fighter’s fighting styles (but still only applies to a tenth of the creatures in the game).

Beast companions really need more hit points. They have less than a wizard with 10 Con (as they don’t get max at first level). Adding their Con modifier helps a bit, and gives you some benefit for a high Con beast rather than Str or Dex.
(And in the rules as written, beasts never gain more Hit Dice. Which is pretty much BS.)

I would not use the revised ranger as a baseline as they deliberately swung too far the other way. Always keep an eye on multiclass synergy. Free Hunter's Mark on favoured enemies works better since it doesn't synergise well with spells and berserking.

Ranger's damage output is generally ok so they don't particularly need a damage boost. +1 damage to favoured enemies at level 1 becomes +2 per round at 5 (or +3 if twf) and +4/+6 at level 9 without taking horde breaker or cleave or opportunity attacks into account. That's decent.

I view beast companions as temporary damage boosts and damage mitigation. Just give the beasts a con bonus to hp based on their original hit dice on top of their Ranger hit points. Give them their original hit dice of their own, and allow them to gain equal benefit when the ranger spends hit dice. This has multiple effects: greatly increases pool of hp available to beasts but also gives Ranger an incentive to either keep beast safe or join in to defend beast to maximise potential benefits from hit dice spend.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

MC synergy is a thing to look to, but you’re overestimating the ranger’s power level. Ranger 1 without these or the RR changes is possibly the single weakest level 1 in the phb.

JD’s suggested changes bring the ranger in line with other classes. The Warlock and other full casters still get more out of level 1.

 

[Jester David]

I would not use the revised ranger as a baseline as they deliberately swung too far the other way. Always keep an eye on multiclass synergy. Free Hunter's Mark on favoured enemies works better since it doesn't synergise well with spells and berserking.

I agree that it swung too far.
But the PHB ranger needs something at first level. It has two features that require brainpower and have a choice, but are largely ribbons.

Ranger's damage output is generally ok so they don't particularly need a damage boost. +1 damage to favoured enemies at level 1 becomes +2 per round at 5 (or +3 if twf) and +4/+6 at level 9 without taking horde breaker or cleave or opportunity attacks into account. That's decent.

It’s less about making their damage better and making favoured enemy less, well, useless.

I view beast companions as temporary damage boosts and damage mitigation. Just give the beasts a con bonus to hp based on their original hit dice on top of their Ranger hit points. Give them their original hit dice of their own, and allow them to gain equal benefit when the ranger spends hit dice. This has multiple effects: greatly increases pool of hp available to beasts but also gives Ranger an incentive to either keep beast safe or join in to defend beast to maximise potential benefits from hit dice spend.

Beasts don’t boost damage. Their damage is largely the same as the ranger’s. It can attack or the ranger can.
It is useful for damage mitigation... for one hit. Maybe two.
While it can recover at low levels, without its own hit dice the companion is just a drain on party resources to restore its health.
At higher levels, the companion is going to be dead more often than alive, and the ranger is basically lacking the benefits of their subclass.

 

[Jester David]

4e had another take on handling stats when "Druid changes into an animal", which I preferred. Apparently I am in a minority on that point. -sigh-

It was certainly easier to just make it cosmetic and have a “beast form” that potentially unlocked new powers. I liked my 4e druid.
But it was weird turning into a bear and not being able to do any bear-like things. Let alone tiny mice for sneaking or fish for swimming.
-edit-
My favourite thing you could do with a druid in 4e was wild shape into gelatinous cube, because it was a beast and you could pick any beast.