Revised Ranger update

[Paul Farquhar]

You're granting a player, essentially, two characters,

But Crawford is actually suggesting that the DM allow players to have allied animals as party members, instead of beastmaster rangers. In effect, giving the player two characters.


Which I'm fine with - its how it was done in 1st edition. But it needs to be spelled out. Perhaps there needs to be a supplement called "Pets and Sidekicks" giving full rules for secondary characters in 5e.

 

[ClaytonCross]

I dunno, I liked my dwarven dual wielding hunter. I thought he worked out really well with the various hunter abilities. I wouldn't consider the fighting style a trap at all.

Well if you got it to work, could you share your character build and give and example of how you played it without a ranged weapon and it worked out? What are these various hunter abilities that worked well? I gust spelled out all the problems I had just trying to build a character. My GM likes a gritty world where story is king but holding your own in a fight is a must or your a liability to the group because fights scale to the party number but not player skill or builds. I need every character to be story concentric to give the GM interesting toys to play with because he as a story GM but not be a paper character who just narrates a good fight but lives up to it in design and execution.

... so please ..,. what did you do? I tried and failed would really like some feed back from someone who made it work.

 

[Satyrn]

But Crawford is actually suggesting that the DM allow players to have allied animals as party members, instead of beastmaster rangers. In effect, giving the player two characters.


Which I'm fine with - its how it was done in 1st edition. But it needs to be spelled out. Perhaps there needs to be a supplement called "Pets and Sidekicks" giving full rules for secondary characters in 5e.

More of y'all are echoing what I said early on this thread. I like it. I feel special.


. . . although the idea of a supplement of full rules is like the opposite of what I'd want. I prefer 5e when it stays away from specifics. I think it would've been enough to include well trained hunting dogs and pet jaguars in the equipment section, with a comment about how they reliably obey their master's command, in combat or not.

I mean sure, those of us who want more codified rules would want more than just that, and the DMG's optional rules would've been the perfect place for that. Or Xanathar's DM section, since it made clear it was just more optional rules, too.

There are definitely ways we can get what we both want.

 

[Mistwell]

No, read what I wrote instead of putting words in my mouth.

I did. I literally wrote the definition of the words you wrote. There is no other rationale way to read what you wrote that I can think of. If you think it meant something different, I challenge you to explain how it did.

 

[CapnZapp]

I did. I literally wrote the definition of the words you wrote. There is no other rationale way to read what you wrote that I can think of. If you think it meant something different, I challenge you to explain how it did.

I'm not responsible for what happens in your brain. Sorry.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm not responsible for what happens in your brain. Sorry.

No but you're responsible for what you write here and you appear to be denying you wrote what you plainly did write. Let's review. You said, "Some people here are so desperate to avoid having to admit WotC can do one wrong, they're constructing a narrative where people are retconned into not expecting their animal companions to survive combat, or not to enter combat at all. It is despicable."

How is that anything other than you calling, "Some people here [who made an argument you have explained at length you disagree with] are despicable, meaning deserving of hatred and contempt."

That's what the words you wrote mean. I am offering you an opportunity to explain how it might mean something else, to clarify, or say it in a way that people might not interpret it that way. All you've responded with since is snark and sarcasm and insults, which would tend to reinforce the sentiment that you hold those who disagree with you on this topic in contempt.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

But Crawford is actually suggesting that the DM allow players to have allied animals as party members, instead of beastmaster rangers. In effect, giving the player two characters.


Which I'm fine with - its how it was done in 1st edition. But it needs to be spelled out. Perhaps there needs to be a supplement called "Pets and Sidekicks" giving full rules for secondary characters in 5e.

Just write up "Bear" as a full race/class and have a buddy play it.

 

[Satyrn]

Just write up "Bear" as a full race/class and have a buddy play it.

A grizzly bear barbarian who took the Path of Eagle Totem. Wait. I took a wrong turn there at the end. I guess I'm stuck playing an owlbear now.

 

[Yunru]

*cough*

Yeah I sorta just left it at its underpowered state.

 

[Satyrn]

*cough*

Yeah I sorta just left it at its underpowered state.

While it may be underpowered it's still (uh, sorry) smarter than the average bear.