Oh, no, I'm referring to the Revised Ranger. Always. Because, well, that's the point isn't it? The PHB Beastmaster is very unpopular and not very good. So, they gave us the Revised Beastmaster and the problem is resolved. I'm still, frankly, baffled why this is even a conversation.
The PHB Beastmaster SUCKS!
Ok, here's the revised Beastmaster and it works.
It's not published between two hard covers!!! It doesn't count!!!
... ummm... we ... err... but we fixed... uh...
WotC sucks and anyone who defends them is a blind apologist!!!
... err.... but... it's fixed... we gave you what you wanted... errr
On and on and on, round and round.
Yeah, I get that.
I guess for me personally, I kind of would have liked them to admit it is an official variant of the class. I don't need it in print, but JC saying "There is one Ranger, the one in the Player's Handbook" really puts a damper on things if I'm ever talking to a guy who wants to play a ranger, but refuses to play "unofficial" material.
I actually just ran into a player like that. Not in a game I'm running, but one I'm playing. They are completely against all UA and Homebrew options, and doesn't want another player to use the Revised Ranger. Not my call or my problem (I'm not the GM and I don't even know if the Ranger wants to use the Revised Version, it just came up in table talk) but stuff like that just makes things more complicated than they need to be.
Thanks for going back through the thread I think you caught most of that discussion.
Yes with the fighting style you'd be able to use a bonus action to give any allied adjacent animal an attack. Once you became a beast master, you could also give up an attack of yours to give them an attack, which would allow the beast to make two attacks that round, but of course you've lost both your bonus action and an attack of your attack action. I think that works pretty well. Yes, the bonus action attack is a "cheaper" cost than the attack action attack, but then you gave up other fighting styles to get it so I don't see an issue. It might not be a perfect patch, but it's a pretty darn good one, and better than what we have right now, and saves altering the entire sub-class (which WOTC is committed to not doing). I put it in the "good enough" category.
A few points.
Biggest one, in terms of RAW, how does this work for the Beast's Action Economy. Are we saying this is similar to Haste or Action Surge in that the beast is given an action to use, because I didn't assume you could do both. This could also allow the beast to Dodge and Attack on the same turn, which is relatively nice, even though the Ranger is forgotten by that point, having to use their action and bonus action. (Something I had not realized, Beastmasters can only give up an attack if they want the beast to attack, if the beast is helping, dodging, ect, they need to give up their full action until they hit level 7)
Secondly, an adjacent beast ally? That is awfully harsh, since it means a beastmaster will be in melee scrums even as an archer if they want to use this. If you want to limit it so the Ranger and the beast need to be near each other, at least make it 30 ft so the archer has a chance to stay out of melee.
Third, just thought of this since you have double-dipping for the attack action, how does this interact with the level 11 ability Bestial Fury? If the Ranger gives up an attack and their bonus action does the Beast get 4 attacks?
It isn't a bad offensive buff, I will admit, and the Ranger acting as body shield for the Beast if they are adjacent and attacked (does nothing against spell saves, since those aren't attacks) is nice defensively too. You just need a beast that can deal enough damage and have a high enough AC.
Right this is getting back to those spells I mentioned. those spells for the most part require a friendly beast be nearby (you touch a friendly beast with most of them). So it's already assumed you're making or otherwise accessing friendly beasts around you from creatures who likely do not start out as friendly. You're probably using your skills - and that's the biggest key to changing the attitude of animals to being friendly, a skill check. It might be a handle animal check, it might be a nature check to know something about the animal, it might be a check to track an animal, it might be a persuasion check if you can communicate directly by use of a spell or ability. But the game assumes you're accessing friendly beasts already with those spells and skills.
There are spells to locate animals, spells to talk to animals, telepathically link with animals, see through an animals eyes and ears, charm animals, and a skill to persuade animals to become friendly. So they either make an animal friendly, or assume you routinely access friendly animals.
Once you have a friendly animal, there are further spells to do special things with these friendly animals like get them to deliver a message for you, etc.. So the game does assume you can and likely do access friendly animals if that's the kind of character you're wanting to play.
There are other classes which access friendly animals as well. Some Warlocks can speak with animals at will. A Totem Barbarian gets some abilities with beasts. A Nature Cleric can charm animals with Channel Divinity. Of course Druids get plenty of animal related spells and abilities. You can buy animals, and the player's handbook lists these: Camel, Donkey, Mule, Draft Horse, Elephant, Mastiff, Pony, Riding Horse, Warhorse. It also suggests you can potentially access even more animals and mounts.
So the game does assume you can and likely do access friendly animals if that's the kind of character you're wanting to play. Which was my point.
Will a lot of people be interested in this fighting style if they don't plan on becoming a beast master? Probably not. But, they might. Particularly if they are themselves or if they are playing with a Nature Cleric, a Druid, a Warlock with Beast Speech, or possibly a Barbarian Totem Warrior, you might want this fighting style. You'd want to coordinate other friendly animals being around the party, but yes it has its purposes outside the beastmaster sub-class. But yes, of course it's primary use is for the beastmaster sub-class...which is the topic we were discussing.
Okay, the game does have spells that assume animals will be nearby and utilized occasionally. That does not mean the game assumes they will be involved in combat, nor that they will stick around.
I've seen more people use Speak With Animals to try and pump alley dogs and Guardsmen's Horses for information than I have ever seen them convince a badger to go on an adventure with them. Also, of the animals you listed for sale every single one is a beast of burden, except maybe the mastiff but they are also listed with a carrying capacity (BTW, how did I never notice Elephants for sale in the PHB?).
Your fighting style is by necessity a combat buff, and I can't imagine any sane ranger giving up their bonus action for a mule's +2 to hit 1d4+2 attack. It exists as an option, but it isn't relevant if no one would do it.
Those spells are situational uses at best, utilizing the animals you find during an adventure, but for your fighting style to be useful before a Ranger get's their companion, or after their companion dies and before they get a new one, that there are viable, combat ready beasts on the battlefield. And you have to actually try to even get beasts on the battlefield period, let alone ones that would be worth giving up your bonus action to make attack while you are standing next to them. This isn't a question of "can you convince a wild bear to follow the party and fight for you" or "can you buy horses and get them to fight for you" it is a question of "Will these beasts be common enough and combat capable enough for it to be worth this fighting style." And I don't think the sparrows the druid occasionally uses to send messages or the old plow horse you borrowed from Farmer Johnson to carry the McGuffin really count towards that.
As for the discussion about people not wanting to treat companions as disposable as being too "old school" I disagree. The Ranger is no longer required to be a "good" alignment, like they often were in prior editions. I think it's actually rather "new school" to be a neutral or even evil aligned Ranger and treat companions as disposable things which you renew each 8 hour long rest as needed. But even if you view it as old school, I don't think it's that much of an unappealing concept to a lot of people. As I mentioned earlier, I appreciate the irony that I am a vegetarian in real life and I am the one advocating that approach, but others agreed it had it's appeal. If it's not for you, that's fine. But I don't think it's as anathema to as many people as you seem to think it is. I don't think the game has "moved on" from that concept, and it may in fact be moving closer to it these days.
I don't think the game is moving closer to "Dog Fighting the Class" whether or not you want to play an evil ranger. I think my biggest gripe with it is the idea that it was the intended goal of the design, because... man does that worry me. It just goes completely against the cultures I've seen at the various tables in my area, which means there is a massive cultural disconnect somewhere..
It just breaks my enjoyment of the game I suppose, to imagine someone throwing animals to their deaths against massive monsters. "This manticore is tougher than I thought, I'll open cage #3 and send the badger in next, he'll probably survive a round or two while I patch up that bear I caught." It just sickens me, and I can't imagine a player at my table even attempting something like that.
And yeah, double standard for the Beastmaster, who takes in a single beast instead of a menagerie, but perceptions and tastes aren't always rational and one bothers me far more than the other.
