D&D 5E It's official, WOTC hates Rangers (Tasha's version of Favored Foe is GARBAGE)

[Tales and Chronicles]

I like how Baldur's Gate 3 allows you to get a Ranger with prof in Heavy Armor by selecting Favored Foe: Ranger Knight.

Which honestly they should change the name of BG3's Favored Foe into Specializations or Focus.

I havent played the beta test yet, but you are not the first one to say that the game's ranger are spot on. How do they deal with the ranger's features and would they be portable to the table top game?

 

[JiffyPopTart]

At level 5, the ranger can give up one of their attacks to direct their pet to attack. So it isn't doing nothing, they're working in tandum.

You are giving up an attack to get an attack....which depending on your beast might be an up/down/sidegrade trade...or giving up a bonus action to get it to move around. The beast doesn't do anything by itself other than stand there unless you fuel it with your own actions. The fact you have a second living-breathing companion in the battle isn't granting you any extra actions...just more options to use the actions you are already getting.

The part that feels the most off is that if you purchase a warhorse or an attack dog it WILL do things using its own actions (as per its training) in a way that's superior to a beastmasters beast, only it just cost some gold instead your subclass rules slots.

 

[Weiley31]

I havent played the beta test yet, but you are not the first one to say that the game's ranger are spot on. How do they deal with the ranger's features and would they be portable to the table top game?

I haven't delved deep in it as my computer/laptops usually suck when it comes to pc games and I haven't yet taken the plunge to explore how good my current HP I5 Processor is for running said games. But I've read a few things about the Baldur's Gate 3 5E Ranger and thought the idea of it's take on Favored Enemy was pretty interesting.

Their take on Favored Enemy has a terrible name but the idea is very cool: It lists a number of five options you can pick from and said selection acts like a 5E "Background" that gives your Ranger different bonuses and options.

You choose from the following:
Bounty Hunter-Allows your Ranger to gain Thieves' Cant, proficiency in Investigation, and have Advantage on Restraining.

Ranger Knight-Gives your Ranger History and Heavy Armor proficiency. So now you can try to make your Ranger "tanky" in that regard while showing off how much of a smarty pants they are with nobility.

Sanctified Stalker-You gain proficiency in Religion and gain the Sacred Fire cantrip. WIS is the spellcasting for it.

Mage Breaker-You gain proficiency in Arcane and gain the True Strike cantrip. WIS is the spellcasting for it.

Keeper of The Veil-You gain proficiency in Arcane and get Protection from Good and Evil.

Flavor wise, I get the "intention" of naming this all as "Favored Enemy" as it implies what your Ranger specializes in fighting: A Mage Breaker deals with magic users and is capable of understanding how their magic works via their knowledge in Arcane in order to counter act said spells, a Bounty Hunter knows the lingo of criminals and crap while being able to track them down and bring em back alive, a Sanctified Stalker fights against undead/devil/demons or defends the holy grounds of a deity. A Keeper of The Veil helps their druid allies fight against Aberrations. The Ranger Knight fights alongside the Crown Oath Paladin in the name of the king, etc, etc. It gives stuff that would "make sense" and avoids the more crappier PHB take on Favored Foe. But outside of the naming implications, Favored Foe is better off being just labeled as a Focus/Discipline really.

And then Natural Explorer is very basic. Again you choose from five options: Wasteland Wanderers get fire/ice/poison resistance(the three being classified as different selections) while Beast Tamer allows them to cast Find Familiar as a ritual. And then Urban Explorer gives you the use of Thieves Tools and Disguise Kits.

As a DM, I honestly wouldn't mind at all allowing the use of BG3's Favored Enemy as an extra side option, after choosing your Ranger background, that Rangers can pick as their Focus/Discipline. It would be exclusive to Rangers only. So I say that it would be portable in that regards. (As for the BG3 Natural Explorer, YMMV.)

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Isn't this what happens to most players that are new to D&D and don't know how to emphasize damage in their build?

As a DM, it's my job to guide players to what they want out of their build and to help them with it. If a wizard players wants to do good AoE damage, I'll direct them to the fireball spell. If they want good control, I'll direct them to Hypnotic Pattern. Because new players might not immediately realize the significance of these spells to their purpose.

Likewise, I direct beastmaster players into the direction they want their beast to be. If they want high damage, I'll lead them to GSP. If they want high defense and control, I lead them to the Giant Crab.

I believe beastmaster Ranger is one of the most complex classes because there's so many moving parts.

I see what you are saying and agree with the idea of it. We aren't a min-maxing hardcore charbuild group so almost any concept is going to be good enough to fit in a the table without having to optimize things to keep up.

The beastmaster is a fun theme, and with a lot of getting exactly the items and beasts you need maybe it can keep up, but its just inferior to the other ranger subclasses because the initial design of 5e was too cautious in summoning/pet rules to try to prevent problems from past editions.

 

[Asisreo]

I see what you are saying and agree with the idea of it. We aren't a min-maxing hardcore charbuild group so almost any concept is going to be good enough to fit in a the table without having to optimize things to keep up.

The beastmaster is a fun theme, and with a lot of getting exactly the items and beasts you need maybe it can keep up, but its just inferior to the other ranger subclasses because the initial design of 5e was too cautious in summoning/pet rules to try to prevent problems from past editions.

What happened to beastmaster was a reaction to the past edition's companion builds, for sure.

I can imagine a buffed Beastmaster can be incredible powerful when put in the right player's hands. Its almost like in a fighting game when a character is actually really good when you know how to play him but not so good that a skilled player instantly wins.

Honestly, if you'd have given me some of the houserules here as if they're official rules, I'd probably make the other players feel palpably inferior.

Making the beast attack as a bonus action means I'm free to cast my spells at the same time I attack with a very strong beast. Having the beasts be more beefy will have me less wary about being effectively a frontliner and backliner at the same time. Having the beast give powerful unique effects will have me kill and obtain new beasts roughly every day.

These might not be a big deal in this thread, but stretching a beastmaster to its full potential is already frighteningly powerful, as my fellow players have seen and how I've tried to describe. It has its drawbacks on purpose, because otherwise things may get out of hands when a player really tries to optimize themselves.

 

[Don Durito]

The sucky beastmaster may have been a reaction to 3rd edition. But it was the second failure to implement the exact same concept in a row. (They messed up in 4E as well). So they really should have got the basic numbers right in 5E (Certainly they should have know exactly what potential issues to look for).

 

[Xeviat]

You are giving up an attack to get an attack....which depending on your beast might be an up/down/sidegrade trade...or giving up a bonus action to get it to move around. The beast doesn't do anything by itself other than stand there unless you fuel it with your own actions. The fact you have a second living-breathing companion in the battle isn't granting you any extra actions...just more options to use the actions you are already getting.

The part that feels the most off is that if you purchase a warhorse or an attack dog it WILL do things using its own actions (as per its training) in a way that's superior to a beastmasters beast, only it just cost some gold instead your subclass rules slots.

Sorry to keep doing this, but you can command the beast to move for no action. Also, at 7th level, if you don't use your companion to attack, you can spend a bonus action to have it use the Help action. At 11th level, it makes 2 attacks when you command it to attack (and you make 1 attack, because you have the Extra Attack feature).

The companion's attack gets your proficiency bonus to it. So, as long as the companion's attack is comparable or better than your ranger's attack, it's a gain.

Wolf is super simple. 2d4+4 at 3rd level compared to your 1d8+5 (rapier and duelist) or 1d8+3 with +2 to hit (longbow with archery), but wolf has +6 to hit and pack tactics and possible prone (I'd give you Prof to DCs).

We talked about Giant Wolf Spider a lot. But Giant Poisonous Snake has +8 to hit, 1d4+6 damage, +5.25 poison damage (or +10.5 if it fails the DC 11 con save). AC 16 isn't bad either, and it has blindsight 10 and a swim speed. (Technically, Giant Poisonous Snake is higher CR if you run it through the CR calculator, but that's the problem of leaving the Monster Manual open for player stuff).

Flying Snake is silly. +8 to hit, 3 piercing damage, 3d4 poison damage (10.5 is better than the ranger's 9.5).

Now, I will say that the new rules with the land/sea/air companion and the bonus action attacks are much more user friendly. The old abilities, though, weren't utter trash, they just took time to come online. They did totally suck at levels 3-4.

Balancing companions is hard. Either it's free damage, free HP for the party (by absorbing attacks), or at best a balance between the two. The best case balance between the two is very hard to judge, though. If it takes 90% of it's HP in damage away from the PCs and deals out its damage in 90% of the rounds, that's a lot more than if it's 50/50. The ability to kill it to rob the ranger of its subclass abilities feels bad, but that also means the ranger (or the wizard) didn't take all that damage.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So why is 'free HP' of the beast companion an issue, but the shitton of 'free HP' the druids can generate by wildshaping is not? At least the ranger's own HP constantly remains targetable.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So they really should have got the basic numbers right in 5E (Certainly they should have know exactly what potential issues to look for).

The class was created before the Monster Manual, so the basic numbers - beast stats - did not exist at the time of writing.

It was also created based on the assumption that DMs would create beast stat blocks at the request of players, which, as it turned out, many DMs declined to do.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So why is 'free HP' of the beast companion an issue, but the shitton of 'free HP' the druids can generate by wildshaping is not? At least the ranger's own HP constantly remain targetable.

It's not. But at the time of writing there was a crock-load of paranoia about "action economy".

That you can now have a sidekick for free shows that WotC have now realised action economy isn't a big deal.