Revised Ranger update

[Mistwell]

No?

If it's in the MM it's up to the DM whether it's available.

Furthermore, if you need a guide just to be able to pick a usable companion, that should be the biggest red flag you can get short of the class literally causing players to explode.

I don't need a guide to be able to pick a usable companion. Most people in this thread don't need a guide to pick a usable companion. But given your post above, which didn't mention most of the usable companions, it seemed YOU might get something from a guide.

Flying snake and Giant Poisonous Snake (which are both great companions) are both in the Basic rules by the way. You didn't mention either, though they're often considered the best companions to do the thing you seem most interested in doing with animal companions, which is attacking directly.

I say again - it might be helpful if you got more experience playing this class you're so upset about. I am trying to help you get the most out of this class you think isn't doing enough, and your responses seem to be routinely dismissing anyone who tries to help unless that help is replacing the existing class. Maybe consider other ways?

 

[Yunru]

Also, if I'm fighting a bugbear alongside my trusty wolf, and the bugbear starts attacking my wolf because he sees it as the bigger threat, there's something that's gone horribly wrong and has little to do with the construction of the class or its features.

You're right, but when the bugbear attacks the wolf because it's the softest target...

Again, what you seem to be asking for is something at least approaches the same level of combat functionality and survivability as another PC. I posit that that is an unreasonable request.

And you'd be half right!
Half right because anything more than "dies in 1.5 hits" is approaching a player's level of "I can survive combat". Half wrong because that's in no way unreasonable.

 

[Yunru]

I don't need a guide to be able to pick a usable companion. Most people in this thread don't need a guide to pick a usable companion. But given your post above, which didn't mention most of the usable companions, it seemed YOU might get something from a guide.

It didn't mention them because, as I said, I was drawing from the Player Handbook. You know, the thing most players will look to first.

I am trying to help you get the most out of this class you think isn't doing enough, and your responses seem to be routinely dismissing anyone who tries to help unless that help is replacing the existing class. Maybe consider other ways?

That'd be because I'm not asking for help getting the most out of the subclass, I'm making the case that the subclass is too weak as is? The fact that you can't just pick an option that sounds thematic and run with it is a major warning sign. And I'm not talking "what do you mean my fish can't swim on land" I'm talking "8 out of all beasts in all books are rated better than average. 9 are considered average. Oh and that requires they be available in your area."

 

[Mistwell]

It didn't mention them because, as I said, I was drawing from the Player Handbook. You know, the thing most players will look to first.

This is a bad excuse. Both I mentioned are in the free Basic rules everyone has access to. It's obvious they are fair game for this discussion and if you're going to reduce the discussion down to a false claim "you can only choose from the three directly mentioned in the PHB as examples" even though you yourself didn't do that when listing animal companions, then I think we all know where you're coming from at this point. Is this a conversation you're having, or are you just trying to hit an "I win" button on an argument by defining the rules to say you win?

 

[Yunru]

This is a bad excuse. Both I mentioned are in the free Basic rules everyone has access to. It's obvious they are fair game for this discussion and if you're going to reduce the discussion down to a false claim "you can only choose from the three directly mentioned in the PHB as examples" even though you yourself didn't do that when listing animal companions, then I think we all know where you're coming from at this point. Is this a conversation you're having, or are you just trying to hit an "I win" button on an argument by defining the rules to say you win?

Hyperbole much?

I drew from the Player's Handbook because that's what I have on hand.

But sure, resort to personal attacks.

 

[Mistwell]

Hyperbole much?

I drew from the Player's Handbook because that's what I have on hand.

But sure, resort to personal attacks.

You don't have the basic rules on hand? And when asked, you said it was what people would use even though I've never seen a discussion of the beast master animal companions that didn't at least include the basic rules?

Can you agree these are fair game or not?

 

[Gradine]

If it's in the MM it's up to the DM whether it's available.

[citation needed]

You're right, but when the bugbear attacks the wolf because it's the softest target...

Why would any creature of animal intelligence or higher target an animal when there's a moderately armored, weapon wielding man in their face? Especially for those creatures you've deemed "useless" outside of their ability to Help, such as a weasel or a monkey?

There are some creatures that no animal companion should be tangling with (ie, any powerful creature with an AOE effect), but outside of that, if you find your DM targeting your companions because they're the "softest", I would suggest that there is a problem there, but it lies outside of the class design.

And you'd be half right!
Half right because anything more than "dies in 1.5 hits" is approaching a player's level of "I can survive combat". Half wrong because that's in no way unreasonable.

By 3rd level (when the companion makes an appearance, mind you) most melee PCs can survive quite a bit more than 1.5 hits, unless they are routinely tangling with only individual creatures in the Deadly encounter range. Something offered by a subclass feature (even a subclass's signature feature) should not provide anything remotely close to a "second PC" in terms of either combat ability or survivability.

An animal companion is meant to be used strategically and support your own abilities and powers, not provide another party tank. That is completely unreasonable.

 

[Yunru]

An animal companion is meant to be used strategically and support your own abilities and powers, not provide another party tank. That is completely unreasonable.

And again with the false claims. There's a world of difference between "Oh hey, I don't die in the first round" and "Hit me all you want, it won't do a thing!"
I've never once attempted to claim the latter.

 

[Yunru]

You don't have the basic rules on hand? And when asked, you said it was what people would use even though I've never seen a discussion of the beast master animal companions that didn't at least include the basic rules?

Can you agree these are fair game or not?

Of course they're fair game? I never claimed otherwise?
I claimed fours things total:
The animal companion is seriously lacking in survival ability.
I am drawing only from the PHB.
The PHB is what I have on hand.
The PHB will be the first place checked by a new beastmaster.

 

[Gradine]

And again with the false claims. There's a world of difference between "Oh hey, I don't die in the first round" and "Hit me all you want, it won't do a thing!"

Any animal companion that would die in the first round should never be seen a viable target by anything dangerous enough to kill it in the first place.

I've never once attempted to claim the latter.

I am trying to accurately gauge exactly where you fall on the spectrum between "animal companion as it exists now" and "same-leveled PC" and you are not providing much in the way of detail there (not to mention completely over-exaggerating the usefulness of the former).