Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6701605" data-attributes="member: 2067">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? 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). Have you read the spell-less ranger <a href="https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/modifying-classes" target="_blank">UA article</a>? Would you characterize that variant as "a Fighter"? Again, I want to make sure I understand where you're coming from. 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?</blockquote>