Ranger Beast Master: errata will add new features to your animal companion!
UngeheuerLich
Legend
I actually like the warding bond idea. Should be a bonus ranger spell. I really hope the ranger gets an optional bonus spell list to bring the phb subclasses in line with the xanathar ones.
warding bond seems like a good choice for a second level spell.
As I said in the other thread, allowing the ranger to share his hit dice would be another fix.
My last one would be clarifying that the animal companion is treated as a pc at 0 hp (which is already allowed by the rules).
Last general ranger update as an option would be allowing downtime to get accustomed with non favourite terrain in a few days.
warding bond seems like a good choice for a second level spell.
As I said in the other thread, allowing the ranger to share his hit dice would be another fix.
My last one would be clarifying that the animal companion is treated as a pc at 0 hp (which is already allowed by the rules).
Last general ranger update as an option would be allowing downtime to get accustomed with non favourite terrain in a few days.
Jester David
Hero
...
To get the books to the printers in time for November, they had to begin and finish the errata process loooong before the Survey was released in on October 8th, let alone before it finished and they had all the data.
Jester David
Hero
I'm conflicted with this...
I prefer errata being corrections and clarifications only. Tweaks when something is being misunderstood based on a poor word choice or unclear rule. So adjusting contagion is likely a good move.
This is a step beyond, being additions to the subclass.
But...
The "Dodge" addition is pretty minor. It's pretty easy to handle that being added in games. It's not adding anything to the abilities of the animal. The beast isn't doing anything it was incapable of before. You don't have to change anything on the character sheet. This is a good example of a minor tweak, albeit one pushing the limits.
Allowing beasts to deal magic damage is much more of an addition. But, again, one that doesn't change anything on the player's side.
Both do run the risk of the players running into conflict with the DM who hasn't seen the errata or updates. Changes like that still require the DM's rubber stamp of approval.
And I doubt any players scared off by the anti-beastmaster vocal minority will change their mind.
I don't think these changes are enough to "fix" the main problem of the ranger's beast. I.e. their hitpoints are 10-20% too low and they lack additional Hit Dice to heal. But that larger change like that is probably beyond the scope of what I want from errata, as it requires making actual changes to beasts.
I prefer errata being corrections and clarifications only. Tweaks when something is being misunderstood based on a poor word choice or unclear rule. So adjusting contagion is likely a good move.
This is a step beyond, being additions to the subclass.
But...
The "Dodge" addition is pretty minor. It's pretty easy to handle that being added in games. It's not adding anything to the abilities of the animal. The beast isn't doing anything it was incapable of before. You don't have to change anything on the character sheet. This is a good example of a minor tweak, albeit one pushing the limits.
Allowing beasts to deal magic damage is much more of an addition. But, again, one that doesn't change anything on the player's side.
Both do run the risk of the players running into conflict with the DM who hasn't seen the errata or updates. Changes like that still require the DM's rubber stamp of approval.
And I doubt any players scared off by the anti-beastmaster vocal minority will change their mind.
I don't think these changes are enough to "fix" the main problem of the ranger's beast. I.e. their hitpoints are 10-20% too low and they lack additional Hit Dice to heal. But that larger change like that is probably beyond the scope of what I want from errata, as it requires making actual changes to beasts.
Jefe Bergenstein
Legend
If Rangers weren't needlessly saddled with a pathetic limit on spells known it could. It's absurd that a paladin gets almost more bonus spells prepared JUST from their oath than the ranger gets to know.
Remove the limit, or better yet let them know all Ranger spells, and make the spells known apply to Wizard spells they can add.
Jefe Bergenstein
Legend
I think if we can weather moon druids, we can deal with a low HP/intelligence wolf that dies at 0hp without the DM ruling otherwise for a small level band.
Paladins are broken in many ways. That their aura breaks bounded accuracy is a huge problem. Would you let them hand out a +5 to AC? Then +5 to all saves and half damage from magic (Ancients) probably isn't a good idea either.
Plus, unlike rangers, they get to use their spellcasting stat heavily in the social pillar, providing both combat utility AND letting them heavily contribute to non-combat. Wisdom doesnt quite have the same oomph in exploration (and ranger spells mostly are terrible). Plus the ranger ribbons are crap lots of DM's gloss over (and are better solved by a full spellcasting druid anyways). Stuff like Hide in Plain Sight and Favored Enemy really need a tweak.
Last edited:
There are sub-classes for rangers which get some extra spells and some which don't. Its not often a good idea analytically to look at one aspect of difference and try to equalize "counting noses".
That said, if i wanted to give more to the range for casting, make them more distinct, i might allow them RITUAL CASTING as a form of "hedge magic" or something similar (and make sure their list contained sufficient rituals to make it worthwhile.)
I just generally default to "add more differences" and not "add more sameness" when it comes to choosing what and how to add. its a thing with me that my experience says tends to work out better.
Jefe Bergenstein
Legend
It's not JUST that. Paladins get better armor, more spells, more healing, better damage, better defenses, more party utility, etc. Rangers get to be marginally better during the stuff people handwave or handle in cutscenes (and is still better solved with magic). Hell their stupid horse summons can act independently while the subclass defining feature of the beastmaster cannot. It's egregious because one hybrid is one of the most powerful classes, and the other is the weakest. It's like they come from different editions.
hmmm... first from my reading of the PHB the Gm has to rule either way on whether the companion dies at 0hp. there is no default given - merely a pair of statements about how Gms may do either for different cases. *See the quote from basic rules at the end.
Also, Wisdom plays a major role in pillars as well - with the obvious exploration side stuff, the perception side stuff for about everywhere and the insight side for social as well. As far as off-stat values, use as dump stats etc goes (a general measure of how valuable folks see the attributes when not their primary) i generally see higher WIS than CHA and i dont know if i ever saw WIS as a dump stat - if so certainly not as often as CHA. So, net result, in my experience the relative value of prime-stat wisdom vs prime stats cha you seem to see is very different from how it plays in my experience. That said, the more salient point is folks will tend to pick the class with the stat that suits the areas they want to explore and play - so there is that.
No argument that some of their abilities need tweaks. i have seen in play how much difference opening up the natural Explorer to be something one "learns" as one works in an area can make. Same for letting Favored Enemy be an acquired choice on the fly. if you added to or replaced the "pick one" for both FE target and NE terrain with "change with long rest/study" (or something like that) i think a decent part of the ranger's "downside" in some player's eyes would go away. It changes them from "guy who knows one foe and one area well" to "guy who knows how to read signs and get better at the hunt."
* From basic Rules on Monsters and Death
"Most DMs have a monster die the instant it drops to 0 hit points, rather than having it fall unconscious and make death saving throws.
Mighty villains and special nonplayer characters are common exceptions; the DM might have them fall unconscious and follow the same rules as player characters."
The Crimson Binome
Hero
That's not how the dying rules work. The DM isn't supposed to artificially invoke Instant Death, unless it's reasonably certain that the dying creature will receive no assistance. It's a fair call for monsters that you've just eradicated, but it's not a fair call for party members or pets.
That aura is a band-aid on the broken saving throw rules, where normal characters would otherwise fall off the bottom of the d20 roll. because making a DC 21 save would be impossible. It's not an elegant fix, by any means, but it's the only thing that keeps the promise of Bounded Accuracy alive.
Wisdom governs both Perception and Survival, which are the two most important aspects of exploration. I would say that a ranger contributes to exploration as well as a paladin contributes to socialization, except the ranger also has a lot of other class features that put them way out ahead. Rangers are amazing out of combat. It's possibly the one thing that they have, which puts them ahead of a fighter in any way.
Similar Threads
