D&D 5E The Future of the Ranger

[Mephista]

The current Ranger technically gives up an action to make the pet attack, not an attack. It’s a subtle difference that would have allowed the two to attack side by side at 5th level (or at 3rd if it worked with TWFing). It doesn’t work with the Warlock because EB doesn’t work like Extra Attack.

The PHB beastmaster lets you make an attack at the same time as your pet if you have the Extra Attack feature. Now, its true that this technically not an attack action, and will have some odd interactions with some other rules, but realistically? Its little different than the ranger giving up one of their attacks and giving it to the pet.

I suppose if you want to be technical, since its not an attack action, you can't TWF or use Swift Quiver and other things to make a bonus action attack either, but that's where I'd just make the ruling that you can, because otherwise it's counter-intuitive to me.

Even in this case, however there were issues. People didn't like giving up their attacks to deal less damage through a pet. Or one that could die so easily. The inability to apply Hunter's Mark damage hurt as well. The list goes on, but I think it effectively came down to the feeling that the pet was diminishing the Ranger's abilities rather than complementing them, and the ranger would be more effective in both exploration and combat without the pet.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

The PHB beastmaster lets you make an attack at the same time as your pet if you have the Extra Attack feature. Now, its true that this technically not an attack action, and will have some odd interactions with some other rules, but realistically? Its little different than the ranger giving up one of their attacks and giving it to the pet.

I suppose if you want to be technical, since its not an attack action, you can't TWF or use Swift Quiver and other things to make a bonus action attack either, but that's where I'd just make the ruling that you can, because otherwise it's counter-intuitive to me.

Even in this case, however there were issues. People didn't like giving up their attacks to deal less damage through a pet. Or one that could die so easily. The inability to apply Hunter's Mark damage hurt as well. The list goes on, but I think it effectively came down to the feeling that the pet was diminishing the Ranger's abilities rather than complementing them, and the ranger would be more effective in both exploration and combat without the pet.

The trouble, as I see it, is that unless the PHB pet is commanded by the ranger, it sits around like an idiot without defending itself, running away, or doing much of anything at all. Surely, if combat broke out, a trained attack wolf would do something (attacking, running away, etc.) without needing to be told.

 

[CapnZapp]

The trouble, as I see it, is that unless the PHB pet is commanded by the ranger, it sits around like an idiot without defending itself, running away, or doing much of anything at all. Surely, if combat broke out, a trained attack wolf would do something (attacking, running away, etc.) without needing to be told.

Of course.

Any rule that doesn't see this is utter fail by default.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Marandahir]

The trouble, as I see it, is that unless the PHB pet is commanded by the ranger, it sits around like an idiot without defending itself, running away, or doing much of anything at all. Surely, if combat broke out, a trained attack wolf would do something (attacking, running away, etc.) without needing to be told.

Doesn't it make sense, then, for the DM to run the trained Wolf as a DMPC unless the Ranger uses his or her action to tell the Wolf what to do?

At least, that was my fix at my table.

 

[Thurmas]

Not necessarily. Usually if combating a single boss, it has multiple attacks which can also target you, especially if you are a melee focused player. And if in combat with superior numbers, everyone will get hit.

And I would hope as a beast master, you would not send your beast to slaughter to save your own skin

My point being, its still another body that soaks up damage. Every attack and hit point taken against your beast is an attack and hit points not taken from you or another party member. Same with every attack against you is an attack not against your beast or another party member. You effectively have an entire extra party member to spread attacks around and soak up damage. Having a beast is extremely powerful for more then just a single attack it can do.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

It is just amazing how military and police dogs will keep doing what they are trained to do once given that first command, until they are commanded again to stop. These rules would require that police officer or soldier every six seconds to tell the dog to attack and not get to do anything themselves to the criminal/enemy. Use common sense, people, and apply real world function to this. Ranger tells his pet to attack or guard or whatever it is trained to do and it will keep doing that until it is commanded to stop or is no longer capable of doing the task.

 

[Mephista]

The trouble, as I see it, is that unless the PHB pet is commanded by the ranger, it sits around like an idiot without defending itself, running away, or doing much of anything at all. Surely, if combat broke out, a trained attack wolf would do something (attacking, running away, etc.) without needing to be told.

That too. There's plenty of reason to not be comfortable with the existing Beastmaster. It was very janky and uncomfortable and counter intuitive in play.

My point being, its still another body that soaks up damage. Every attack and hit point taken against your beast is an attack and hit points not taken from you or another party member. Same with every attack against you is an attack not against your beast or another party member. You effectively have an entire extra party member to spread attacks around and soak up damage. Having a beast is extremely powerful for more then just a single attack it can do.

In the first place, the pet IS a party member. If it takes damage, then that means that damage is going to need to be healed, no different than a regular member of the party. Heck, given that it didn't gain extra HD, you will need MORE healing magic than otherwise. In the case of an AoE, the damage is actually increasing than it would otherwise.

Also, having the pet die on you was actually a complaint people had about the current Beastmaster. So, treating it like a bag of HP has its downsides as well.

 

[thethain]

Current Beastmaster Pros:
Options! So many cool options allowing different flavors of pets.
Act on player's turn, faster and allows strategies

Cons:
HP per level is abysmal,
very vulnerable to aoe,
Action economy is wonky you use your action to command beast. Levels 3-5 you ranger is literally just talking the whole time if he has a good pet.
Have to physically find animal. This is handwaved in many campaigns (such as AL) but realistically this is a big limitation, if your beloved wolf died and you are in a dungeon, you can't find a new one.
No HD increase. Short rests don't help if you have not HD to spend.
Hunter's Mark loses much effectiveness.


Revised Ranger Pros:
Pet gains saves
Pet gains skills
Pet acts on its own.

Cons:
Lose extra attack, if pet dies, part of you dies
VERY Limited selection RAW. Mule is one of the 8 options? Really?
Hunter's Mark loses much effectiveness.
Lose out on Favored Enemy damage.

 

[Thurmas]

In the first place, the pet IS a party member. If it takes damage, then that means that damage is going to need to be healed, no different than a regular member of the party. Heck, given that it didn't gain extra HD, you will need MORE healing magic than otherwise. In the case of an AoE, the damage is actually increasing than it would otherwise.

Also, having the pet die on you was actually a complaint people had about the current Beastmaster. So, treating it like a bag of HP has its downsides as well.

The pet is both a party member, and not. From a role playing point of view, it is absolutely a party member. People become attached to them and take extraordinary risks to save them.

From a mechanical point of view though, it is not a party member. It is an extension of the Beast Master's abilities, akin more closely to a Wizard's spellbook. If a character loses their beast or spellbook for example, the character is still alive, but they are severely hampered than if they had not. They aren't rolling new characters or starting over. Both have ways to get back to their normal power level. In this regard, the UA ranger makes it much easier to bring back a fallen beast than the PHB ranger.

 

[CapnZapp]

Not sure we're still on track...

Isn't the point of contention for this thread (timetable speculation aside) whether the Ranger can be "fixed" without throwing the PHB chassi to the wayside?

I don't think it can, or indeed that it is useful to sacrifice anything significant to retain PHB compatability.

But others clearly do. I don't understand how, however.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app