D&D 5E Ranger

[Juriel]

The ranger's animal companion is so weak (and so so utterly fragile) that as a GM I'd allow a player with the Hunter Archetype to just have it for free. It isn't all that powerful and adds a nice perk to a class that definitely doesn't seem to be overpowered.

Very much this. It just seems like an okay (definitely not strong) class got two defining chunks split off from it.

There could be a specific Beast Master archetype, but that should be the one that buffs your beast into a goddamn tyrannosaurus of awesome.

With Animal Handling, Nature and Survival being split into their own three skills, it definitely seems like someone hates Rangers.

 

[Herobizkit]

There could be a specific Beast Master archetype, but that should be the one that buffs your beast into a goddamn tyrannosaurus of awesome.

Speaking of, it IS a shame that Rangers can't get improved versions of their animal companion. Like, they can never get a Bear because it's Large? Re-skinning might work, but it feels like a cheat given the animals actually exist as is in the rules.

 

[Daggerswan]

Hunter plays just fine

Playing a Hunter Ranger now. There are five characters in my party (2 fighters, 1 cleric, 1 wizard, 1 ranger). It is true that the Fighters have an increased damage output in comparison. But my scouting abilities has allowed the group to get the jump on opponents, effectively decreasing the damage intake. If that doesn't play into your math then you should consider it. To bring in an analogy from my Army days: I am the Bradley in front of the formation who relays the dispositions of the opponents so that the M1s can bring the heat. The Hunter Ranger plays just fine.

 

[evilbob]

Ranger is the new bard?

 

[fuindordm]

This will probably get some clarification from Sage Advice before long.

Imagine the following scenario:

Round 1: Ranger commands pet to attack orc 20' away. Pet attacks. Orc counterattacks.
Round 2: Ranger fights a second orc that comes after him in person. Meanwhile, on the other side of the room, the first orc attacks the pet. Does the pet just sit there and take the hit because it hasn't been explicitly ordered to attack?

I don't think anyone can argue that the pet will just sit in place for several rounds while the first orc attacks it, never counterattacking on its own. In round 1 the pet got involved in a life-or-death struggle and its instincts will tell it to run away if outmatched or to finish the fight. The pet surely has enough intelligence to act on its own in this situation without direction. But I'd say it's under the DM's control at that point, not the player's control.

So if the ranger is distracted, a reasonable situation would be for the pet and orc to finish their fight, and then for the pet to return to the ranger's side or prowl the boundaries of the combat waiting for another command. Or if the pet gets heavily wounded, it might run away and return after the battle, or return to the ranger's side hoping for help.

On the other hand, the ranger could command the pet to do something else even while it's engaged in a fight. "Return to me", "Fight the ogre, not the orc", etc. It costs an action, but that's reasonable if you're forcing the pet to an action that overrides its instincts and habits.

There is obviously a bit of negotiation to be done between the player and the DM about this, but as I DM that's how I would run it. Spend your action to declare the pet's action, but if you don't spend your action it will behave like a normal animal.

The fuzzy region then becomes: how loyal is the animal to the ranger, really? Would it automatically defend the ranger, or try to save the ranger from death? That sounds like the kind of bond that might be worth expressing as an alternative class feature or a feat, but not necessarily the default state of a beastmaster. Training an animal doesn't mean the animal loves you and behaves altruistically towards you--and many species don't have the pack instincts that would make this kind of bond easy to create.

 

[Uller]

Playing a Hunter Ranger now. There are five characters in my party (2 fighters, 1 cleric, 1 wizard, 1 ranger). It is true that the Fighters have an increased damage output in comparison. But my scouting abilities has allowed the group to get the jump on opponents, effectively decreasing the damage intake. If that doesn't play into your math then you should consider it. To bring in an analogy from my Army days: I am the Bradley in front of the formation who relays the dispositions of the opponents so that the M1s can bring the heat. The Hunter Ranger plays just fine.

Haha...I was a tanker back in the old days when the army still trained for maneuver warfare...I remember the scouts going out ahead of us at NTC...then passing them after they died once the opfor spotted them and killed them. I always thought: note to self...don't be a scout.

Scouts Out!

 

[Daggerswan]

Scouts out!

Scouts out indeed! NTC was so much fun. So, to summarize:

Rangers are the dead guys the Fighters step over to get to the opfor.

 

[Uller]

The 3rd level class ability shouldn't increase damage by too much. Going by a Fighter, it should only increase your damage by a bit less than 5%. Can anyone think of a way to have the pet acting independently but not increasing the Ranger's damage by more than ~5% at level 3?

What happens when that animal companion dies? I assume the ranger no longer has access to this feature until he can get a new one...what if the ranger is going into an environment where the animal companion would be in danger or be a net detriment to the party? Most third level class features cant be negated in these ways.

Again...I'd like to see the class in action but it sounds like this particular feature is a bit weak. I also thought the fighters second wind ability was ripe for abuse until I saw it in action so I'm open to the possibility that its just fine.

 

[Zelc]

If you want the Ranger's pet to act independently, a simple fix would be to restrict Rangers to a CR 1/8 pet at level 3 and not add the Ranger's proficiency bonus to attacks or damage. Let the Ranger have a CR 1/4 pet at level 7. Add the Ranger's proficiency bonus to attacks and damage at level 11 (maybe along with allowing CR 1/2?).

 

[Snapdragyn]

The fuzzy region then becomes: how loyal is the animal to the ranger, really? Would it automatically defend the ranger, or try to save the ranger from death? That sounds like the kind of bond that might be worth expressing as an alternative class feature or a feat, but not necessarily the default state of a beastmaster. Training an animal doesn't mean the animal loves you and behaves altruistically towards you--and many species don't have the pack instincts that would make this kind of bond easy to create.

Except the animal companion IS an alternative class feature - it is THE subclass feature of Beast Master. The alternative was to take Hunter & do more damage without sacrificing actions every round, or negotiating whether you have to, or having your subclass feature dead or unable to enter wherever you're going or running off scared or whatever the DM decides.