Revised Ranger update

[Mistwell]

Then it's not fighting, by definition.

Not sure what you mean. The help action does this, "[You] aid a friendly creature in attacking a creature within 5 feet of you. You feint, distract the target, or in some other way team up to make your ally's attack more effective. " That's all part of fighting. And this seems like a kinda silly semantics argument. You're trying to do damage to the target, right? Fighting does damage to the target as the goal, right? That's what this all does. Helping the Ranger attack, or running in and attacking the target and running out without drawing an opportunity attack, that's all helping with fighting.

 

[Gradine]

Gee it sure is a good thing that I never even hinted at that then, isn't it?

<Reads this post>

<Reads previous post>

<Reads this post again>

<Reads previous post again>

Make me understand how I'm misreading the following posts, devoid of saltiness:

You: "The PHB gives the impression that the animal companion will be fighting alongside you!"
Someone Else: "They do fight alongside me; here's some practical applications that aren't necessarily standing toe-to-toe with me that I've seen an animal companion provide assistance in combat"
You: "Not standing toe-to-toe I guess that means literally they're not fighting alongside you."
Me: "That's a pretty literal application of a term that I doubt was intended as such. I mean, I 'fight alongside' my buddy's Wizard."
You: "Wizards do so much! Are you saying that's anything equivalent to a beastmaster's companion?"
Me: "I don't really think a beastmaster's companion should be anything equivalent to a Wizard or other PC, do you?"
You: "I never said they had to be!"

I'm just really struggling to figure out where the goalposts on this particular point are when you keep moving them.

I'm not saying that you or others didn't have a different expectation of ranger companions based on either previous editions or particular bit of lore; but it's a real stretch to say that the 5e PHB reflects that same expectation.

 

[Mistwell]

Well, maybe he thought it implied the animal companion doing a bit more than what a wizard's familiar does...

Whatever. There's no convincing people. The "high levels of dissatisfaction" with the class seem to have mysteriously become high levels of satisfaction; animal companions don't seem to die much when played; and the features of the Beastmaster are on par with every other Ranger subclass. So, there's nothing to complain about.

I've suggested three additions to the game to help. They've gotten almost zero response from people claiming the beastmaster needs help. Meanwhile we've had numerous claims like yours that people are saying there's nothing to complain about and everyone is happy (when I have seen almost zero people make that claim). I hope you can understand why the frustration might be mutual at this point.

 

[Yunru]

<Reads this post>

<Reads previous post>

<Reads this post again>

<Reads previous post again>

Make me understand how I'm misreading the following posts, devoid of saltiness:

You: "The PHB gives the impression that the animal companion will be fighting alongside you!"
Someone Else: "They do fight alongside me; here's some practical applications that aren't necessarily standing toe-to-toe with me that I've seen an animal companion provide assistance in combat"
You: "Not standing toe-to-toe I guess that means literally they're not fighting alongside you."
Me: "That's a pretty literal application of a term that I doubt was intended as such. I mean, I 'fight alongside' my buddy's Wizard."
You: "Wizards do so much! Are you saying that's anything equivalent to a beastmaster's companion?"
Me: "I don't really think a beastmaster's companion should be anything equivalent to a Wizard or other PC, do you?"
You: "I never said they had to be!"

I'm just really struggling to figure out where the goalposts on this particular point are when you keep moving them.

I'm not saying that you or others didn't have a different expectation of ranger companions based on either previous editions or particular bit of lore; but it's a real stretch to say that the 5e PHB reflects that same expectation.

Because "Being able to fight and take a hit" is in no way "equivalent to a PC"?
The fact that I have to even explain that boggles the mind.

EDIT: Also you speak of "devoid of saltiness" then brutally murder the original meaning of what I say so much that it's a different point? Salt much?
Like, let's take this line: "Not standing toe-to-toe I guess that means literally they're not fighting alongside you."
Maaaan that sounds bad, but oh wait, let's look at what it actually is, without the bastardisation: "Not attacking or taking a hit well? I guess that means literally they're not fighting alongside you."
Oh look, that hyperbole about "equivalent" is your invention.

 

[Eric V]

Not sure what you mean. The help action does this, "[You] aid a friendly creature in attacking a creature within 5 feet of you. You feint, distract the target, or in some other way team up to make your ally's attack more effective. " That's all part of fighting. And this seems like a kinda silly semantics argument. You're trying to do damage to the target, right? Fighting does damage to the target as the goal, right? That's what this all does. Helping the Ranger attack, or running in and attacking the target and running out without drawing an opportunity attack, that's all helping with fighting.

It's definitely a help, of a kind. For sure.

He'd probably be better off being a Hunter with the Arcane Initiate feat for this purpose, but yeah, advantage helps.

Can you see that it's a little underwhelming, compared to stories people might have read about warriors "fighting alongside" their companions?

 

[Eric V]

I've suggested three additions to the game to help. They've gotten almost zero response from people claiming the beastmaster needs help. Meanwhile we've had numerous claims like yours that people are saying there's nothing to complain about and everyone is happy (when I have seen almost zero people make that claim). I hope you can understand why the frustration might be mutual at this point.

There's been quite a few responses that there's nothing to really fix since the class seems to be popular.

As for your fixes, with respect, while they do seem like they might be of help, they also seem in some ways to be a "tax" on the Beastmaster specifically, in that the other subclasses don't need them to make their particular subclass abilities effective.

 

[Gradine]

Because "Being able to fight and take a hit" is in no way "ewuivalent to a PC"?
The fact that I have to even explain that boggles the mind.

1) @Mistwell has already covered the numerous ways in which various animal companions are "able to fight", just not in the meat-shield manner you seem to hold as the only way to accomplish this
2) At what point is "being able to take a hit" necessary to be engaged in a fight? My wizard buddy can't really take many hits either, after all.

Again, it is clear that you have a very precise expectation for what a Ranger's companion is supposed to be able to do. What is also clear (and the issue that is actually being discussed at the moment) is that there is nothing in the overall text of this current edition of D&D that would have reasonably given you that expectation with regards to the Beastmaster Ranger. You are instead relying on overly literal interpretations of this text (and the arguments of those responding to you) to try to make some obtuse semantic point. It is not working.

Again, @Mistwell has pointed out that there are plenty of places across the internet that have taken the impetus to build a Beastmaster more in line with your expectations, and that there's no immediate reason to think those efforts wouldn't be any worse than what the folks at WotC would surmise (especially given the level of opinion you and others in this thread appear to hold regarding the company and its employees) and they've already even offered a couple of suggestions themselves.

That said "failing to meet your specific expectations for the class" and "failing to meet the expectations presented within its own description" are two very different things. To say nothing of the gap between either of these and, say, "objectively broken at a fundamental level" for instance.

 

[Yunru]

1) [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] has already covered the numerous ways in which various animal companions are "able to fight", just not in the meat-shield manner you seem to hold as the only way to accomplish this

None of which involve actually fighting. "Oh cool, can I have my panther leap at him and try to bite his face?" "You cooould, but it'd be better if he just played distraction." "Wow. So cool. End sarcasm."

2) At what point is "being able to take a hit" necessary to be engaged in a fight? My wizard buddy can't really take many hits either, after all.

The point where every animal companion except... two? Except two are melee creatures, and thus can't do the whole "I can be safe from damage by being too far away to easily be hit?" Sure, your wizard buddy can't really take many hits, but they also don't have to be right next to the opponent to contribute.

 

[Yunru]

Not sure what you mean. The help action does this, "[You] aid a friendly creature in attacking a creature within 5 feet of you. You feint, distract the target, or in some other way team up to make your ally's attack more effective. " That's all part of fighting. And this seems like a kinda silly semantics argument. You're trying to do damage to the target, right? Fighting does damage to the target as the goal, right? That's what this all does. Helping the Ranger attack, or running in and attacking the target and running out without drawing an opportunity attack, that's all helping with fighting.

All of which boils down to... helping someone else. That's not fighting, that's supporting.
Yay, my supposed-to-be-kickass Panther can sit on the sidelines and be a distraction. Truly that's what having a animal companion is about, being the equivalent of True Shot (True Strike?).

 

[OB1]

[MENTION=6780961]Yunru[/MENTION] would the following feats and spells give you what you want?

Feat - greater companion. You can now train large creatures and those of a CR up to 1/2. If you have 8 levels in the Ranger class, the CR of your companion can be 1.

1st Level Spell - Hunting Party- concentration, 1 minute. You gain an additional action that you can use only to issue commands to your beast companion. Your companion gains 5 temp hit points (+5 for each additional spell slot level) and gains a 1d4 bonus to its damage rolls.

2nd level spell - Revive Beast - you touch a beast that has been dead for less than a minute. It returns to life with 1 HP.

3rd - Reinvigorate Beast, bonus Action, range 60’, you voice brings vitality back to a beast. It regains all lost hit points and can immediately move up to its speed without taking an opportunity attack.