Revised Ranger update

[Prakriti]

If you're a DM, and you think a player's character is under-performing, then just add class-specific magic items to the treasure.

Is the Ranger not doing enough damage? Drop a Longbow +2 into the treasure. Or create a new item: Longbow of the Wilds. +2 enhancement bonus. 3 charges. Casting Hunter's Mark costs 1 charge. Charges replenish at dawn the next day. Can only be wielded by a Ranger.

Is the Ranger's pet wolf too weak? Create a new magic item: Collar of Animal Fortitude. This item gives an animal companion an extra 4 hit points per Ranger level. If the companion drops to 0 hit points, it rolls death saving throws just like any other character.

And so on.

 

[Laurefindel]

... or go back to the root of the pop-culture pet-friendly ranger, and give the ranger a figurine of wondrous power...

 

[Jester David]

Secondly, do you actually have evidence of "Tens of Thousands" of players who are playing the PHB Beastmaster with no houserules what so ever, and that they are completely satisfied?

Well, there are 15 or so million people playing D&D. (Or was it 19 million.) Roughly 1.25 million people play every class.

But classes aren’t played equally. The top classes are slightly more played, and the bottom classes slightly less. Of those, the ranger is likely the #8 most played class.
So if the top 4 classes get played 50% more frequently and the bottom classes get played 50% less.... well, the ranger is still in the middle and sitting at upwards of a million players.

Less than 10% of players were unhappy with the ranger. Now, the majority of those are likely just playing other classes. But even if that number is reflected in ranger players, that’s still 900,000 ranger fans who are satisfied with their class.
Even if the number of ranger players is only half that number—a quarter even— that’s still tens of thousands. Hundreds really.

 

[Jester David]

... or go back to the root of the pop-culture pet-friendly ranger, and give the ranger a figurine of wondrous power...

The root would actually be how the 2e ranger got animals for followers rather than humans.
Which were probably pretty fragile at those levels...

 

[Parmandur]

The root would actually be how the 2e ranger got animals for followers rather than humans.
Which were probably pretty fragile at those levels...

Driz'zt is pre-2E, actually: may have influenced that choice.

 

[Jester David]

Driz'zt is pre-2E, actually: may have influenced that choice.

Kinda.
Crystal Shard came out in ‘88, but the book was hardly an instant hit, and work on 2e was already underway. It’s unlikely Drizzt influenced 2e Rangers...

 

[Laurefindel]

The key word here was « pop-culture » (and the post wasn’t meant to be serious), indeed referencing to Drizz’t. Regardless of its true origin, I’m willing to bet that drizz’t set the archetype of the two-weapon fighting ranger travelling with an animal companion for a whole generation of players.

Actually, on of my first beast master « fix » was something like

When you choose this archetype, you gain a figurine or wondrous power:

At 3rd level, you get to choose one of the three following figurine of wondrous power options (list of three homebrewed challenge 1/2 figurines)

At 7th level, you replace your figurine of wondrous power with one of the three following options (list of three homebrewed CR 2 figurines)

At 15th level, you replace your figurine of wondrous power with one of the three following options (list of three homebrewed CR 5 figurines)

 

[Parmandur]

Kinda.
Crystal Shard came out in ‘88, but the book was hardly an instant hit, and work on 2e was already underway. It’s unlikely Drizzt influenced 2e Rangers...

True, but neither did 2E likely influence Driz'zt. Both probably influenced 3E, which left is the legacy now being discussed.

 

[Jester David]

The key word here was « pop-culture » (and the post wasn’t meant to be serious), indeed referencing to Drizz’t. Regardless of its true origin, I’m willing to bet that drizz’t set the archetype of the two-weapon fighting ranger travelling with an animal companion for a whole generation of players.

It helped, but it wasn't the sole factor. Just all rangers getting two weapon fighting in 2e (which was parallel design more than Drizzt) and animal companion followers made that a thing.
3e just doubled down. And 3.5e was influenced as much by Legolas, as the first LotR movie has just come out.

True, but neither did 2E likely influence Driz'zt. Both probably influenced 3E, which left is the legacy now being discussed.

If Drizzt has heavily influenced the ranger, they probably would have lost their spellcasting. As Drizzt doesn’t use much non-drow magic.
The 3e ranger hews pretty close to what they did in 2e. Heck, even in 4e the pet ranger wasn’t an immediate option, and overlapped poorly with two weapon fighting.

 

[Parmandur]

It helped, but it wasn't the sole factor. Just all rangers getting two weapon fighting in 2e (which was parallel design more than Drizzt) and animal companion followers made that a thing.
3e just doubled down. And 3.5e was influenced as much by Legolas, as the first LotR movie has just come out.


If Drizzt has heavily influenced the ranger, they probably would have lost their spellcasting. As Drizzt doesn’t use much non-drow magic.
The 3e ranger hews pretty close to what they did in 2e. Heck, even in 4e the pet ranger wasn’t an immediate option, and overlapped poorly with two weapon fighting.

The two weapon fighting thing definitely comes through Driz'zt, because in 1E that was a Drow ability specifically.