Revised Ranger update

[OB1]

I think here is a rather large difference in our philosophies and outlooks on the game. First, while I enjoy players making choices, I've never enjoyed them making "brutal choices" it is part of my beef with Ranger and Sorcerer spellcasting.

Well, brutal may have been a strong word. But I do feel that overall classes and subclasses are built in a way that always leaves you wondering what could have been had you taken the other choice. It always feels tough to me, with every class I’ve taken, because choosing one thing means not getting other cool things.

As for Beastmaster, I see it doing exactly what is advertised. Instead of three small combat boosts over your career like a Hunter, you get an animal companion that has a great deal of out of combat utility, and at higher levels can provide some decent combat assistance.

IMO, a well played Beast Master is superior to a Hunter, as you should be using it to set up ambushes or navigating around combats in enemy territory.

It’s only when you start comparing it against other interpretations of the class that it appears to need a “fix”. With the influx of new players D&D has seen over the last few years, more and more of the player base doesn’t have that bias. In fact, many more will have experienced the class through listening to Critical Role than by other versions.

Thus why WotC is no longer interested in the extreme action of revising the class. Just as XGTE though, there is room to allow more options for play styles through new spells and subclasses.

 

[Chaosmancer]

As for Beastmaster, I see it doing exactly what is advertised. Instead of three small combat boosts over your career like a Hunter, you get an animal companion that has a great deal of out of combat utility, and at higher levels can provide some decent combat assistance.

IMO, a well played Beast Master is superior to a Hunter, as you should be using it to set up ambushes or navigating around combats in enemy territory.

It’s only when you start comparing it against other interpretations of the class that it appears to need a “fix”. .

But the vast majority of that out of combat utility can be easily copied, either by another party member such as the wizard, a Ranger who takes ritual caster for Find Familiar, or even by the Ranger choosing speak with animals and making a series of Animal Handling checks.

What theoretically can't be copied are the beastmaster specific abilities, which are all combat related. I won't deny the out of combat utility of having a pet hawk to fly and scout, or a rat to sneak into enemy bases, but you don't need to be a beastmaster to do those things, and there are many far better routes to get to that point.

 

[OB1]

But the vast majority of that out of combat utility can be easily copied, either by another party member such as the wizard, a Ranger who takes ritual caster for Find Familiar, or even by the Ranger choosing speak with animals and making a series of Animal Handling checks.

What theoretically can't be copied are the beastmaster specific abilities, which are all combat related. I won't deny the out of combat utility of having a pet hawk to fly and scout, or a rat to sneak into enemy bases, but you don't need to be a beastmaster to do those things, and there are many far better routes to get to that point.

But you also can’t deny that the Beastmaster companion, with its bonus to abilities based on Prof, does those things better than a familiar or using animal handling checks, while also being of value in combat.

I know it’s not at the value you would like, but it is comparable to the Hunter ranger options.

But it’s not another PC and IMO shouldn’t be, at least not without expending resources that could be used to up combat power in other ways.

 

[Yunru]

But you also can’t deny that the Beastmaster companion, with its bonus to abilities based on Prof, does those things better than a familiar

On the contrary, being able to see through a familiar's eyes (and thus using your own proficiency bonus anyway?) is immensely more valuable than a Beast Master companion.

But it’s not another PC and IMO shouldn’t be, at least not without expending resources that could be used to up combat power in other ways.

Like, say, subclass features? Oh...

 

[ad_hoc]

But you also can’t deny that the Beastmaster companion, with its bonus to abilities based on Prof, does those things better than a familiar or using animal handling checks, while also being of value in combat.

I know it’s not at the value you would like, but it is comparable to the Hunter ranger options.

But it’s not another PC and IMO shouldn’t be, at least not without expending resources that could be used to up combat power in other ways.

I think people often forget to compare things to the actual options.

Warlock's Blade Pact is the most common example of this. The other pacts are not super powerful. The Warlock has 2 subclasses, and the pacts are the much weaker ones. While Blade isn't quite as powerful as Chain or Tome it's still fine. It gives the Warlock a good melee option when enemies close in. Let's them be versatile. It shouldn't make them a fighter.

Just like, as you said, Beastmaster shouldn't give them another character to control. The beast shouldn't be the star of combat, but instead a presence that is a minor help. The beast is fantastic at harassing ranged attackers and spellcasters for example.

 

[CapnZapp]

The beast shouldn't be the star of combat, but instead a presence that is a minor help.

Says you.

Lots people think otherwise.

The archetype where the Master is mostly a passive entity that stands back and lets her fearsome beast rip her enemies to shreds is ubiquitous and popular. See Beast Tyrant of Gloomhaven or Hunter of World of Warcraft.

There is absolutely no reason why something akin to that should be impossible for a competent designer to create.

Especially if the class is gated behind a "DM buy-in" sidebar explaining any subclass with two figures will inherently take up a larger share of the spotlight, and groups especially sensitive to that should pass it by.

 

[Hussar]

Says you.

Lots people think otherwise.

The archetype where the Master is mostly a passive entity that stands back and lets her fearsome beast rip her enemies to shreds is ubiquitous and popular. See Beast Tyrant of Gloomhaven or Hunter of World of Warcraft.

There is absolutely no reason why something akin to that should be impossible for a competent designer to create.

Especially if the class is gated behind a "DM buy-in" sidebar explaining any subclass with two figures will inherently take up a larger share of the spotlight, and groups especially sensitive to that should pass it by.

I dunno about "lots of people". I get that you think otherwise.

Look, it's not exactly rocket science. Up to about 10th level, the fighter types are dealing about 20-30 points of damage per round. Give or take. Granted, pally's might be spiking here or there, but, as a benchmark, that's about where it is. So, if the beastmaster's companion is the primary damage dealer, then the ranger can't deal any damage at all. If your animal companion is dealing that 20-30 points per round, then there's just no space for the ranger itself to contribute.

So, which do you want? A class that strips away all combat abilities from the ranger so that the companion can be the damage star? Or key the companion to the ranger's actions, which lets the ranger deal damage and the companion deal damage, or strip away all the combat abilities from the companion and let the ranger be the DPS star?

Because that's your choices. At the end of the day, that's what you have to work with. If we're going to leave the ranger with a full fighter type capabilities (high HP, multiple attacks per round, spells, high AC) AND have a companion that is dealing equal(ish) levels of damage, then it's far too unbalanced. There's no way they're going to publish that. They'd get crucified if they even tried.

Stay within that 20-30 points per round, and do whatever you want. After 10th level, kick it up to about 40-50 points per round, similar to what a fighter is doing. And you're good to go. But, expecting WotC to bang out unbalanced classes just to satisfy you isn't going to happen. Not when the class is being played pretty regularly as is plus they've already given us a "fixed" ranger for home games. There's just no upside for them to give you what you want.

 

[CapnZapp]

Now you're conflating the Ranger with some hypothetical "Hunter" I was mentioning. You're probably doing it intentionally since all your replies to me have been antagonistic and combative.

But no. I'm not talking about jamming together a Ranger with some beast more akin to a wildshaped Druid. That would indeed be quite overpowered.

You're right about one thing though: it isn't rocket science. All we want is for a Ranger to be able to have a wolf or panther or whatever that:
1) acts on its own. If the Ranger can give up his own action to attack through the beast, that's fine. But that should obviously be on top of the beast's own action.

2) survives pretty much what the Ranger itself would survive. The design should assume the player identifies MORE with the beast than the human handler (lol)

Note that none of this has any direct connection to the related but different archetype I'm calling "Hunter".

No low-CR boar or bear I can find in the MM deals much damage (except at the lowest levels), and the Ranger is built to deal decent if not spectacular damage itself, so the "Hunter" archetype the Beastmaster is not.

Just remove the language about the beast not acting on its own (leaving it up to each DM to decide exactly how resourceful the beast is), grant the Beastmaster direct control over his beast as an action (probably instead of Extra Attack), and give the Beastmaster the ability to soak any and all damage dealt to his animal companion.

Done (okay, a polishing pass is probably needed).

No rocket scientists were harmed by this post.

 

[Yunru]

Your also conflating the Fighter's always-on DPR abilities with the Beastmaster's easy-to-kill pet. Which is one of the main problems.

The only time I've ever played a Beastmaster, it was to milk a snake for venom. Thematic as hell, but effective as a subclass? Noooope.



But we're not discussing the biggest flaw of the Ranger: It doesn't get Awaken.

 

[delericho]

So, which do you want? A class that strips away all combat abilities from the ranger so that the companion can be the damage star? Or key the companion to the ranger's actions, which lets the ranger deal damage and the companion deal damage, or strip away all the combat abilities from the companion and let the ranger be the DPS star?

All three, but only one at any given time?

(Which would be reasonably easy to justify in the fluff - have the Ranger and his beast sharing a single primal spirit/soul/whatever. The more power the Ranger lends to the beast, the less he has for himself, and vice versa.)