D&D 5E It is OK for a class to be the worst

[iserith]

I'm saying a Beast Master should have a partner like that.

But it doesn't and I don't think this has any impact on the viability of the class as written. My read and experience with actually playing the class is that getting attached to the animal companion is not skillful play. It will likely die at some point, just like the character might die at some point. Unless the DM takes death off the table, this is a reality the players have to deal with. Skillful players plan accordingly. I, for example, purposefully switch up animal companions based on their utility in the given adventure.

DMs are welcome to change the class on their own, of course, if they have players that want animal companions like whatever Pokemon game you're referencing. This does not indicate to me a problem with the class, just a preference of certain players.

 

[Asisreo]

In the first Pokémon games, a lot of Pokémon were designed with the concept of you just replacing them as you went on. Catch a Pidgey or Spearow? Replace it with a Dodo/Dodrio later on. Catch a Rattata? Ditch it for a Meowth and then Snorlax. Caught a Beedrill? Grab a Paras and then later a Scyther or Pinsir.

They didn't take into account that kids would grow ATTACHED to their virtual pets. In future game they improve the starting routes Pokémon so that many can realistically be carried until the end of the game without being penalized too much.

Let's Go Pikachu and Let's Go Eevee were remakes of the first games that gave you a special partner Pokémon with boosted stats and special coverage moves not available to the regular ones. I'm saying a Beast Master should have a partner like that.

I agree that beastmaster ranger should've had flavor text to align with its intended playstyle.

However, I think beastmaster has a more unique problem. The fact of the matter is, no matter how tanky your companion is, it'll probably die at some point. It could be a CR 2 beast that completely heals after every battle and has all proficiencies but if they get unlucky with a power word kill, they'll die. Now what? If the beastmaster was this inseparable bond with their companions, would they get the feature back? Rangers don't have resurrection magic, they'd have to have a cleric.

The team had to balance the game around it being okay that your companion die and it not completely overpower the Ranger. That or having your companion be immortal which doesn't really make sense.

I mean, it's not like you're intentionally having your companion die, either. But you're one with beasts, plural, so gaining new companions is something to be prepared for.

 

[Undrave]

But it doesn't and I don't think this has any impact on the viability of the class as written. My read and experience with actually playing the class is that getting attached to the animal companion is not skillful play. It will likely die at some point, just like the character might die at some point. Unless the DM takes death off the table, this is a reality the players have to deal with. Skillful players plan accordingly. I, for example, purposefully switch up animal companions based on their utility in the given adventure.

DMs are welcome to change the class on their own, of course, if they have players that want animal companions like whatever Pokemon game you're referencing. This does not indicate to me a problem with the class, just a preference of certain players.

There's also the issue that your class features can die on you at the beginning of the day or in a situation where you can't just conjure up a new companion so you get gimped until whenever. No other class has class features that can just die on them.

 

[commandercrud]

Class A is the worst. Fix class A. Now class B is the worst. Fix class B. Repeat forever and power creep each step of the way. Great idea.

 

[Undrave]

Rangers don't have resurrection magic, they'd have to have a cleric.

The UA gave them the Revivify Spell to use on their companion. I think it's a decent compromise since it means their companion can die for one battle, but be back a short while later at the cost of limited ressources.

 

[Ogre Mage]

I didn't play a lot of 4E, but it seemed like there was more power parity between the classes (though some people complained all classes were the same). 5E embraced classes advancing in more divergent ways from one another. Which is interesting but led to more power imbalance between classes. Perhaps this change was jarring for some players.

5E is certainly more balanced than the HUGE, WILD imbalances of 3.X. Oddly, I don't remember as many "class fixes" back then.

 

[Asisreo]

There's also the issue that your class features can die on you at the beginning of the day or in a situation where you can't just conjure up a new companion so you get gimped until whenever. No other class has class features that can just die on them.

I was looking at the steel defender from Artificer to make a point.

And then I noticed the homunculus, and it doesn't even say how you would get one back.

 

[Asisreo]

I was looking at the steel defender from Artificer to make a point.

And then I noticed the homunculus, and it doesn't even say how you would get one back.

Nvm, I see it's an infusion.

 

[iserith]

There's also the issue that your class features can die on you at the beginning of the day or in a situation where you can't just conjure up a new companion so you get gimped until whenever. No other class has class features that can just die on them.

I don't see why this actually matters to achieving the goals of play. It's not like the player doesn't know this going in and can't plan and play accordingly. If you're in a spot where getting a new companion could be difficult, you play more conservatively. If you're out in nature and beasts are plentiful, then you can afford to engage in more risks. It seems to me the objection is really about players playing a class as something it's not and that's on the player, not the class.

 

[Asisreo]

The UA gave them the Revivify Spell to use on their companion. I think it's a decent compromise since it means their companion can die for one battle, but be back a short while later at the cost of limited ressources.

Sure, I guess. It doesn't really fit my idea of a Ranger being able to revive anything from death (Druids can't revive someone until 17th level because I assumed nature didn't like messing with the balance of life or death, why should a Ranger?) But if it made a more fun experience for some other table, that's good enough for me.