D&D General Beast Master Ranger Should Have A Familiar

[Paul Farquhar]

What. When have i ever mentioned Dar?

Figure out who you are arguing with please.

Dar is the original Beastmaster. The entire concept is based on him, just as the D&D Ranger is based on Aragorn. It was 3rd edition stupidity that tried to jam the two completely different archetypes together.

 

[Horwath]

I am fine with that i guess but some people hate putting anything pet related in the base class more than having it on the spell list.

I was saying that about beastmaster subclass, not base class.

if you are getting this subclass, then you are buying into having anything or everything about beasts.

same way, that any HM things should be reserved for Hunter subclass not base class.
Give us something else instead of mandatory HM for base class.

 

[Horwath]

Dar is the original Beastmaster. The entire concept is based on him, just as the D&D Ranger is based on Aragorn. It was 3rd edition stupidity that tried to jam the two completely different archetypes together.

Agree,
ranger can be both hunter and beastmaster, but it does not mean it should be both or either for that matter if player does not want it.

So, FF needs to have more options on what to take instead of mandatory HM.

 

[CreamCloud0]

same way, that any HM things should be reserved for Hunter subclass not base class.
Give us something else instead of mandatory HM for base class.

personally, i do i think favoured enemy('14 version) and favoured terrain should be the ranger's 'unique' baseclass feature, they're good concepts they just need to be executed better, just don't make them inert non-features when dealing with anything other than your specific pick, undead are your favoured enemy? congratulations you get resistance to necrotic damage, expertise in religion and a handful of cleric-y and radiant spells, your favoured terrain is jungle? well then you get resistance to poison and disease, an improved climb speed, immunity to difficult terrain and herbalist's kit proficiency.

 

[Reef]

I’m not sure Beastmaster the movie had much to do with Beastmaster the ranger, to be honest. I think it’s much more likely that it’s a direct reaction to Drizzt the Ranger. Just like rangers all suddenly inexplicably became two-weapon fighters around the time he showed up. And later on, I suspect it became even more ingrained with the rise of World of Warcraft.

 

[Horwath]

personally, i do i think favoured enemy('14 version) and favoured terrain should be the ranger's 'unique' baseclass feature, they're good concepts they just need to be executed better, just don't make them inert non-features when dealing with anything other than your specific pick, undead are your favoured enemy? congratulations you get resistance to necrotic damage, expertise in religion and a handful of cleric-y and radiant spells, your favoured terrain is jungle? well then you get resistance to poison and disease, an improved climb speed, immunity to difficult terrain and herbalist's kit proficiency.

this is a good idea and have been mentioned by people over the years, but instead of that we got mandatory HM, great design as usual...

there is a lot of specific features that can be used globally from favored terrain/enemy:

Undead/jungle might give proficiency in Con saves
Plains give +10ft speed and Dash and/or Disengage as Bonus action
Underdark gives +60ft of darkvision
Forest/mountains give climb speed
coastal gives waterbreathing and swim speed
Urban gives 3 proficiencies from Insight, History, Persuasion, Intimidation, Deception and 3 languages, +1 expertise in one of those skills.

Dragon enemy might give one elemental resistance(later immunity) and adv on Dex saves and fear saves
Fey might give immunity to Charm condition and adv vs all other enchantment effects.

 

[Scott Christian]

But dont misrepresent my arguments in order to make your own.

I have said more than once now that i do not experience the "treating the familiar as an item" behavior you are so worried about. No one is sending their cat down the hall to trigger traps, in any game i have played in or run.

That might be true for your games. Everything I wrote was a general statement about familiars in a game. You are right, it is board game thinking if a player uses them as a piece of equipment. Which, in my opinion, is what the rules lean towards - equipment more than character.

But unless you have a game where the pcs spend as much time at camp as in the dungeon, and familiars have something to do at camp, people are going to take familiars into dungeons. And familiars are gonna die as a result, even when it is basically a character's subclass (or close to it).

I agree.

And that is fine under only 3 circumstances.

1) the familiar isnt down foe that long. Literally just let it make death saves regardless of how much damage it takes, so that a spell slot must be spent to being it back just like a PC, and this wiuld be much less trivial.

2) The familiar doesnt matter at all in any mechanical sense. Pure flavor. (the worst option IMO)

3) The subclass or whatever gives you enough besides the pet that you arent half a PC while the pet is gone. (My oldest BM rewrite focuses on this, making the BM themself a master of teamwork, so that their abilities can be used alongside the party rogue or fighter, even if not quite as well as with the pet)

I like option 3 best. I would add two more options:

4) The familiar dies, and when it dies, it severely hinders the PC. Maybe two levels of exhaustion? You still get to use your beastmaster abilities, but there is a risk when summoning your familiar.

5) The familiar dies. You don't get it back until next level.

I can guess you won't be a fan of 4 & 5. But those are options.

 

[Minigiant]

Um...no. They are magical. They ar3 currently literally nature spirits, but even before then they were special animals you magically bond with and they become magical. The difference between that and a spirit that becomes an animal is completely cosmetic.

Nah.

Dar's beasts weren't magical.
Rexxar's beasts weren't magical.
The Starks Children's beasts weren't magical.
Falcon's falcon isn't magical.

 

[Scott Christian]

Nah.

Dar's beasts weren't magical.
Rexxar's beasts weren't magical.
The Starks Children's beasts weren't magical.
Falcon's falcon isn't magical.

They weren't magical because they wanted people to look at them as a character, not a tool. The writers need that attachment. And, you are correct, it would be nice to have a ranger whose beast wasn't magical.

 

[Minigiant]

They weren't magical because they wanted people to look at them as a character, not a tool. The writers need that attachment. And, you are correct, it would be nice to have a ranger whose beast wasn't magical.

Thats why to me.


The ranger should be buffing real animals not summoning a beast shaped spirit.