Revised Ranger update

[Nagol]

Very few D&D gamers are professional farmers who view animals as "exploitative resources".

If they designed the Beastmaster for this audience they... need their mental health checked.

The Beastmaster class emphatically needs a pet that doesn't die and takes its own action.

Anything less than this and the design is a hard failure.

Given this, the best solution is to give up on balancing the subclass and instead make it DM optional.

When balance is paramount effectively having two characters is too strong, and the subclass should be disregarded.

In every other case, this is the solution that players want.

Well obviously it's not a hard failure -- people use it. You may not like it. It may offend you, but unless it is rejected by the player base en masse, it is not a failure. Since indications are Ranger as a whole is reasonably well-played and Beastmaster gets use, it may not be the best class, but it is a working class.

 

[CapnZapp]

By that metric we can't complain about or discuss anything.

*shrug*

 

[Nagol]

By that metric we can't complain about or discuss anything.

*shrug*

I have complaints wrt to the class and subclass; I just don't equate my complaints with the class being a hard failure. I have never liked the whole "my cohort/ally/companion is merely an extension of me and can only do something as my proxy when I choose to use that action". I thought is was lazy and ill-thought mechanic when it appeared in 4e and I still think it is lazy and ill-thought today.

 

[Mistwell]

By that metric we can't complain about or discuss anything.

*shrug*

You could complain about it with less absolutist hyperbole.

 

[OB1]

Your answer doesn't address the question however. Right now, under existing rules, your animal companion fights for you, and may die. Indeed, that's the major complaint, they die too easily. So discard any change in tone or alignment, discard my argument about using animal companions up more often, just as they are played right now under your argument it would be unethical to play a beastmaster Ranger. Just full stop, taking an "innocent" panther into the depths of a dungeon at certain risk of harmful and painful fighting and possible death, that is currently unethical and a good aligned character simply should never play a beastmaster Ranger.

You can see the problem with this perspective now, right?

I'm a vegetarian living in urban Los Angeles in the 21st century, and *I* am the one advocating animal companions were likely intended as more of an exploitable resource which frequently was replaced over a long rest.

I too think that frequently replacing your beast is one of the ways that the Beastmaster was meant to be played, and works well for neutral character alignments. Ultimately, if you choose to use your companion as a weapon, it means they will die fairly regularly, and the class is designed to not give you an easy out for that (though the UA ranger does). The same would be true to an even greater extent if you train your own companion. The fact that a trained animal acts on it's own would reduce it's survivability compared to the Beastmaster Ranger companion, and would be nearly useless past Tier 1.

But the other way to play the beast master is as it's true protector and friend. In this case, you should infrequently use the beast in combat, getting primary use out of it the way an Army Ranger might get use out of a drone, as a way to scout ahead and provide targets and the opportunity to ambush your foes. In this play style, the bonus's that the companion gets in comparison to what a PC who merely trains a pet are substantial, giving your companion much higher levels of survivability as it scouts ahead for you or for the occasional combat that it comes in to help out. At higher levels, it can help out in more combats per day, but still isn't supposed to be involved in every round (hence why at 7th level you get the ability to disengage, dodge and help as a bonus).

While not appealing to everyone, this second style of play, where you are the beast's protector (not wielder) for some is a huge feature of the class, not a bug. Having an animal to protect and worry about in combat is what makes it fun. This, of course would be the more good aligned way to play a beast master.

I do feel that some DM assistance is helpful for this style, such as allowing the beast to start all combats taking dodge and auto taking dodge if not give another action, or to start combat "off the board" such as the way Vex's bear in Critical Role did, so that a AOE doesn't take out the beast before it can act. But even with a tough DM, a player thinking protection for her companion first should be able to find ways to keep the worst from happening by being careful about where the companion is in the marching order and when and how it is used.

It takes a different way of thinking about how to play the class compared to previous iterations of it, and I'm wondering if as D&D has picked up more and more new players to the game over the last few years without the baggage of previous versions, that the WotC team has seen satisfaction level with the class and subclass rise.

 

[GlassJaw]

So this thread has meandered quite a bit although I've tried to follow most of it.

I do find the last few pages quite interesting actually, as it's getting to the core of what people envision the Beastmaster should be conceptually. And there is an interesting dilemma with regards to concept versus design.

This is a generalization but the two main concepts seem to be:

a) The beast is a loyal and faithful companion that is protected by the ranger. The companion is essentially another member of the party.
b) The beast is a weapon that the ranger directs. It is expendable and can be replaced. In this case, the companion is essentially a Pokemon (like the paladin's pokemount from 3ed).

I would argue that the most people probably envision "a" when they think Beastmaster. This is the iconic grizzled warrior striding through the forest with his wolf/tiger/hound/velociraptor at his side. There are many instances of this relationship between man and beast throughout literature.

That said, it also poses quite possibly the most difficult design challenge to solve with regards to game mechanics in which the goal is for each character to have a completely unique role but also be "balanced" against each other. As soon as you introduce additional actions, health, etc to a character, the balance gets skewed very quickly. For homework, look up a mathematician named Lanchester if you want to see some of the math behind why. To compensate, the designers did what many consider to be an effective "neutering" of the subclass (no pun intended): require the player's action to direct the companion.

The other option - expendable minions that can be replaced - is much easier to solve. The companion can easily be balanced with a number of uses per rest or a mechanic like the Conjure Animal spells. This isn't without precedent either. This Beastmaster essentially emulates Aquaman in a sense.

However, this option completely removes the attachment to the animal companion, and my guess is that a large percentage of the player base would have rallied against this since the mechanic completely undermines the iconic "man's best friend" relationship (I don't recall if the Beastmaster ever got this type of design during the Next playtest).

As a designer myself, I would have been ok with the expendable/uses per day option. I understand the design challenges and given the purveyance of magic in 5E, I wouldn't be phased by a "summoning" narrative to explain the mechanic. At the same time, I completely understand the want for a class in which the animal companion is the primary driver of the class, and one that goes beyond mechanics. I also understand that "summoning" the companion may break that emotional connection to the companion for a lot of players.

Anyway, I find it a really interesting discussion, mainly because the narrative behind the class and the mechanics are completely intertwined and greatly affect each other.

 

[OB1]

So this thread has meandered quite a bit although I've tried to follow most of it.

This is a generalization but the two main concepts seem to be:

a) The beast is a loyal and faithful companion that is protected by the ranger. The companion is essentially another member of the party.
b) The beast is a weapon that the ranger directs. It is expendable and can be replaced. In this case, the companion is essentially a Pokemon (like the paladin's pokemount from 3ed).

I would argue that the most people probably envision "a" when they think Beastmaster. This is the iconic grizzled warrior striding through the forest with his wolf/tiger/hound/velociraptor at his side. There are many instances of this relationship between man and beast throughout literature.

...

Anyway, I find it a really interesting discussion, mainly because the narrative behind the class and the mechanics are completely intertwined and greatly affect each other.

I'd argue that the problem comes from people who want A with the first part of B. Because the companion can't be both a sword and a protected companion without it actually being another party member.

But you've hit it right on that it's the way the narrative and mechanics interact that make it such a fascinating problem. For example, the discarded UA fix creates a perverse situation where you are incentivized to constantly allow your companion to be killed to gain the maximum mechanical benefit from it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'd argue that the problem comes from people who want A with the first part of B. Because the companion can't be both a sword and a protected companion without it actually being another party member.

But you've hit it right on that it's the way the narrative and mechanics interact that make it such a fascinating problem. For example, the discarded UA fix creates a perverse situation where you are incentivized to constantly allow your companion to be killed to gain the maximum mechanical benefit from it.

The UA also, and this was another big thing I liked, allowed the companion to noticeably grow in strength. Not just "here's 4 hp every level" but actually increasing it's stats and allowing a companion that has been with a legendary figure t itself be far physically and even mentally superior to others of its kind.

 

[CapnZapp]

So this thread has meandered quite a bit although I've tried to follow most of it.

I do find the last few pages quite interesting actually, as it's getting to the core of what people envision the Beastmaster should be conceptually. And there is an interesting dilemma with regards to concept versus design.

This is a generalization but the two main concepts seem to be:

a) The beast is a loyal and faithful companion that is protected by the ranger. The companion is essentially another member of the party.
b) The beast is a weapon that the ranger directs. It is expendable and can be replaced. In this case, the companion is essentially a Pokemon (like the paladin's pokemount from 3ed).

I would argue that the most people probably envision "a" when they think Beastmaster. This is the iconic grizzled warrior striding through the forest with his wolf/tiger/hound/velociraptor at his side. There are many instances of this relationship between man and beast throughout literature.

That said, it also poses quite possibly the most difficult design challenge to solve with regards to game mechanics in which the goal is for each character to have a completely unique role but also be "balanced" against each other. As soon as you introduce additional actions, health, etc to a character, the balance gets skewed very quickly. For homework, look up a mathematician named Lanchester if you want to see some of the math behind why. To compensate, the designers did what many consider to be an effective "neutering" of the subclass (no pun intended): require the player's action to direct the companion.

The other option - expendable minions that can be replaced - is much easier to solve. The companion can easily be balanced with a number of uses per rest or a mechanic like the Conjure Animal spells. This isn't without precedent either. This Beastmaster essentially emulates Aquaman in a sense.

However, this option completely removes the attachment to the animal companion, and my guess is that a large percentage of the player base would have rallied against this since the mechanic completely undermines the iconic "man's best friend" relationship (I don't recall if the Beastmaster ever got this type of design during the Next playtest).

As a designer myself, I would have been ok with the expendable/uses per day option. I understand the design challenges and given the purveyance of magic in 5E, I wouldn't be phased by a "summoning" narrative to explain the mechanic. At the same time, I completely understand the want for a class in which the animal companion is the primary driver of the class, and one that goes beyond mechanics. I also understand that "summoning" the companion may break that emotional connection to the companion for a lot of players.

Anyway, I find it a really interesting discussion, mainly because the narrative behind the class and the mechanics are completely intertwined and greatly affect each other.

Thank you.

One question however:

Where do you stand on the notion that a Man's Best Friend subclass can be okay despite being powerful, if the subclass is gated (DM approval needed, somewhat like Wild Mage)?

 

[CapnZapp]

I'd argue that the problem comes from people who want A with the first part of B. Because the companion can't be both a sword and a protected companion without it actually being another party member.

Unless... you refuse to call it a problem.

The real question is: can lots of groups handle one player with two characters?

I bet the answer is an unreserved "yes".