Revised Ranger update

[Yunru]

The ranger identity crisis was a thing since they started on 5e. They just threw stuff at the wall and took the most liked.

Which says a lot.

 

[Mistwell]

I think we agree the UA Ranger overcompensated.

We also agree the Ranger *can* be fixed. It's not an insurmountable problem (unless WotC gets hung up about treating the PHB like holy writ that may never be changed).

The issue isn't that a fix can't be found.

The issue is that the full value isn't reached until the fix is published in an official hardback.

I've lost track of exactly what your tweak does, but I trust your judgement that it would indeed negate the worst aspects of the PHB Beastmaster.

I would love for WotC to officially include it in the game, ideally by errataing the PHB.

The entire point of my fix is that it ISN'T errata and is just additional options to the existing class, in the form of an additional fighting style and some additional spells. None of my fix changes anything in the existing PHB, it's just ordinary stuff that can go into a book like Xanathar's Guide.

 

[Mistwell]

Very few spells actually get beasts, remember most of the conjuring spells bring forth Fey Spirits that simply look like beasts. This would be a hard-line reading of RAW but it is important, same with familiars in most cases.

We're going in circles here. We already went over, in this thread, the series of spells that help you gain animal friends. There are plenty of them. For example off the top of my head from the Ranger spell list: Animal Friendship, Beast Bond, Speak With Animals, Animal Messenger, Beast Sense. If your Beastmaster Ranger is not interacting with a lot of animals, then that's their right of course, but it sure isn't much in line with the entire theme of that class and many abilities and spells they're given.

So really, it is a fighting style that assists you if you are the type to allow random wild animals to follow and fight for the party, or if you have a Beastmaster Ranger. I don't know about your table obviously, but at mine most wild animals don't end up getting befriended by the party and fighting alongside them.

See above. Plus horses, familiars, guard dogs, etc..

I'm wondering about WoTC's position. They are the people who would publish it after all. Their position seems to be that everything is fine with the Ranger, in which case why would they publish spells and feats designed specifically to fix the Beastmaster?

The Ranger as a class IS fine. The issues seem to be with one sub-class. I don't think anyone has spoken to that sub-class lately but if they have I'd love to see it.

Um.... that is because the Champion fighter doesn't have a mechanic for hiring henchmen?

I'm kind of confused what you think I was talking about if you think the Champion Fighter needs to get involved.As I understand there was a large tradition of torch-bearers, men-at-arms, and other low level henchman types getting hired by players in 1e or 2e and sometimes even used as minesweepers for dungeon traps. Hence why I was comparing the disposable beast with that style of play. Champion Fighter has absolutely zero mechanical support for that.

You're missing my point then. I was not speaking to the "disposable man at arms" topic. I was speaking to the "guy who swings his sword every round" topic. The Champion Fighter is pretty similar to an old school fighter class in that respect.

 

[OB1]

And now I want to play a beastmaster.

This thread actually inspired me to play a Beastmaster in the Tomb of Annihilation campaign we just started. My Lizardfolk Ranger has changed companions three times and may or may not be eating old companions. He also constantly asks his party members if he can eat them if they die.

So far he has not had any takers.

 

[Satyrn]

This thread actually inspired me to play a Beastmaster in the Tomb of Annihilation campaign we just started. My Lizardfolk Ranger has changed companions three times and may or may not be eating old companions. He also constantly asks his party members if he can eat them if they die.

So far he has not had any takers.

I love it!

This tempts me to multiclass my halfling druid into a beastmaster who may or may not be eating his companions when wildshaped into a giant python

 

[Parmandur]

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

Well, that's what you were responding to, forgive my error.

 

[Parmandur]

It sure does seem like he's working for them...

Nah, man, that's backwards: they work for me. They make D&D for me,and I pay them money.

 

[Parmandur]

Good.

So you do have opinions. Great!

Now, let us discuss them, instead of hiding behind WotC's decisions.

By that I mean that if you're prepared to stand by YOUR opinion that the Beastmaster is great, that's a good basis for further discussion.

What's entirely useless OTOH is saying the class is great because WotC's numbers says it is, or because WotC needs the issue to go away.

If you truly think you can defend the PHB Beastmaster using your own words and ideas, that would be interesting. We should probably start a new thread for that.

It doesn't really need to be "defended," it is what it is, and folks either like it or don't like it.

WotC has experimented with alternative options,but those experiments didn't do what they wanted, and were found to be unnecessary for customers (on a statistically meaningful level). So, they've refocused on what their customers want. Good for them.

 

[CapnZapp]

It doesn't really need to be "defended," it is what it is, and folks either like it or don't like it.

WotC has experimented with alternative options,but those experiments didn't do what they wanted, and were found to be unnecessary for customers (on a statistically meaningful level). So, they've refocused on what their customers want. Good for them.

You still try to wriggle out of having an opinion of your own.

Just stating (over and over) how great everything is because WotC says so, is entirely useless, so you telling us what you yourself think would be a definite improvement.

 

[lkj]

In my opinion, they don't get enough flak for this waiting game.

Folks, waiting means doing nothing, giving us nothing. There's nothing positive about it. It mostly means WotC can keep staff costs down.

I very much doubt they are doing nothing. I suspect they are doing an awful lot. They just aren't doing the things that you would like them to be doing in the order that you would like them to be doing it. Completely understandable for you to complain about that. But-- while I'm quite interested in what they do, if anything, with the ranger-- I can't say it's that hard to see why it's not a top priority.

And, yes, I know you disagree. That's fine.

AD