Revised Ranger update

[pming]

Hiya!

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.

Ahhh... a total misunderstanding on my part. My bad. I apologize. I thought "you" (not just you but others) were pretty much saying "It's stupid, but that's what it says so we can't change the rules. WotC needs to officially change them, and until they do...Beastmasters suck because there's nothing we can do about it".

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.

I think I generally agree with you...generally. I don't agree that, if I'm reading this right, the expectation is for the DM to not change things that make no/little sense...or to interpret things in a very verbose and literal meaning. A case of "RAW' versus "RAI" I'm thinking.

To me, because 5e is specifically designed with a lot of...shall we say, "wiggle room" for the DM throughout it's core, it very much is the DM's fault if he/she is interpreting something that results in a 'bad' game (or spell, race, or class in this case). I think this is just a difference of expectations with regards to the Rule Books and the DM's/Players.

I, personally, don't have any problem with the rule as is, because I see my DM job as to interpret, fix, ignore, add or otherwise modify the game rules and expectations. In this case, I don't think WotC was "bad" for writing the rule that way. Could it have been written better? Probably. But I paid for the book which includes a Beastmaster. I don't expect the class (or books in general) to be "perfect" (and I don't think you do either). From what I read, "...must use an action to command" is only "moronic" if the DM is interpreting it literally and with no other factors taking place in the game. As I said...RAW versus RAI. I read that and think "Huh...seems kinda limiting. I don't think that's what they meant because then the PC Beastmaster would be really disadvantaged. They must mean that to change or initiate a command, the Beastmaster has to do that. Then the pet takes over doing that. Hmmm...yeah. That makes much more sense. Probably what they intended".

RAW vs RAI.

Thanks for clearing up your POV on it.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Hussar]

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.

Sorry. "DDB"? Haven't seen that acronym before.

So, the issue here is the "official" tag? I can see that. OTOH, WotC would have access to information about what classes are being played in AL don't they? I've never played, but, aren't characters registered in some way? Isn't there any reporting going back to WotC about what is being played? I would presume so, but, maybe I'm wrong.

So, if they are getting feedback from AL play, and the PHB ranger is being played in AL without any real issue, then, well, again, what's the problem? If you want to play in the AL, you play the PHB ranger. Which, apparently, is being played often enough that it's not seen as a problem. For home games, you have the UA ranger, which arguably fixes the problems that people have with the PHB ranger.

Where is the problem?

 

[cbwjm]

Sorry. "DDB"? Haven't seen that acronym before.

So, the issue here is the "official" tag? I can see that. OTOH, WotC would have access to information about what classes are being played in AL don't they? I've never played, but, aren't characters registered in some way? Isn't there any reporting going back to WotC about what is being played? I would presume so, but, maybe I'm wrong.

So, if they are getting feedback from AL play, and the PHB ranger is being played in AL without any real issue, then, well, again, what's the problem? If you want to play in the AL, you play the PHB ranger. Which, apparently, is being played often enough that it's not seen as a problem. For home games, you have the UA ranger, which arguably fixes the problems that people have with the PHB ranger.

Where is the problem?

DDB is, I'm 99% certain, DnD Beyond.

 

[Mercule]

Yup. Otherwise, I'd be fine with the UA article and move on. Kinda like a Dragon magazine, back in the day. I just want my tool to work, and my "outrage" is proportional to that.

 

[CapnZapp]

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?

???

First off, it isn't published! It's still in UA.

Second, it desperately needs its multiclass balancing pass.

Are you really arguing in good faith if I need to point out the obvious to you...

 

[BookBarbarian]

For home games, you have the UA ranger, which arguably fixes the problems that people have with the PHB ranger.

Where is the problem?

The UA Revised ranger swung the pendulum to far in the opposite direction for my tastes. Which is not surprising. Most of the Classes and subclasses in UA are too strong and are toned down when published.

This is a good way to get a lot of feedback on UAs.

I was excited to see the direction they were taking it. And indeed if they are still planning some alternate class features I am still excited.

 

[ChameleonX]

If you think the PHB Ranger is too weak, here's the simple solution;

Favored Enemy: Add the following sentence: Once per turn, when you hit one of your Favored Enemies with a weapon attack, you may add your proficiency bonus to one of that attack's damage rolls.

Primeval Awareness: Delete the phrase, "Expend a spell slot." Add the following to the end of the paragraph, "You can use this feature a number of times equal to your wisdom modifier (Minimum 1). You regain any expended uses when you finish a long rest.

Hide in Plain Sight: replace with UA feature of the same name.

Foe Slayer: replace the word "or" with the word "and."

Boom. No more problems.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Primeval Awareness: Delete the phrase, "Expend a spell slot." Add the following to the end of the paragraph, "You can use this feature a number of times equal to your wisdom modifier (Minimum 1). You regain any expended uses when you finish a long rest.

That doesn't address the fact that Primeval Awareness provides more useful information outside of your favored terrain than in it.

 

[Hussar]

???

First off, it isn't published! It's still in UA.

Second, it desperately needs its multiclass balancing pass.

Are you really arguing in good faith if I need to point out the obvious to you...

So, it's not enough for you home game that it's in a free pdf, it MUST be in a hardcover book before it counts?

And, sorry, but, I don't know what you mean by "its multiclass balancing pass". Like I said, we've had rangers in almost every single campaign we've played since 5e came out, including several UA rangers and none of them have been an issue. So, again, I simply don't know what your beef is.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

So, it's not enough for you home game that it's in a free pdf, it MUST be in a hardcover book before it counts?

And, sorry, but, I don't know what you mean by "its multiclass balancing pass". Like I said, we've had rangers in almost every single campaign we've played since 5e came out, including several UA rangers and none of them have been an issue. So, again, I simply don't know what your beef is.

First, back when this was still a thing that could get published, Mearls and/or Crawford said it would be put out in a way that it would be free. They said they did not want to make people pay for the same core rules class twice.

Second, nothing class or class-based that is in a UA article has been balanced for multiclass use. They are meant to be play tested as a single-class character. And any that do make it to print will be adjusted down in power levels to mesh with the multiclassing rules.