D&D 5E It's official, WOTC hates Rangers (Tasha's version of Favored Foe is GARBAGE)

[The Mirrorball Man]

Stories without an antagonist are meaningless and boring.

Like The Andromeda Strain? Finding Nemo? Rendez-vous with Rama? That’s awfully reductive.

 

[Asisreo]

Like The Andromeda Strain? Finding Nemo? Rendez-vous with Rama? That’s awfully reductive.

Haven't seen the other 2, but I can talk about Finding Nemo.

Finding Nemo overall story doesn't have a central villain (unless you count nature), however it has several antagonists that force conflict.

The first enemy is, I think, Bruce the Shark. The next is probably Lucy the braces girl. These are also the biggest moments of the film. I'm sure there were more but still.

The point is that Finding Nemo is like a minicampaign with a string of adventures that centralize around a single goal.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Why do you not update the Beastmaster in these comparisons? The beastmaster is just as eligible for the same feats as your non-beastmaster Ranger.

If the beastmaster also takes Dual-Wielding, the total damage they do also increases. Its now 2d8+8=17+14.5=31.5 so the Wolf Spider Ranger outdamages that Ranger again.

Because I assumed that you took that ASI instead of the feat, hence why your damage was +4 per hit. Then, just for the sake of completeness, I pointed out that once the Hunter had time to get that +4, they caught back up.

Actually, the Wolf Spider isn't even that close to the most damaging Beast. In fact, it has less AC and significantly less to-hit than the most powerful damaging option. I'd consider it "middle-of-the-pack" in terms of damage.

The strongest companion is the Giant Poisonous Snake, which, quite frankly, does more damage than even a fighter or barbarian unless they use feats or cast serious buff spells. At level 5, we're talking a best-case scenario of doing 19 damage with a +9 to-hit alone. With a 10ft reach. That's a total of 34 damage every round at level 5 for the Beastmaster Ranger. Worst-case (they succeed both saves), this is still 29 damage.

The Wolf Spider really just pails, yet they're still better than non-beastmaster in terms of damage.

Seems like that is only a 4 point difference, not sure that one "pales" in comparison to the other. (Checked the math to make sure, and the snake is 19 pts of that damage)

The Wolf Spider does poison damage, which bypass that specific resistance.

But also, at 7th level, the companion's attacks are magical so that's wrong. Its in the Errata so you may have missed it if you have the OG PHB like I do.

Until it runs into immunity. Which is common.

However, wow. I had not seen anyone mentioning these errata changes. Not only magical attacks, but automatically taking the Dodge action if they aren't commanded? That is a big change for the better.

The steep cost is...8 hours? I've seen spellcasters take longer in an adventure.

Good thing that's not the only thing the subclass offers.

But, you are missing the point. Your beast is likely to die in a single combat.

Then, you need to find a beast, make sure it is non-hostile, and then perform an 8 hour ritual to bond to it.

Until you do, what subclass abilities do you have? Ranger's Companion, Exceptional Training, Bestial Fury, Shared Spells.

Nothing. Everything the subclass offers revolves around this beast, and they do not have defenses. Your Giant Poisonous Snake? by 5th level they have 17 AC (decent, but not stellar) and has 20 hp.... less than a Con 10 wizard.

Let's say you are fighting an Orc Warchief, a CR 4 monster, with a +6 to hit he has about a 50/50 shot of hitting the snake, and with an average of 15 damage per hit it is essentially guaranteed to kill the snake in two rounds. 1 if it hits with both attacks or gets a good damage roll.

Even if you can prove the damage is competitive, this is still a major problem.

Not everything is about damage, despite the previous topic. Sometimes imposing disadvantage on your enemy can be worth more than the damage outright since its basically an immediate effect. Damage doesn't do anything until the enemy's HP is 0. Bringing it closer to that number might save a round or be inconsequential depending on the actual tactic. Its best to use common sense when using your beast.

I agree everything isn't about damage, but the problem is that the beast only offers three things.

1) Damage

2) Meatsack

3) Scouting

And, you only get one of these. They are terrible scouts, because you need to cast a spell to communicate or see through their eyes, and any beast small and innocuous enough to pull off scouting it terrible in the other two sections.

And they have terrible defenses. The best you can hope for is to dodge and have a crab, because otherwise they can only survive one or two hits.

And if they can't survive, then their damage output drops to zero.

Doesn't change the point that someone must first play an optimal beastmaster before they can say they're good or bad in-play.

So, can't just play the Beastmaster, have to be an optimal beastmaster playing in the right way, and then I can evaluate it?

No.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Like The Andromeda Strain? Finding Nemo? Rendez-vous with Rama? That’s awfully reductive.

Andromeda Strain might make a session, but wouldn't stretch to a campaign, Finding Nemo has antagonists, and Rama proves the point. I've never got half way through a more boring book.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Rain is one outcome for the roll. Spontaneous viodstorm is another.

The boredom stems from making the same roll 117 times. One implausibly ridiculous outcome doesn't make the other 116 rolls interesting.

Orcs band together to kill the wizard?

They band together to kill the ranger. The wizard knocks them all down with a spell.

YOU DO NOT NEED A SPECIAL CLASS TO HAVE AN ENEMY.

Survival stories much.

Man vs Wild is a classic plot. C'mon.

Survival stories are boring.

I've never come across one I've found remotely interesting.

What are you gonna say next. Traps are not fun because a falling boulder lacks a brain and pits cannot speak?

Traps can be an entertaining for an intro, but you need nazis to make them into a movie.

 

[Asisreo]

Because I assumed that you took that ASI instead of the feat, hence why your damage was +4 per hit. Then, just for the sake of completeness, I pointed out that once the Hunter had time to get that +4, they caught back up.

You can do both, though. You admitted in your pre-level 8 explanation that your 4d8+9=27 damage is still under the 29.5 non-feat Wolf Spider Ranger. It isn't until level 8 or a V-human that you claimed that the Feat Hunter does more damage, but I showed that if the Beastmaster Ranger takes the feat where your Hunter takes the +1, the Ranger has once again outdamaged the Hunter and will continue to do so onward. From levels 3-20, the beastmaster does more damage.

But, you are missing the point. Your beast is likely to die in a single combat.

Then, you need to find a beast, make sure it is non-hostile, and then perform an 8 hour ritual to bond to it.

Until you do, what subclass abilities do you have? Ranger's Companion, Exceptional Training, Bestial Fury, Shared Spells.

Nothing. Everything the subclass offers revolves around this beast, and they do not have defenses. Your Giant Poisonous Snake? by 5th level they have 17 AC (decent, but not stellar) and has 20 hp.... less than a Con 10 wizard.

Let's say you are fighting an Orc Warchief, a CR 4 monster, with a +6 to hit he has about a 50/50 shot of hitting the snake, and with an average of 15 damage per hit it is essentially guaranteed to kill the snake in two rounds. 1 if it hits with both attacks or gets a good damage roll.

Even if you can prove the damage is competitive, this is still a major problem.

If I'm fighting an Orc Warchief, I'm not having my beast engage it in combat. You're right that Brute-type enemies are effective against the Poisonous Snake, so I'd just have them attack other characters and use my own strength against the brutes, or let better equipped Party Members like the Bard or Sorcerer handle it.

I can't accurately formulate a plan based on a hypothetical, but its times like these where common sense precedes all else in battle. If someone says that using your 2d6 greatsword isn't working because of immunity, its time to bring out your +1 dagger, even if it isn't as strong generally. Adaptation in combat is more important than any class feature, race, spell, or number on your stat sheet.

I agree everything isn't about damage, but the problem is that the beast only offers three things.

1) Damage

2) Meatsack

3) Scouting

And, you only get one of these. They are terrible scouts, because you need to cast a spell to communicate or see through their eyes, and any beast small and innocuous enough to pull off scouting it terrible in the other two sections.

Speak With Animals isn't that big of a deal, especially past level 5, but if you do want to preserve Spell Slots as much as possible, you can have the animal simply make a certain noise if there are hostiles wherever it was sent scouting.

And they have terrible defenses. The best you can hope for is to dodge and have a crab, because otherwise they can only survive one or two hits.

If your companion doesn't have a base 13 AC, you can either give them barkskin or you can find them barding. If your companion is low on health, you can cast spells like Healing Spirit to bring their health back up. If you have excess potions of healing that nobody is using, use em on your companion. There's quite a few ways to increase the defensive abilities of the beast. Even still, you if it goes down, you should be able to heal it back up again.

So, can't just play the Beastmaster, have to be an optimal beastmaster playing in the right way, and then I can evaluate it?

No.

It doesn't have to be optimal but you shouldn't judge a book by its cover and you certainly shouldn't criticize a class when played incompetently. Its noone's fault but the player if they play against the design structure of a class for their own fantasy. I'm not saying its wrong for a player to want a certain companion and to have it be extremely combat competent even if it isn't, but expecting the book to conform to all your fantasies at once isn't necessarily realistic. Don't mistake what I'm saying, I'd absolutely love more subclass options for companion-type rangers but I don't want to see the beastmaster misrepresented.

If a player wants to have a hyper-efficient combat falcon, that's absolutely justified. A DM could just reskin the Pteradon as a falcon and give it wisdom equal to a hawk, keen sight, and make it tiny.

Until it runs into immunity. Which is common.

Beasts, Monstrosities, and humanoid enemies are the most common enemy adventurers face. Of these 3, the most likely to have resistance or immunities are the monstrosities but I'd say even most monstrosities have neither. The creatures that commonly have them are fiends, undead, constructs, and elementals. All of which are pretty rare unless your campaign revolves around them, with the only possible exception being undead.

 

[Shardstone]

The Beast Master sucks. That's why they are introducing new beasts for it. That's why WotC themselves have said that it has low satisfaction for its playrate. Because it sucks. It can be a lot better.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Survival stories are boring.

I've never come across one I've found remotely interesting.

Traps can be an entertaining for an intro, but you need nazis to make them into a movie.

You know, maybe you are just easily bored?

 

[billd91]

You know, maybe you are just easily bored?

Or at this point, just trolling the topic. He's not going to be convinced, so don't bother engaging with him on it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The wilderness has no agency. It is not an antagonist. Stories without an antagonist are meaningless and boring.

There are antagonists in the wilderness, just like everywhere else.

The creatures that commonly have them are fiends, undead, constructs, and elementals. All of which are pretty rare unless your campaign revolves around them, with the only possible exception being undead.

Depends on the world. If evil spellcasters gain their power from fiends, youll face more fiends. In an Eberron game I’d expect more constructs. Neither requires the campaign to revolve around that enemy.