D&D 5E A Look At Companions (Animal & Otherwise)

[Mephista]

Thinking about companions like this makes me wonder if we really need a ranger who can control beasts independent from this. A subclass like "beastmaster" isn't any more essential for a ranger than it is for a druid, anyway, and countless character types - summoners, nobles, psionic mind-controllers, etc. - benefit from having a little NPC to control. So maybe one system for handling them ("they're a party member") is sufficient. If your ranger wants a bear friend, awesome, use Animal Handling and get one, and that bear gets XP and travels with the party and hangs out in the stables being chill around some panicky horses.

Animal Empathy/Control is a significant part of the Ranger, one of its classic defining features. So, if its not a subclass, there needs to be more core class support for it. Elimination and moving to the side isn't an option, because then, everyone basically qualifies to have one.

Skirmishing, wilderness survival, animal empathy, wild magic, and a dash of traps are the defining features of the Ranger. All of them need to be part of class.

Okay, you say, but rangers need more than one subclass, right? Well, how about we rip out the half-spellcasting and instead give them the spell-less ranger features.

*rubs eyes* No thank you. I want my ranger to have a blend of those four things I mentioned above. You're turning the Ranger into the Fighter class. If I wanted to play a Fighter, I'd play a Fighter, get the random NPC companion pet you suggest, and be better for it.

And making a druidic Eldritch Knight would be bad too. We need a Ranger-unique spell list, not just copying someone else's.

So, what do you think - would it be cool to drop the idea of an animal companion as a class feature altogether, relying on general NPC party member rules for animal companions?

No, because you're ripping out a major part of the Ranger. Not everyone likes it, but a very significant amount of people do. Its a historic part of the class since 2e, and branching out in virtually every medium that has Ranger-like class in it, from WoW to Diablo to GW2, to novels, and beyond.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Animal Empathy/Control is a significant part of the Ranger, one of its classic defining features.

Just looking to lock down our definitions so I can see your position clearly:

If it's a significant, defining part of the Ranger as a whole, is it a problem in your mind that we have a kind of ranger that goes entirely without it? Are hunters not real rangers in your mind, because they don't have animal empathy/control outside of spells and skills? How about druids? Does their lack of a "beastmaster" subclass mean that they don't have animal empathy/control, or enough of it?

Elimination and moving to the side isn't an option, because then, everyone basically qualifies to have one.

Everyone can have one now. In fact, your beastmaster ranger can also have an animal friend who is a party member, if they want! In that situation, I know I'd find the party member wolf to be much more satisfying than the beastmaster companion wolf (acknowledging that it ramps up the party's power and just giving it XP and levels).

*rubs eyes* No thank you. I want my ranger to have a blend of those four things I mentioned above. You're turning the Ranger into the Fighter class. If I wanted to play a Fighter, I'd play a Fighter, get the random NPC companion pet you suggest, and be better for it.

Have you read the spell-less ranger UA article? Would you characterize that variant as "a Fighter"? Again, I want to make sure I understand where you're coming from.

No, because you're ripping out a major part of the Ranger. Not everyone likes it, but a very significant amount of people do. Its a historic part of the class since 2e, and branching out in virtually every medium that has Ranger-like class in it, from WoW to Diablo to GW2, to novels, and beyond.

Imagine you're playing a hunter ranger, and you as a player also have control over a panther who is part of your party. Does that feel like you are not playing a ranger to you?

 

[Minigiant]

Again the issue is if the DM knows how to balance.

You are going from a party of 4 PCs to 5 PCs. But one is not a PC, its a dog. How much to the XP budget is a dog. If you "level it up" how much budget does it ad. The dog wasn't built as a PC.

You you compare the dogs DPR and HP to a fighter and use that
? Do you you stat it up as a fighter? A dogfighter? Does it get feats?

Guess what? You forced your DM to write up a whole class.

 

[Gadget]

In large part, I agree with the original post. There should never have been a beastmaster subclass. I don't feel a 'pet' has ever been such a major part of the Ranger class. Yes, they have had the spell in the past, and they definitely have had some animal empathy, but these can be covered by skills and spells. IMHO, they have mostly been useful to keep that random encounter animal/guard dog off of the party, not necessarily to have a permanent companion all the time.

 

[steeldragons]

So, what do you think - would it be cool to drop the idea of an animal companion as a class feature altogether, relying on general NPC party member rules for animal companions?

Absolutely it would. So very cool. I was saying during the playtest make "Beastmaster" a feat or a background or some other thing that anyone could do/take, that it had no business being baked into ANY class [ranger being the most obvious/called for].

 

[I'm A Banana]

Again the issue is if the DM knows how to balance.

You are going from a party of 4 PCs to 5 PCs. But one is not a PC, its a dog. How much to the XP budget is a dog. If you "level it up" how much budget does it ad. The dog wasn't built as a PC.

You you compare the dogs DPR and HP to a fighter and use that
? Do you you stat it up as a fighter? A dogfighter? Does it get feats?

Guess what? You forced your DM to write up a whole class.

Yeah, that would not be cool.

I think this would probably call for some more robust monsters-in-the-party advice and guidelines, but given the sort of opt-in nature of NPC party members, I could see this being pretty loose. You could go the simple route (a monster is considered a character of a level equal to its' CR something, every level they gain adds a hit die that varies with their size, and they get increased proficiency bonuses at various levels), or get a little more custom with it (I like the sound of a dog with fighter levels, and have no issue with it from a mechanical perspective, but it seems like it'd encourage some weird combos at the edges), or somewhere in between (guidelines for converting a creature into a racial template you can overlay on a class? a rough damage/defense comparison you can run to give it a rough character level like the table for monster CR?). That might be useful independent of what happens with the beastmaster specifically, because it can give a DM a better sense of when it might want to give a paladin a unicorn or something anyway.

The DMG already advises treating a follower or adventuring NPC as a full party member who eats up some XP for the group, and I think that's a very useful starting point for this!

 

[Mephista]

Just looking to lock down our definitions so I can see your position clearly:

If it's a significant, defining part of the Ranger as a whole, is it a problem in your mind that we have a kind of ranger that goes entirely without it? Are hunters not real rangers in your mind, because they don't have animal empathy/control outside of spells and skills? How about druids? Does their lack of a "beastmaster" subclass mean that they don't have animal empathy/control, or enough of it?

First, forget the druid. They are completely different kettle of fish. Trying to say that they're equivalent is a disservice to class design - Ranger needs to stand on its own, especially with its own spells

As for the animal empathy/beast mastery; I'm not going to say that every Ranger must have one (I know too many would disagree with that statement), but I will say that there needs to be at least the option for it, and in a way superior to simply a animal pet that anyone else picks up. Just as importantly, you need to have the option of having a magic-using beastmaster together.

Everyone can have one now.

And that's the problem. You've taken away a defining feature so that its no longer part of their identity. Furthermore, its everyone "has the potential if the GM allows it, which she may not." Its no longer a benefit of being a Ranger, and more something that's at the grace of your GM, which is a bad assumption to make.

Have you read the spell-less ranger UA article? Would you characterize that variant as "a Fighter"? Again, I want to make sure I understand where you're coming from.

I have. The variant makes up for its loss of magic by giving the Ranger maneuvers taken from the Fighter. There's still some parts of the Ranger that the Fighter doesn't touch at this point. However, stripping away the animal empathy aspects as well, is a lot - that leaves wilderness survival and skirmishing. Fighters can get wilderness skills from a background now and match the Ranger there, and the Fighter can turn to skirmishing with the right selection of feats and weaponry.

When you give the Fighter the ability to have an animal pet, wilderness survival skills and techniques, skirmish ability, and remove the magic from a Ranger... suddenly, the difference between the two is so minimal, there's no realistic reason to have a separate class anymore.

Imagine you're playing a hunter ranger, and you as a player also have control over a panther who is part of your party. Does that feel like you are not playing a ranger to you?

Where is the panther coming from, is it "my" benefit, or something that suffers the whim of the DM? Because, if the latter is ever true, then no, that is a terrible beastmaster replacement. The sense of connection is not there.

 

[Mephista]

I'm going to bring up the 4e Ranger as an example again. It started off without magic, with out a pet. And there was a large amount of dissatisfaction over that fact. The option to swap out for an animal companion came very quickly. As well, all the Ranger variants had access to primal magic. Every game, from 2e and on, had that tie somewhere.

Other examples from video games, both MMOs and offline, include animals as a major part of the class; I've never once seen a Ranger-style character without at least potential access to one when no one else will.

Figures that inspired the Ranger often had animal empathy or companions - Jack the Giant Slayer had his goose. Diana and Orion had their hunting hounds. Even Robin Hood has his animal talents to go along with his skill as a yeoman.

Even modern novela have often encouraged the idea of wild beast companions, often in the form of a wolf or the like.

There's no way around that it has to be part of the class in some way, even if optional. Some people suggested that it come in the form of a spell. And you know, I'd be fine with a familiar-summon-like ability. But it needs to be present in some fashion.

 

[steeldragons]

"It needs to be present...as an option for those that want it....in some fashion."

There ya go. Fixed that for ya.

Then you can have you cake and those of us that think the bulk of your "pro" arguments and examples are a load of poppycock can eat ours too.

(and suggesting that the 2e animal empathy ability was, in any way other than a very very remote ancestor, equivalent to the MMO monstrous creation that has become the "beastmaster" concept is disingenuous)

 

[I'm A Banana]

As for the animal empathy/beast mastery; I'm not going to say that every Ranger must have one (I know too many would disagree with that statement), but I will say that there needs to be at least the option for it, and in a way superior to simply a animal pet that anyone else picks up. Just as importantly, you need to have the option of having a magic-using beastmaster together.

So, if you treat animal companions as party members, you still have the option of having an animal companion, and you absolutely have the option of having a magic-using character with a beast ally. In fact, your options for what that might look like are significantly expanded. Additionally, if you focus your resources on buffing spells that you grant to your pet, your allied NPC will be significantly better than, say, the evoker's.

What this proposal doesn't do is make your animal companion better than anyone else's. This hasn't been something the ranger has had in any edition (including 5e - a fighter with a wolf NPC trumps a beastmaster with a wolf companion; a beastmaster with a wolf companion AND a wolf NPC...still probably isn't better with their companion than the fighter with a wolf NPC), so I don't know that that's a criteria I'd personally require a ranger's companion to meet. I get that your requirement is different, but it doesn't seem like there's any extant version of the ranger that gives you that.

And that's the problem. You've taken away a defining feature so that its no longer part of their identity. Furthermore, its everyone "has the potential if the GM allows it, which she may not." Its no longer a benefit of being a Ranger, and more something that's at the grace of your GM, which is a bad assumption to make.

I don't know that I can agree with the assertion that a ranger's animal companion specifically is a bigger part of their identity than a druid's animal companion or a paladin's mount or a summoner's demon buddy or a wizard's familiar is to their identity. Given the historical D&D ranger, that simply doesn't seem to be the case in general.

• At the ranger's conception in the Strategic Review, they didn't have an animal companion. The closest they get is a chance to have unicorns, pegasi, and wearbears as followers. (ie, only at high level, if the DM allows it, and they're generally not there for adventuring with)
• In 1e, the ranger didn't have an animal companion. The closest they get is a chance to have bears, lynxes, owls, and a blink dog (among more exotic creatures) as followers. (ie, only at high level, if the DM allows it, and they're generally not there for adventuring with)
• In 2e, the ranger didn't have an animal companion. The closest they get is a chance to have bears, dogs, falcons, great cats, and ravens (among more exotic creatures) as followers. There was a ranger kit, the beastmaster, which is the first indication in D&D of any type of ranger that has a close bond with an animal companion (or henchmen, in their case). Notably, his beastmaster was able to split XP with their animal henchmen, advancing them as fighters - the most direct translation of this would be to treat them as NPC party members in 5e. Also of interest might be the Falconer kit (gained a falcon as a follower) and the Mountain Man kit (might gain a bear as a follower). We're still well within the realm of treating these as NPC hirelings of some sort.
• In 3e, the ranger had an animal companion. It was a weak version of the druid's animal companion, and thus was very much not suitable for combat in most situations. Various prestige classes, feats, or other options, many of them open to druids as well, enhanced this "noncombat companion."
• In 4e, the original ranger had neither animal companions, nor spells. A beast mastery build was added, where the ranger gave up actions to allow their companion to attack. Later, a spell-using ranger was added, but it does not have any animal companion.

I have. The variant makes up for its loss of magic by giving the Ranger maneuvers taken from the Fighter. There's still some parts of the Ranger that the Fighter doesn't touch at this point. However, stripping away the animal empathy aspects as well, is a lot - that leaves wilderness survival and skirmishing. Fighters can get wilderness skills from a background now and match the Ranger there, and the Fighter can turn to skirmishing with the right selection of feats and weaponry.

So is a spell-less ranger who chooses the Hunter subclass the same as a fighter in your eyes? If so, I don't think I can agree with that assumption, either.

When you give the Fighter the ability to have an animal pet, wilderness survival skills and techniques, skirmish ability, and remove the magic from a Ranger... suddenly, the difference between the two is so minimal, there's no realistic reason to have a separate class anymore.

An eldritch knight can take a background and get an NPC party member and can take the Archery or TWF fighting styles and we have a spell-using Fighter with an animal pet, wilderness survival techniques, and skirmishing ability. You could even include multiclass rules and instead of an eldritch knight, I can be a fighter/druid. I'd be better with my companion than the beastmaster ranger would be, too, since it would operate independently. I can do that today. So is it the case that in D&D 5e today, the difference between the fighter and the ranger is minimal, and there's no reason to have two separate classes anymore?

Personally, I don't think so. It is not the animal friend and the spellcasting that gives rangers their identity. You can take either one, or both, away from the ranger and still have a "ranger." There's been rangers throughout D&D history that have not had one or the other or both, and they were still rangers.

Where is the panther coming from, is it "my" benefit, or something that suffers the whim of the DM? Because, if the latter is ever true, then no, that is a terrible beastmaster replacement. The sense of connection is not there.

A beastmaster's beast companion currently suffers at the whim of a DM (because they are not very hard to kill, if nothing else). Is the current beastmaster a terrible beastmaster because you can't connect to your animal companion?

You've said that spells and an animal buddy are key to your concept of a ranger. Imagine being a Sylvan ranger (so spells like an EK, but druid-y) with a load out of buff spells enhancing the attacks of your panther. How does that image differ from what you'd imagine a ranger to be?