Revised Ranger update
ad_hoc
(they/them)
Once per turn the Hunter can deal an extra 1d8 damage to a creature who has already been damaged. That isn't going to make a combat ineffective Ranger effective. So if they are already effective, then so is the Beastmaster.
The Beastmaster can do things like have their beast flank around the enemy's position and harass the spellcasters and archers and such. This doesn't even cost anything. The beast can still take an OA even without being commanded. The Beastmaster's 7th level ability is stronger than the Hunter's too. An extra body on the battlefield taking Dodge can be an effective shield for the party's casters.
The Beastmaster subclass isn't amazing, but then neither is the Hunter. They need to be compared against each other.
CapnZapp
Legend
Why are we circling back to issues already covered exhaustively?
Only if the combat is trivially easy. In any fight where an extra body would make a difference, the pet is far too squishy and the Ranger has no means to keep it alive.
They need to be compared to:
1) other classes
2) expectations
The Hunter subclass is a decent chassi for a ranged combatant, especially in a Fighter/Ranger multiclass.
The Beastmaster is severely lacking in almost every compartment.
The argument "since the subclass sees play we don't need to fix it" is preposterous and misleading.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
Their main measures have been "do people play this class?" and "do they have fun when doing so?"
If it is both popular and considered fun to play, why wouldn't they focus their energy elsewhere? If the perceived "problems" have been resolved as far as the player base is concerned, while the "solutions" were not working for the player base, why would they keep pursuing that path?
Parmandur
Book-Friend
Mathematically, the Ranger and the Beastmaster are fine. WotC has made it clear that there is no functional, mathematical issue at stake (which they know because of playtesting), but one of player perceptions. The revisions were never aimed at mathematically "fixing" anything, because it wasn't "broken." They were aimed at offering something that fit player needs better. On that score, the revisions were basically failures in UA feedback, and in the meantime the demographics have shifted and there isn't an issue with player perceptions on the Ranger at this point, particularly post-Xanathars (new subclasses, new spells).
I think a beast's abilities should be balanced against the fact that they probably will get taken down in a tough fight. If they are too squishy though, the issue is how to mitigate that both tactically and practically. Spells that help plug a gap for a tough fight might be a reasonable if not perfect patch.
Would giving the Beast companion extra extra hit dice of their own based on their base hit dice plus an extra hit die equal to the ranger's proficiency? Not much, but then they don't need much, particularly if you let rangers share the benefits of spending their own hit dice with companions.
Would giving the Beast companion extra extra hit dice of their own based on their base hit dice plus an extra hit die equal to the ranger's proficiency? Not much, but then they don't need much, particularly if you let rangers share the benefits of spending their own hit dice with companions.
)
CapnZapp
Legend
Maybe because they can do better?
Maybe it's just real convenient to settle for "good enough"? Not rock the boat?
Equating "popular" with "it's all us animal companion lovers get" is probably only marketing speak, and there's little reason for you to swallow it hook line and sinker.
Maybe you don't always act as if you have the producer's best interests at heart instead of the consumer's. But you sure do now, and it is a blight on this forum.
CapnZapp
Legend
Bollocks.
If the "math" tells you to not weep over your dead tiger or bear, the math is wrong.
CapnZapp
Legend
If rangers could share their hit points with their pets, much would be resolved.
