Revised Ranger update

[Yunru]

My "fix" was just taking the scaling health of the UA beastmaster and giving it to the PHB.
Well, and giving them Awaken.

 

[Parmandur]

So... she did damage based off of her magic bow, magic bowstring, and Hunter's Mark. The fact of the matter is Trinket could have been a bear following the party with no mechanical ties to her class, and she would have been better off.

And I agree with you, people love a pet story. People might go for the Beastmaster Ranger despite it's flaws. That does not excuse it's flaws. I don't see how anyone could argue that. My old car didn't have working A/C, I still drove it and loved that car, that didn't mean I was happy with having no A/C. Just because people care more about the story than the mechanics doesn't mean that they don't care that the mechanics are not working properly.






Except, RAW, spells are a terrible way to "fix" Rangers, because they get so few of them. And, I don't see how a fighting style can cover enough, even if it literally just rewrote the rule about taking the ranger's action to command the beast.





And changed because, suddenly millions of new players joined and decided that the fiddly and unintuitive nature of the Beastmaster was fine?

I don't get that. Playstyle is one thing, but the problems I see with this class go beyond playstyle, and no one is going to complain about getting a buff to their companion, especially an optional buff.

Right, she treated Trinket like a friend to be protected above all, rather than an expendable resource. Travis probably would have played a better Beastmaster Ranger on that count. This was the big misstep on the designers part, making a subclass focused on an expendable resource without thinking through people getting attached to their pet. This doesn't mean the subclass doesn't work as intended, but there was a mismatch between design intentions and the playstyle desired by many players. And, even not using the tools as intended, Laura still continued to contribute and have fun, the main metrics the designers are going for.

Millions of new players joined, bring millions of new approaches to playing the game. In addition, D&D Beyond took off int he meantime, and WotC now has solid numerical evidence of what people are doing, not just saying.

 

[Pauln6]

So, if they won't change the core class, would a feat that makes a companion less expendable be one way to go along with beastmaster spells?

 

[OB1]

So, if they won't change the core class, would a feat that makes a companion less expendable be one way to go along with beastmaster spells?

I was just thinking about that. A Feat that allows you to take large beasts and increases to CR 1/2 beasts with 4 levels of Beastmaster and CR1 beasts with 8 levels. Adds 4x Ranger level hit points to the beast (instead of either or) and either gives a second action to control the beast or allows use of bonus action to attack with the beast seems reasonable.

Combine with a fighting style that allows you to designate an second beneficiary of hunters mark, a 2nd level Revivify Beast spell, and a 5th level spell that funnels conjure volley or swift quiver like damage (probably slightly above as a nice capstone) through your beast could be a great way to bring the Beast Master in line with a more aggressive beast play style.

I’d originally tried to do this with all spells but I think a mix of feat, spell and fighting style is more elegant.

I’m playing a Lizard Folk Ranger Beast master in ToA right now and having a blast, but the above options I would definitely consider (though not necessarily take).

 

[Chaosmancer]

The fighting style I had proposed above included several elements. 1) Instead of using an attack action of yours to direct the beast to attack, you can use a bonus action, and 2) If an opponent you are adjacent to strikes your companion, you can re-direct that attack to yourself instead, and if it hits, you have resistance to the damage from that attack. I'd say that covers a fair bit of ground.

Those also cover far more than any other Fighting Style. It sounds closer to half of a feat.

Also, if the Ranger is fine, why would they release this, since it is clearly only useful for the Beastmaster Ranger and no one else?

Then we get into the issue of choosing the fighting style before you actually get the Beast, meaning that you are essentially losing half of your second level to your third level choice. Unless we add in that the Beastmaster can choose a second style later on, which rewrites the class, which we are avoiding.

In terms of spells, they can be longer duration, and they can be low level. Resurrecting a beast easily seems pretty helpful, and shouldn't be needed many times per day.

I think those two additions would be enough. I've seen the beastmaster in play since it was published, and just those two tweaks would be more than enough in my experience to fix the issues with it.

Longer duration and lower level doesn't fully change the fact that rangers only get a VERY limited pool of spells. I mean, between levels 3 and 5 we get 3 and then 4 spells known. Adding a single spell that a Beastmaster will feel required to take will mean they are losing out on a 1/3 of their spell choices otherwise.

And, to make them both usefully powerful and not stolen by either Druids or Bards dipping, they need to be specific to Rangers and Ranger Animal Companions, which would again be a very strange choice for the company to make if the class does not need any assistance.

And if it needs assistance, why abandon the rewrite? A stealth rewrite is still a rewrite after all.

Right, she treated Trinket like a friend to be protected above all, rather than an expendable resource. Travis probably would have played a better Beastmaster Ranger on that count. This was the big misstep on the designers part, making a subclass focused on an expendable resource without thinking through people getting attached to their pet. This doesn't mean the subclass doesn't work as intended, but there was a mismatch between design intentions and the playstyle desired by many players. And, even not using the tools as intended, Laura still continued to contribute and have fun, the main metrics the designers are going for.

So, yet again, the subclass does not do what people would want it to do. But, she had fun playing the class and essentially ignoring her subclass so the subclass is fine?

And if they expected players to play with a conveyor belt of disposable bodies... then I'd say they're holding onto a style of DnD that hasn't been mainstream in over 20 years. That is a massive disconnect with the intended audience, but now more people are more comfortable ignoring their abilities so it is fine?


Honestly, your logic (if it gets taken and applied to all new content) brings into questions why we even have rules. If we don't need strong rules and well-balanced classes to have fun, then why do we bother having them? Because it provides a good support structure. Just because some people are having fun without those supports does not mean we shouldn't work to make sure those supports are included.

Millions of new players joined, bring millions of new approaches to playing the game. In addition, D&D Beyond took off int he meantime, and WotC now has solid numerical evidence of what people are doing, not just saying.

Let us not overstate things here. Millions of new people did not add "millions of new approaches to playing the game". We've had millions of players before over the lifetime of Dungeons and Dragons, and we still have only a handful of game playing approaches. I think the biggest number I've ever seen is like "13 player types" or something like that.

People have not revolutionized roleplaying games that much, that isn't how entertainment works.

 

[OB1]

[MENTION=6801228]Chaosmancer[/MENTION] just because WotC doesn’t want to take the disruptive step of putting out a revision to a class doesn’t mean they can’t look at other ways to increase satisfaction levels for different play styles. Feats, fighting styles, and spells all offer ways to give players more choice without the confusion of multiple versions of the class.

It will be tough having to give up a spell or a feat or a fighting style, but you can choose to do it or not. Either it’s worth the opportunity cost to you or not. Why is that a bad approach?

 

[Parmandur]

Those also cover far more than any other Fighting Style. It sounds closer to half of a feat.

Also, if the Ranger is fine, why would they release this, since it is clearly only useful for the Beastmaster Ranger and no one else?

Then we get into the issue of choosing the fighting style before you actually get the Beast, meaning that you are essentially losing half of your second level to your third level choice. Unless we add in that the Beastmaster can choose a second style later on, which rewrites the class, which we are avoiding.



Longer duration and lower level doesn't fully change the fact that rangers only get a VERY limited pool of spells. I mean, between levels 3 and 5 we get 3 and then 4 spells known. Adding a single spell that a Beastmaster will feel required to take will mean they are losing out on a 1/3 of their spell choices otherwise.

And, to make them both usefully powerful and not stolen by either Druids or Bards dipping, they need to be specific to Rangers and Ranger Animal Companions, which would again be a very strange choice for the company to make if the class does not need any assistance.

And if it needs assistance, why abandon the rewrite? A stealth rewrite is still a rewrite after all.



So, yet again, the subclass does not do what people would want it to do. But, she had fun playing the class and essentially ignoring her subclass so the subclass is fine?

And if they expected players to play with a conveyor belt of disposable bodies... then I'd say they're holding onto a style of DnD that hasn't been mainstream in over 20 years. That is a massive disconnect with the intended audience, but now more people are more comfortable ignoring their abilities so it is fine?


Honestly, your logic (if it gets taken and applied to all new content) brings into questions why we even have rules. If we don't need strong rules and well-balanced classes to have fun, then why do we bother having them? Because it provides a good support structure. Just because some people are having fun without those supports does not mean we shouldn't work to make sure those supports are included.



Let us not overstate things here. Millions of new people did not add "millions of new approaches to playing the game". We've had millions of players before over the lifetime of Dungeons and Dragons, and we still have only a handful of game playing approaches. I think the biggest number I've ever seen is like "13 player types" or something like that.

People have not revolutionized roleplaying games that much, that isn't how entertainment works.

Millions of new points of view, at any rate. And WotC has made it clear that their goals with balance are about participation and felt satisfaction, as much as anything. The optimal playstyle for the Beastmaster is, deceptively, ruthless and Gygaxian, but if people are still playing it over options that would suit their play better and having fun...then, yeah, mission accomplished. I agree that they made a significant miscalculation in designing a pet subclass that way, but it does work well if used as intended. As such, I wouldn't be surprised to see a new Ranger subclass evebtually that better fits the desired playstyle over the Beastmaster. Particularly if the new Summoning rules pan out, WotC can let players eat their cake and have it, too (use the animal companion to be powerful in combat, without it being expendable).

 

[Mistwell]

Those also cover far more than any other Fighting Style. It sounds closer to half of a feat.

Also, if the Ranger is fine, why would they release this, since it is clearly only useful for the Beastmaster Ranger and no one else?

I didn't say the Beastmaster Ranger is fine (though I do think the other subclasses are fine for the Ranger). I've said throughout the thread I think it could use some additional elements, but that I think they could be done without an alternative class or errata, but simply by publishing some additional options for the existing class. Like those I mentioned.

Then we get into the issue of choosing the fighting style before you actually get the Beast, meaning that you are essentially losing half of your second level to your third level choice. Unless we add in that the Beastmaster can choose a second style later on, which rewrites the class, which we are avoiding.

The actual proposal I wrote (which I thought you read, as this was a summary of an earlier discussion in this thread) involved just aiding any allied creature of the beast sub-type. This would help with befriended animals found using the skill, or animals found using a variety of spells, or other animals in the party like a familiar. So even if you choose this fighting style and decide later to not choose beastmaster, it still has interesting utility.

Longer duration and lower level doesn't fully change the fact that rangers only get a VERY limited pool of spells. I mean, between levels 3 and 5 we get 3 and then 4 spells known. Adding a single spell that a Beastmaster will feel required to take will mean they are losing out on a 1/3 of their spell choices otherwise.

Yes. And yet, it still helps. I think I am OK with trading slightly less magic to be better with beast mastery. Seems like a fair trade off to me. And if you are not OK with it, then just focus more on spells.

And, to make them both usefully powerful and not stolen by either Druids or Bards dipping, they need to be specific to Rangers and Ranger Animal Companions, which would again be a very strange choice for the company to make if the class does not need any assistance.

The class does need assistance for those who do not view the beast as either mostly non-combat, or more disposable. I think you've mistaken my position for someone else's position.

And if it needs assistance, why abandon the rewrite? A stealth rewrite is still a rewrite after all.

It's not a stealth re-write. It's additional options to help those who want to play a beast master with a more aggressive beast, or a less disposable beast. You don't have to take these additional options at all, and a lot of people won't because they don't play the beastmaster that way (likely either keeping the beast out of combat most of the time, or treating the beast as more disposable and replaceable).

And if they expected players to play with a conveyor belt of disposable bodies... then I'd say they're holding onto a style of DnD that hasn't been mainstream in over 20 years. That is a massive disconnect with the intended audience...

Funny, I don't hear that complaint about the Champion fighter which is doing the same thing. As this edition has brought in a huge number of new players who have never played the game before, it's the new mainstream. It's what I was arguing before much earlier in this thread - I think a lot of newer players are more comfortable replacing the beast often, or keeping the beast mostly out of combat.

 

[cbwjm]

I actually think it would be kind of funny for the ranger to have a new beast companion every session because they lost it the session before. The image of the beastmaster constantly getting exasperated with having to constantly replace their pet is a rather comical one.

 

[CapnZapp]

Easy to be mistaken about your meaning , as you were responding to folks disagreeing with your opinions.

Yeah, but see, I wasn't talking about disagreeing, so let's focus on what I did talk about, eh?