D&D 5E What is/should be the Ranger's "thing"?

[bedir than]

Is a ‘pet’ nothing more than an NPC whose initiative is the same as yours, who you can allow to go before or after you?

And of animal intelligence, or lower.

I think one of the things that would help the Ranger's companions is if they "level" in similar ways to cantrips or extra attacks. This could be by adding quantity of pets at certain tiers, or powers of pets at certain tiers.

Something like (thinking as I write) a 1/4 CR at 1st level. A 1/2 CR or lower at 5th level. A 1 CR beast or 2 more 1/2 CR or lower beasts at 11th. At 17th level that could be a 3 CR beast or more small beasts. Make the 20th level capstone something like a 5 CR beast (giant croc, giant shark, some dinosaurs, mammoths) in addition to their remaining living beasts.

This could get complex for play, which in some ways incentivizes having only the single larger beast.

There should also be a mechanical incentive for the Ranger to not treat the pet like a meat soak and try to keep them alive. My homebrew has animal companions as a standard. If they perish the character attached to them take half the animal's hit points in psychic damage. For the most part the players don't have their animals enter conflict, as they don't want to lose their companion.

 

[Minigiant]

You guys do realize that if the companion isn't weak or minor, the humanoid must be weak or be a crappy warrior.

Right. You now this. No one is getting Super Forest Ninja AND Wolf-Tank.

 

[Ibn Khaldun]

I think things like favored enemy and the concept of favored terrain aren't universal enough-- I think a ranger should be all about adaptability. Let favored enemy kick in any time a ranger is fighting a foe for the second time. Let favored terrain be anywhere the ranger has spent a day moving through.

 

[Sadrik]

As I said early on, anyone should be able to have an animal companion, or familiar, or henchman, or special mount. If you want to dedicate your resources to it (spells and feats) then by all means have one. A whole class dedicated to it though seems odd.

Why cannot a rogue, buy a wardog, or several of them and have animal training and teach them to guard him? Or for a ranger, perhaps make the animal companion is simply a feat that they get. Then they could get a crocodile/panther/bear/etc, train it and have it guard its master. Or paladin gets a hippogriff, or the fighter with knight background gets a squire. The enchanter gets a bodyguard thrall. These all fall into the same mold for me mechanically. Why make one class have this only? What if during roleplay an egg is found and the new player says I keep it! Then several months later it is a baby wyvern, the player wants to train it and make it theirs and is very attached to the idea of having a wyvern. Based on the Ranger Pet class what do you say? Well you are not a ranger so you cannot have a pet? This strikes me as a limitation for others more than a boon for the ranger.

 

[Minigiant]

As I said early on, anyone should be able to have an animal companion, or familiar, or henchman, or special mount. If you want to dedicate your resources to it (spells and feats) then by all means have one. A whole class dedicated to it though seems odd.

Why cannot a rogue, buy a wardog, or several of them and have animal training and teach them to guard him? Or for a ranger, perhaps make the animal companion is simply a feat that they get. Then they could get a crocodile/panther/bear/etc, train it and have it guard its master. Or paladin gets a hippogriff, or the fighter with knight background gets a squire. The enchanter gets a bodyguard thrall. These all fall into the same mold for me mechanically. Why make one class have this only? What if during roleplay an egg is found and the new player says I keep it! Then several months later it is a baby wyvern, the player wants to train it and make it theirs and is very attached to the idea of having a wyvern. Based on the Ranger Pet class what do you say? Well you are not a ranger so you cannot have a pet? This strikes me as a limitation for others more than a boon for the ranger.

It really only works if the master has training or abilities that surpass normal training. Anyone can rear and train a bear. Only special trainers can progress the bear to a stronger bear.

The D&D ranger can share his spells with his beast, something a fighter or wizard cannot. I'd let them speak with each other as well.

 

[Hriston]

As I said early on, anyone should be able to have an animal companion, or familiar, or henchman, or special mount. If you want to dedicate your resources to it (spells and feats) then by all means have one. A whole class dedicated to it though seems odd.

Why cannot a rogue, buy a wardog, or several of them and have animal training and teach them to guard him? Or for a ranger, perhaps make the animal companion is simply a feat that they get. Then they could get a crocodile/panther/bear/etc, train it and have it guard its master. Or paladin gets a hippogriff, or the fighter with knight background gets a squire. The enchanter gets a bodyguard thrall. These all fall into the same mold for me mechanically. Why make one class have this only? What if during roleplay an egg is found and the new player says I keep it! Then several months later it is a baby wyvern, the player wants to train it and make it theirs and is very attached to the idea of having a wyvern. Based on the Ranger Pet class what do you say? Well you are not a ranger so you cannot have a pet? This strikes me as a limitation for others more than a boon for the ranger.

What separates the companion from other NPC associates is that it is magically bonded to the Ranger in such a way that the benefits of the feature are conferred. Central to these is that the beast obeys the Ranger's commands without question. The loyalty of most other NPC's is subject to how they are treated, but the Ranger's companion will never desert. Add to this the various bonuses to AC, attack and damage rolls, saves, and skills, as well as spell sharing and I think the companion stands out enough that you could let other classes recruit, capture, or train their own helpers without stepping on the Ranger's toes at all.

The fact that the Ranger has to give up an action to command the beast to do something significant tells us that in most cases the Ranger is better off acting alone in combat, and that the beast fills a support position in combat at best, contributing primarily in the exploration pillar. I agree that this is not a good focus for what is primarily a martial class.

 

[kerbarian]

You guys do realize that if the companion isn't weak or minor, the humanoid must be weak or be a crappy warrior.

Right. You now this. No one is getting Super Forest Ninja AND Wolf-Tank.

I think you have both of them be strong as long as you play with the action economy. Essentially, you have a character who can act as either forest ninja (somewhat less of a ninja than a solo ranger) or wolf tank each round but it's not like you have both of them in the party taking full sets of actions.

Which is sort of what they did with the 5E beast master, except the beast's actions aren't ever that impressive. Also, for me, playing with the action economy like that is more believable if the beast is something like a fey spirit (like Find Familiar) rather than a normal beast you've befriended and trained.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

You guys do realize that if the companion isn't weak or minor, the humanoid must be weak or be a crappy warrior.

Right. You now this. No one is getting Super Forest Ninja AND Wolf-Tank.

Not necessarily. You could play with the XP table instead, or even just say the companion counts as a full NPC (and increases encounter XP budgets) and gets a share of the experience. That's fully balanced in the same way that adding another PC is balanced.

 

[Hriston]

I think you have both of them be strong as long as you play with the action economy. Essentially, you have a character who can act as either forest ninja (somewhat less of a ninja than a solo ranger) or wolf tank each round but it's not like you have both of them in the party taking full sets of actions.

Which is sort of what they did with the 5E beast master, except the beast's actions aren't ever that impressive. Also, for me, playing with the action economy like that is more believable if the beast is something like a fey spirit (like Find Familiar) rather than a normal beast you've befriended and trained.

Except that isn't how you get a companion. It's a magical bond that only takes eight hours. I would think it would take much longer to train an animal to go into danger with you or to even follow basic commands.

 

[Minigiant]

Not necessarily. You could play with the XP table instead, or even just say the companion counts as a full NPC (and increases encounter XP budgets) and gets a share of the experience. That's fully balanced in the same way that adding another PC is balanced.

But that's not what people want.

They want Super Forest Ninja and Wolf-Tank who act independently, don't come from spells, doesn't take months to replace, and have no XP penalty.

And that AINT happening.