Satyrn
First Post
That was intense!
Revised Ranger update
That was intense!
Asgorath
Explorer
I'm expecting this is exactly what they are going to clarify with an errata change, rather than a complete redesign of the class/subclass. They're probably going to clarify that you can give your beast an order with an action, and then it will continue to do that every round until otherwise directed. So, if you order it to Attack an enemy, it will just keep doing that until you use another action to tell it to stop etc.
pming
Legend
Hiya.
Changes nothing. At all.
I'm not arguing that what you pointed out isn't true. I said, in the quote of mine you posted: ... the SECOND something is written saying "The Ranger uses an action to command the pet".
That was the entire point. That a DM who reads that "must command...Action" line in the PHB and doesn't apply the same standard to every other animal in the entire D&D universe, is being a moron. I mean, when the PC's are in a goblin cave and the goblins ambush them. The goblins first send in their 3 worgs, then they shoot arrows, then next round move in to melee. Three goblins don't "hold back so they can command the worgs". The worgs are trained to attack intruders and the worgs, presumably, "like" the goblins (to some degree anyway). Or when the PC's move out of the way when walking down the street to make room for a half-dozen mounted knights of the realm...the PC's don't hear the knights shouting "Move" or kicking/squeezing their heels every 10 seconds to keep the horses moving.
Why? Because animals behave as they should behave...except when a well trained one is told not to behave as it naturally would. This simple fact is lost to the so-called DM's I was talking about. It is bad DM'ing (and totally unfair) to apply different standards to the same thing based on who or what is working with it.
To me, it's the same as if a DM said "Everyone make a Strength check to hold on. DC 12, except for the Barbarian...yours is 12 but at Disadvantage; use your Rage to remove that". That would make no sense and be unfair. "Ok Presto, you can cast your spell as your pet mastiff attacks the orc coming at you. Longstrider the Beastmaster? Your pet mastiff just lays there and get's attacked because you lost your action this round...oh, right, it gets attacked with Advantage because it's prone. You haven't told it to get up since arriving two days ago". <-- NO SENSE.
If you can't see why I'm saying that DM's interpreting "must use his action to command" to mean "must use his action to command the animal every 10 seconds or it stops doing everything and ignores all surrounding environmental factors even if this kills it or lets the beastmaster die", then so be it. I would bet dimes to dollars that there are tens of thousands of DM's out there who have no problem with the Beastmaster because they run the pet as being AT LEAST as smart as a well-trained animal. If your DM is running it as a mindless automaton...well, as I said, it's not a problem with the class; it's a problem with your DM.
As for "But it's IN the RULES!"...D&D has one overriding rule. It's called "The DM". In 5e, much like in BECMI or 1e (and to a slightly lesser extent, 2e), the smooth running of a game session REQUIRES that the DM be an active "rule" in the sense that he/she must use their own brainpower to think about the situation and apply any rule appropriately.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Changes nothing. At all.
I'm not arguing that what you pointed out isn't true. I said, in the quote of mine you posted: ... the SECOND something is written saying "The Ranger uses an action to command the pet".
That was the entire point. That a DM who reads that "must command...Action" line in the PHB and doesn't apply the same standard to every other animal in the entire D&D universe, is being a moron. I mean, when the PC's are in a goblin cave and the goblins ambush them. The goblins first send in their 3 worgs, then they shoot arrows, then next round move in to melee. Three goblins don't "hold back so they can command the worgs". The worgs are trained to attack intruders and the worgs, presumably, "like" the goblins (to some degree anyway). Or when the PC's move out of the way when walking down the street to make room for a half-dozen mounted knights of the realm...the PC's don't hear the knights shouting "Move" or kicking/squeezing their heels every 10 seconds to keep the horses moving.
Why? Because animals behave as they should behave...except when a well trained one is told not to behave as it naturally would. This simple fact is lost to the so-called DM's I was talking about. It is bad DM'ing (and totally unfair) to apply different standards to the same thing based on who or what is working with it.
To me, it's the same as if a DM said "Everyone make a Strength check to hold on. DC 12, except for the Barbarian...yours is 12 but at Disadvantage; use your Rage to remove that". That would make no sense and be unfair. "Ok Presto, you can cast your spell as your pet mastiff attacks the orc coming at you. Longstrider the Beastmaster? Your pet mastiff just lays there and get's attacked because you lost your action this round...oh, right, it gets attacked with Advantage because it's prone. You haven't told it to get up since arriving two days ago". <-- NO SENSE.
If you can't see why I'm saying that DM's interpreting "must use his action to command" to mean "must use his action to command the animal every 10 seconds or it stops doing everything and ignores all surrounding environmental factors even if this kills it or lets the beastmaster die", then so be it. I would bet dimes to dollars that there are tens of thousands of DM's out there who have no problem with the Beastmaster because they run the pet as being AT LEAST as smart as a well-trained animal. If your DM is running it as a mindless automaton...well, as I said, it's not a problem with the class; it's a problem with your DM.
As for "But it's IN the RULES!"...D&D has one overriding rule. It's called "The DM". In 5e, much like in BECMI or 1e (and to a slightly lesser extent, 2e), the smooth running of a game session REQUIRES that the DM be an active "rule" in the sense that he/she must use their own brainpower to think about the situation and apply any rule appropriately.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
TheCosmicKid
Hero
What I quoted at you is a special rule applying to beastmaster companions but not to anything else which explicitly prevents the companion from taking an action unless it is commanded to. Just as if there were a special rule applying to barbarians which explicitly gave them disadvantage on Strength checks. If you think this situation is nonsensical and unfair, you are preaching to the choir. The point that is sailing over your head is that when a DM is required to throw out a rule in order to maintain common sense and fairness, there is absolutely a problem with the rule. You can't just expect the DM to fix anything and blame them if they don't. If a DM wanted to write their own rules, they could just design their own game. They buy D&D so they don't have to. It's reasonable to expect an RPG for which they have spent good money not to have rules which are moronic on their face. In this one particular case, D&D has failed that expectation.
Hussar
Legend
Then, I'm really confused.
What's the problem here? The ranger has been revised, you admit that the revision fixes the problems. So, why would they need to publish yet another revision?
ArwensDaughter
Adventurer
Because the revision is not published in the sense of being official; the revision is UA. UA which has, in WOTC's estimation, been archived. It can certainly be used in home games (and I probably would at my table), but it's not AL legal. Personally I'm not too flustered about it because I can always use the revision, or some adaptation of it. (I've toyed with giving Beastmasters beast sense x times per rest, but only with their companion, for example) AL's not an issue for me as there aren't any AL games anywhere close. But I do understand the frustration with Beastmaster being officially revised.
Mercule
Adventurer
Really, I don't give a rip about the beastmaster -- the pet should go with the druid, not the ranger, IMO. I like the Natural Explorer and Favored Enemy abilities better.
The only reason I want something official (or, at least, another UA) is because the revised ranger hunter is the only PC that can't be built using DDB because they aren't opening up home brew base classes and WotC has "archived" the UA ranger so it isn't included in playtest DDB. Now, nothing in the Natural Explorer or Favored Enemy abilities impacts any of the math on the sheet, but I really want the novice player (who is the one playing a ranger) to have an accurate sheet and be in my database of PCs.
I may have done that rant earlier in the thread, but there are so many whine sessions about the ranger, I can't even remember.
Gladius Legis
Legend
If you're referring to the post I think you are, wrong fallacy.
This is the fallacy you're looking for.
