D&D 5E If all Rangers had an animal companion ...

[Xeviat]

Hi everyone. Rangers.

The ranger has an identity crisis. I have long thought that giving all rangers an animal companion would firmly define what the ranger is (I also feel that Spellcasting is a necessary part of the D&D ranger). I also recognize, though, that this doesn't fit all of the archetypes the Ranger has come to cover. Worse still, it doesn't cover Strider/Aragorn, which sort of means it's straight out the wrong direction to go.

But, time and time again, when I look at the Ranger, I see an archetype that could easily be covered by Rogue (Scout) or a Rogue/Fighter with the right background. Without spells, the Ranger lacks a strong reason to be separate. With an animal companion, though, the Danger's identity would be solidified.

What do you think? One idea I had in it would be to ensure there were "invulnerable" options, things like a small flighty bird or whatever, so your companion could just grant you static bonuses if you didn't want to deal with it.

 

[Gladius Legis]

The Class Features Variant article seemed to all but give away the intent that the animal friendship spell or Animal Handling skill were two ways any Ranger could get an animal to join them on adventures.

But even disregarding that, I always felt all Rangers should have had a 2nd-level spell that was their equivalent of the Paladin's Find Steed.

 

[Jediking]

I like the UA Class Variants, where the Druid can expend a use of their Wildshape to cast Find Familiar instead.

Maybe adding Find Familiar to the Ranger spell list could fill the niche for some players who want a flavourful animal companion without devoting their entire subclass to it. A Hunter Ranger with a hawk companion seems pretty thematic to me, or a Gloom Stalker with a bat

 

[Li Shenron]

If all Rangers had animal companions... there would be no more Rangers in my games.

"My hat for pet classes knows no limits"

 

[Umbran]

With an animal companion, though, the Danger's identity would be solidified.

"'Danger' is my middle name. It is a class feature."

 

[Minigiant]

Nah.

Animals is just a possible aspect of the ranger. It's not a default.

Rangers could delve into animals, plants, earth, air, water, traps, or even arcana. Whatever works at stalking your prey and surviving off the land.

 

[Marandahir]

Too many core alternate class features makes for a class without an identity.

I cast yes (as long as there's room for alternate without), but honestly, I prefer what's going on this way, where the Beast Master is one Conclave of Rangers, and all Rangers cast spells, but there are semimagical Arcane Archers that have a Primal Seeker vibe to them, and there's nonmagical Scouts, and there's Archery & Two-Weapon Fighters in general for non-magical Rangery goodness.

I think Fighter could do with a Ranger-esque subclass and we'd be good to go for Ranger variants.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I introduced five people to the game, at various points during the 3.x era, and every single one of them made a ranger specifically because it had a wolf. As far as class identities go, that's a fine one to have.

 

[Shiroiken]

But even disregarding that, I always felt all Rangers should have had a 2nd-level spell that was their equivalent of the Paladin's Find Steed.

This has been my opinion for a long, long time. I felt that having a focused build on it wasn't quite right, but allowing all of them the option of having one would be perfect. This would allow players to decide if they want to have an animal companion or not.

 

[Asisreo]

This has been my opinion for a long, long time. I felt that having a focused build on it wasn't quite right, but allowing all of them the option of having one would be perfect. This would allow players to decide if they want to have an animal companion or not.

You can use conjure animal to temporarily summon an animal directly under your command (CR 2 but it's ultimately the DM's choice).