Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6702203" data-attributes="member: 2067">It seems that every iteration of the Ranger class has failed you on this count! If your animal companion is an NPC, though, there's nothing stopping you from being closer with your companion than anyone else (including opting to buff your NPC companion).It's an ignorable part of those classes, which suggests that it's not all that definitional, much as an animal companion is not necessarily definitional to the ranger. I wouldn't be so sure about that - animal friendship gave the 1st-level druid an explicit, permanent animal ally from 1st level, starting with 1e. 3e just moved it from a spell to a class feature. OD&D's speak with animals allowed an animal to perform a service for the caster, meaning that some druids were probably recruiting animal buddies long before 1e codified it.The upthrust in play is that if you had a party with both a ranger and a druid in it, from 1e on, the druid was the one with the animal friend. The ranger might've had a loyal bear hanging out in her fortress, maybe. The druid just had to cast animal friendship, and that bear would follow them around, learn tricks, and listen to their commands. You can't easily exclude druids from your conversation about animal companions min D&D - they've had them at a higher power for much longer than rangers ever have. They can have an NPC party member demon, too! I dunno if I'd consider the 2e beastmaster kit as equivalent to the 5e beastmaster archetype. For one, the 2e beastmaster kit treated the companion as an NPC party member who got XP, which is what I'm proposing here, and what seems to be unsatisfying to you. Animal Empathy doesn't have anything to do with their companion, which is the topic of conversation. 5e handles the "animal empathy" feature mostly through the Handle Animal skill - if you have that, you can pretty much do what a 2e ranger could do with Animal Empathy. I'm specifically talking about ways to handle animal companions, and the closest thing that the 2ePHB ranger has to this is that they might have an animal as a follower. That 2e ranger might also have a wearbear as a follower, but I don't see anyone saying that having a lycanthropic companion is a definitional element of the class (despite it being present in most D&D editions - OD&D, 1e, 2e, and even possible in 3e with the Leadership feat and monster-PC rules!). But the design problem they're solving is the same - adding a party member is powerful. Treating them as a full-fledged party member acknowledges and accounts for that power. Trying to shoehorn that power into a subclass is practically doomed to be unsatisfying (action use) or unbalanced (no action use) and can be both.  They had spells, but they did not have the option of having the beast mastery fighting style, so they could not do both (aside from multiclassing, hybriding, or the like). Let me be clear: your opinion isn't wrong. I'm just looking to see if it's something I should be taking into account as I consider this option as a solution for my games (and perhaps providing for others looking at this thread who might have similar questions/concerns). I want to make sure my players who love rangers will still feel like they're playing a ranger, and it's valuable to see where this strategy might fall down. In other words, I might not be willing to accept "the ranger MUST have the BEST companion as part of their CORE CLASS FEATURES" as a criteria I'll hold myself to, but I want to make sure that if I don't, that it's a considered drop, not something I just drop because it runs counter to the idea I had. It certainly is looking like something I won't worry too much about taking into account myself. But I wouldn't know that without discussing your criticisms in detail! I wonder if some more robust NPC-party-member rules might not be able to fix the Companion Problem for a lot of tables, leaving those who want a "companion as a class feature" with more intensive ways (like 4e's method of providing you with a unique creature as your companion, not a specific creature). WotC seems like it is trying to fix companions, and that effort might offer a lower return for its investment than coming up with a "Monster-to-PC-level-equivalent" chart or somesuch.</blockquote>

Verification