Revised Ranger update

[Yunru]

[citation needed]

I can do one better than that, I can expand that claim to all animal companions beyond the first and provide citation.
Page 93 of the Player's Handbook states:
"If the beast dies, you can obtain another one by spending 8 hours magically bonding with another beast that isn’t hostile to you, either the same type of beast as before or a different one."
Emphasis on another beast. Which means it's up to your DM to decide if there is a beast of that sort around to bond to. (Something the revised ranger also fixed.)

 

[Yunru]

I am trying to accurately gauge exactly where you fall on the spectrum between "animal companion as it exists now" and "same-leveled PC" and you are not providing much in the way of detail there (not to mention completely over-exaggerating the usefulness of the former).

You could of just asked. Revised Ranger Beastmaster hit dice. (And I think you mean under-stating?)

 

[Parmandur]

Yes, I mean the character who's animal companion (item or otherwise) inspired almost the entirety of the modern day beastmaster.

He may have influenced the archetype, but he isn't a Beastmaster Ranger: he's a Hunter with a magical item. He has no "animal companion."

 

[Parmandur]

"Well, technically, that's a magical item...you can't expect that to follow the same rules as a Ranger with a real, live animal companion, you know. I know that's what inspired you to play a Beastmaster, but it's not the game's fault that you misunderstood what was going on with Drizzt."

The item that Driz'zt has is in the DMG, available to anybody.

 

[Yunru]

He may have influenced the archetype, but he isn't a Beastmaster Ranger: he's a Hunter with a magical item. He has no "animal companion."

Right and Conan may have influenced the archetype, but he isn't a Barbarian Ranger. What's your point?
People looked at Dritz and said "that's what I want to do!" so they took that into account when making a class that let them do that. They failed.

 

[Gradine]

You could of just asked. Revised Ranger Beastmaster hit dice. (And I think you mean under-stating?)

I did mean under-stating (or perhaps uselessness), thank you.

I like the idea of animal companions gaining HD, but I do tend to think of a beastmaster companion that is, at best, 1 HD lower than same-leveled PC to be way too close to approaching the level of survivability as another PC. I'm not a fan of the revised beastmaster for a number of reasons, but that's one of them.

 

[Gradine]

Right and Conan may have influenced the archetype, but he isn't a Barbarian Ranger. What's your point?
People looked at Dritz and said "that's what I want to do!" so they took that into account when making a class that let them do that. They failed.

How did they fail? Drizzt's "animal companion" is not a Beastmaster companion, it's the result of a magical item that is available to all PCs, including Beastmaster Rangers. Drizzt is not a Beastmaster, and is not therefore not the ideal upon which the archetype should be judged on. And even if you did, you can just say:

"Look, I built a drow Beastmaster Ranger with a pair of scimitars and an onyx figurine of wondrous power. He's just like Drizzt, plus he gets another animal companion!"

 

[ad_hoc]

It is important for people to accept that some of the classes (and subclasses) just aren't for them. Even if they used to be. And that is how it should be. I am glad there are classes I have no interest in playing because I know that people with different tastes will likely find something interesting in the game.

In previous editions Wizards were my favourite class, now they don't interest me. I never used to care for the concepts of Monks and Warlocks but now they're 2 of my favourite classes. New edition, new themes, new mechanics, new game.

While I am generally not in Rangers, if I were to play one I would definitely pick Beastmaster. And not just for the theme. I like the mechanics of it and for the way I want to play it is stronger than the Hunter. I get that people like the Hunter more in general, but then, that's why there are 2 subclasses.

 

[Mistwell]

Of course they're fair game? I never claimed otherwise?
I claimed fours things total:
The animal companion is seriously lacking in survival ability.
I am drawing only from the PHB.
The PHB is what I have on hand.
The PHB will be the first place checked by a new beastmaster.

We agree Basic rules are fair game for anyone to use. So, you expressed a desire to have a "fighting" animal companion, by which you mean direct attacking rather than using the help action or something like that. OK, so what exactly is wrong with these two animal companions for that purpose? Both can attack at a decent attack bonus (+6), do decent damage (GPS does an average of 17 on failed save or 11.75 on a successful; FS does 8.5 damage with no save), and do it without being subject to return attack most of the time (one has reach with a 30 move and the other has flyby attack with a 60 fly). And even if they do get a return attack, they both have decent ACs as well (14). So can we agree these are not bad options for what you're looking for?

 

[BookBarbarian]

He may have influenced the archetype, but he isn't a Beastmaster Ranger: he's a Hunter with a magical item. He has no "animal companion."

Heck, he isn't even a Ranger, he's never cast Hunter's Mark, Spike Growth, Goodberry or any other Ranger Spell.

He's a Fighter with a onyx figurine of wondrous power.

I doubt he's popular with the current crowd of new players playing Rangers anyway.