D&D General Ranger Identity Patch (+)

[Minigiant]

Yep. Primal Companion was like Summon Beast with a longer duration but weaker pet unless you upcast, I think?

I wonder if you could do that and then have a fighting style choice be a boost to a pet, like when you hit a creature you can give a pet you control THP or a bonus to attack.

Yeah. With maybe trading your attacks for there's 1 to 2.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah. With maybe trading your attacks for there's 1 to 2.

Unfortunately the designers hate the ranger and hate pets lol

Well, people who respond to playtests hate pets, at least with any reasonable action economy.

But yeah for a homebrew ranger I think we could trade attacks 1 to 1, not sure what you mean by 1 to 2. For a fighting style, a simple "give next ally to hit the target+ [pb] damage once per round when you hit" is as in line with other fighting styles as you can get with an ally booster. And it doesn't rely on you having a pet, because you can use it for the party rogue or whoever.

 

[Minigiant]

⁹

Unfortunately the designers hate the ranger and hate pets lol

Well, people who respond to playtests hate pets, at least with any reasonable action economy

Fans don't want pets to be mandatory.

But yeah for a homebrew ranger I think we could trade attacks 1 to 1, not sure what you mean by 1 to 2. For a fighting style, a simple "give next ally to hit the target+ [pb] damage once per round when you hit" is as in line with other fighting styles as you can get with an ally booster. And it doesn't rely on you having a pet, because you can use it for the party rogue or whoever.

I mean trading one of your attacks for 2 of the spirit beasts.

This way its still a good idea to go heavy in ranger.

 

[JohnSnow]

Unfortunately the designers hate the ranger and hate pets lol

Well, people who respond to playtests hate pets, at least with any reasonable action economy.

But yeah for a homebrew ranger I think we could trade attacks 1 to 1, not sure what you mean by 1 to 2. For a fighting style, a simple "give next ally to hit the target+ [pb] damage once per round when you hit" is as in line with other fighting styles as you can get with an ally booster. And it doesn't rely on you having a pet, because you can use it for the party rogue or whoever.

This brings up the idea of figuring out a way to differentiate the Ranger by making it the epitome of a mid-weight "skirmisher" class. I still think that a ranger on their own should be the highly alert class (rarely surprised, hard to get the drop on), and mostly focused on ambushes and guerrilla warfare tactics. However, it should also be that a Ranger working with allies, whether that be their animal companion, a rogue, another ranger, or an entire party should be a terrifying thing to come across.

I'm not 100% sure how to go about achieving that mechanically (esp. in 5e), but I like the idea in principle.

 

[CreamCloud0]

personally i don't care about my ranger having a pet, though i'd happily agree to them having find familiar on their spell list.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The trick with a pet class - one where the pet is the main thing the character is bringing- is to make it so two turns (pet and master) only takes as long as a single turn for anyone else. On average, anyway. But to do that you need both a dead simple pet and a dead simple master - like they don’t have many combat options beyond “run up and attack something” and “improvise.”

Which is really hard to do on a class that isn’t all about the pet. A pet that merely supports you in combat is easier but might not fulfill tje fantasy for many players.

 

[Minigiant]

You know how the warlock is or was a 2 choice class: Pact type and Patron type.

I think Ranger might be best as a 3 choice class.

1) A Minor Power, Major flavor choice: Favored Enemy/Terrain. You get a host of Advantages in certain situations and free casts of a 1st level spell.

2) A Mid power and flavor choice. Subclass. More Martial. Beast Companion, Fey magic, Shadow magic, Herbology.

3) A Major Power, Mild flavor Choice: Half Spellcasting or Daily Crafting. A powerful customizable choice that mostly boosts 1 & 2.


Trying to balance weapon arts, pets, and spells against each other in one class might be a fools errand full of traps.

 

[Corinnguard]

This brings up the idea of figuring out a way to differentiate the Ranger by making it the epitome of a mid-weight "skirmisher" class. I still think that a ranger on their own should be the highly alert class (rarely surprised, hard to get the drop on), and mostly focused on ambushes and guerrilla warfare tactics. However, it should also be that a Ranger working with allies, whether that be their animal companion, a rogue, another ranger, or an entire party should be a terrifying thing to come across.

The 3e Scout Class from Complete Adventurer filled the role of a mid-weight 'Skirmisher' class back then. Perhaps we could have a Scout subclass for the Ranger?

 

[jmartkdr2]

You know how the warlock is or was a 2 choice class: Pact type and Patron type.

I think Ranger might be best as a 3 choice class.

1) A Minor Power, Major flavor choice: Favored Enemy/Terrain. You get a host of Advantages in certain situations and free casts of a 1st level spell.

2) A Mid power and flavor choice. Subclass. More Martial. Beast Companion, Fey magic, Shadow magic, Herbology.

3) A Major Power, Mild flavor Choice: Half Spellcasting or Daily Crafting. A powerful customizable choice that mostly boosts 1 & 2.


Trying to balance weapon arts, pets, and spells against each other in one class might be a fools errand full of traps.

You might need to move “combat pet” into the major power category and leave the middle-power pet to scouting buddies, but overall I think this approach could work.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

⁹

Fans don't want pets to be mandatory.

Okay? What does that have to do with making them actually work in a way that isn't frustrating for the player? No one is asking for them to be mandatory.

I mean trading one of your attacks for 2 of the spirit beasts.

That seems like way too much for a fighting style.

This brings up the idea of figuring out a way to differentiate the Ranger by making it the epitome of a mid-weight "skirmisher" class. I still think that a ranger on their own should be the highly alert class (rarely surprised, hard to get the drop on), and mostly focused on ambushes and guerrilla warfare tactics. However, it should also be that a Ranger working with allies, whether that be their animal companion, a rogue, another ranger, or an entire party should be a terrifying thing to come across.

I'm not 100% sure how to go about achieving that mechanically (esp. in 5e), but I like the idea in principle.

Yeah that is part of why i have come to think the ranger needs to be able to swap out features that other classes cannot, like fighting styles.

The trick with a pet class - one where the pet is the main thing the character is bringing- is to make it so two turns (pet and master) only takes as long as a single turn for anyone else. On average, anyway. But to do that you need both a dead simple pet and a dead simple master - like they don’t have many combat options beyond “run up and attack something” and “improvise.”

Which is really hard to do on a class that isn’t all about the pet. A pet that merely supports you in combat is easier but might not fulfill tje fantasy for many players.

IMO the Revised Ranger did it just fine, because the pet is dead simple and sturdy enough to not be a constant source of worry.

But i'd be fine with folding the pet's turn into the ranger's turn, so that the BM ranger takes as much time as a monk or a dual weilding rogue who makes good use of their bonus action, etc.

In short, let the beast move when you move, and attack when you attack.