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

[GreenTengu]

You're misrepresenting the Beastmaster in your rant.

While its true some options are more powerful than others, it should be intuitive enough that Rangers who want their beast to dominate in combat should choose from the pool of CR 1/4. Of these, there is quite a few good ones.

First off, Wolves aren't even the most damaging companion. That would go to the Giant Poisonous Snake which out-damages even the Ranger themself up until, what? Level 11?,

There are also several strong combat beasts that aren't always about damage like the Pteradon, Giant Frog, Giant Badger, Boar, and Giant Crab.

If you choose anything with a CR less than 1/4, you're basically using it for out-of-combat uses. And those uses can be plentiful.

Regular Hawks, while a beastmaster's companion, have a PP of 21 relying on sight. Owls have darkvision up to 120ft and are tiny, being able to fit through really small gaps for scouting. Ravens can take simple sounds and imitate them, allowing you to trick someone or gain info on what the Raven hears when it scouts. Giant Wolf Spiders get a +9 to stealth at level 3, giving them higher stealth than even a rogue with expertise at that point.

Even if your beast isn't optimized for combat, they can still contribute quite a bit outside of combat. And the drawback for doing so? The base Ranger's damage, as if you didn't have them in combat anyways.

All of this indicates that there may be advantages to having other sorts of animals that I didn't fully calculate (although the wolves higher speed and ability to knock creatures down on a successful hit probably does outweigh what additional damage these few options I didn't consider may offer).

But ultimately the Beast Ranger's version of "extra attack" is "the animal gets to attack" which ties which animal one chose so closely to the Beastmasters combat ability on every single turn of combat so closely that it becomes so important to choose the one with the best possible combat potential that none of the other factors you presented here could ever really possibly even out to a fair trade-off.

The utility of the animal in-combat is so closely tied to the fundamental functionality of the class on every single turn, that the once-in-a-blue-moon advantage that others could imaginably afford one doesn't really matter.

And you certainly haven't addressed why someone who chose a hyena, or even a dog, as a companion should be penalized over someone who chose a wolf. The animals are similar enough that one would think that a similar level version of each should be similar-- but because the monster manual assigned them wildly different stats for reasons entirely unrelated to balance or the animal's physical traits, they were given wildly different stats.

 

[Lanefan]

If you can't make a giant bog interesting...I guess yeah go ahead and modify the ranger or leave it out of your games and just run urban and dungeon based games.

I think the vast majority of DMs can make a giant bog interesting, though, with a very small amount of help.

My oh my - the world is ending! That's twice we've agreed in one day!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

My oh my - the world is ending! That's twice we've agreed in one day!

Hahaha well damn, might be the worlds about to end.

 

[Asisreo]

All of this indicates that there may be advantages to having other sorts of animals that I didn't fully calculate (although the wolves higher speed and ability to knock creatures down on a successful hit probably does outweigh what additional damage these few options I didn't consider may offer).

But ultimately the Beast Ranger's version of "extra attack" is "the animal gets to attack" which ties which animal one chose so closely to the Beastmasters combat ability on every single turn of combat so closely that it becomes so important to choose the one with the best possible combat potential that none of the other factors you presented here could ever really possibly even out to a fair trade-off.

The utility of the animal in-combat is so closely tied to the fundamental functionality of the class on every single turn, that the once-in-a-blue-moon advantage that others could imaginably afford one doesn't really matter.

You still get to choose between making two attacks yourself or an attack with your beast and an attack with yourself.

If you want your beast to not contribute in combat, you still get extra attack.

And you certainly haven't addressed why someone who chose a hyena, or even a dog, as a companion should be penalized over someone who chose a wolf. The animals are similar enough that one would think that a similar level version of each should be similar-- but because the monster manual assigned them wildly different stats for reasons entirely unrelated to balance or the animal's physical traits, they were given wildly different stats.

Why is it that a fighter that decides to speck into dual-wielding daggers or a paladin going full ranged-combat are penalized for doing so? Why is a wizard that refuses to learn spells of their highest level hurt by their choices?

Because they're purposefully choosing things outside of the optimal route. Sometimes a wizard wants to double back on a spell of a previous level because they just learned how good Shield is or the paladin wants to have been chosen to be a holy warrior with their bow. That's fine, but they're seriously undermining their combat capabilities. The same can be said for beastmaster's companions.

You don't really think a player that takes a dog (mastiff) should really do as good as one that took a wolf, do you? Hyenas are scavengers. They'll fight and they can hold their own, but they don't prefer fighting unless they must, even in packs. Such an animal should be weaker in active combat than a wolf.

And yeah, it has to do with balance, too. Gnolls frequently have hyenas as pets so they need to make sure hyenas aren't too strong when a party faces those hyenas with their gnoll masters.

 

[Minigiant]

I think the points are

1. There are different fantasies for a beastmaster based the animal. Some are warrior companions, Some fight instead of the ranger. Some are independent combat sidekicks. Some are utility tools. And some are a mix of the mentioned types.
2. Beasts were designed as monsters to fight PCs not as monsters to fight other monsters.
3. Beasts are based on real life animals who aren't balanced against each other and have different niches, behaviors, and roles in their habitats.
4. Because of 1, 2, and 3, having 1 subclass cover it all wasn't going to work if you were going to fulfill even a quarter of beastmaster fantasies.

 

[Asisreo]

I think the points are

1. There are different fantasies for a beastmaster based the animal. Some are warrior companions, Some fight instead of the ranger. Some are independent combat sidekicks. Some are utility tools. And some are a mix of the mentioned types.
2. Beasts were designed as monsters to fight PCs not as monsters to fight other monsters.
3. Beasts are based on real life animals who aren't balanced against each other and have different niches, behaviors, and roles in their habitats.
4. Because of 1, 2, and 3, having 1 subclass cover it all wasn't going to work if you were going to fulfill even a quarter of beastmaster fantasies.

I can agree with the first and third point but the second and fourth ones, I disagree.

Beasts were more than likely balanced around Druids and Rangers using them as companions, wildshapes, or in the background. I can't imagine what type of combat would occur where a regular sized seahorse would make a difference. Its especially strange because they have crabs, sharks, quippers, and seahorses, but they don't have fish.

Which fantasy isn't being covered, exactly? I mean, if you're leaning to a combat-focused beastmaster, you'll choose a combat-focused beast. If you're not interested in your companion being combat-oriented, then it really doesn't matter who you choose as your companion.

The only fantasy I can see incomplete is having your companion as a lifelong partner. I just don't think the class was designed around that. I remember Jeremy said that they were expecting those types of bonds, ones where you'll forever be with your companion, would be facilitated by the DM and could therefore be any animal the DM found reasonable. If the DM sees you want a pet bear or you were raised by a Winter Wolf, they'll have it as an NPC and he can decide whether he runs it, you run it, or he puts it in the background.

 

[Minigiant]

I can agree with the first and third point but the second and fourth ones, I disagree.

Beasts were more than likely balanced around Druids and Rangers using them as companions, wildshapes, or in the background. I can't imagine what type of combat would occur where a regular sized seahorse would make a difference. Its especially strange because they have crabs, sharks, quippers, and seahorses, but they don't have fish.

Beasts were probably built to not be broken in the hands of PCs. Druids, Rangers, and summoners would have access to them.

But they weren't balanced to be used as alternate attack vectors. CR 1/4 has attacks below even a level 1 PC.+3 to hit and 4-5 damage per round?

Which fantasy isn't being covered, exactly? I mean, if you're leaning to a combat-focused beastmaster, you'll choose a combat-focused beast. If you're not interested in your companion being combat-oriented, then it really doesn't matter who you choose as your companion.

I listed them.

An independent sidekick. Playing a kid ranger or weaker ranger who has the beast do all the offense anddefense wheras the human handles talking and skills.

A pure utility companion. A ranger with a weasel or bird companion. The ranger does all the fighting. The small beast is just the target of permanent beast bond and speak with animals like Dar the Beastmaster.

Since Tasha's isn't out yet. Thereis the ranger with a swarm of animals.

Basically in 4e terms, there is the defender beast, striker beast, controller beast, utility beast and mixed beast fantasies before you get to obscure ones.

There really should have been at least 5 beastmaster subclasses once Tasha's is released. We have 2.

 

[Helldritch]

Is this not cool and exciting? They've found their own way to their destination and now the living, breathing world must react.

To be honest, from the start of the beginning of your introduction, it feels like you're trying to run a level 1 adventure at a level 13 party.

From memory, it was an adventure for 20th level characters set in the FR. Edition 3.5 and it was to uncover the lair of a powerful dracolich guarded by dragons. The story could be easily adapted to 5th edition save for the sorcerous dracolich itself, but even then. The adaptation should not be that hard.

And yes, for many around here the exploration pillar is pretty much limited to the wilderness. We do understand that a dungeon can be explored. This is so evident that to say it is almost.... well...

The point is that we are talking about rangers, outdoor trackers and masters. So in this context, exploration is and should be kept about the wilderness itself. Moving the discussion away from the wilderness is doing this thread a disservice.

What I have found useful in keeping wilderness exploration relevant throughout any levels is the notion of land marks seen only from the ground. Clues as to the entrence of a secret dungeon that can only be seen while walking, and with one clue leading to the other until the goal/entrance is finally reached.

Unfortunately, this treasure hunt type of endeavor can only be used so often before getting old. Once or twice in an adventurer's career top. Otherwise, it will get old and even frustrating as the characters are prevented to use their high level tools. Again, it is a matter of pacing and dosage. Too much and the players will feel cheated. Not enough, and the ranger might feel useless.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Beasts were probably built to not be broken in the hands of PCs. Druids, Rangers, and summoners would have access to them.

But they weren't balanced to be used as alternate attack vectors. CR 1/4 has attacks below even a level 1 PC.+3 to hit and 4-5 damage per round?


I listed them.

An independent sidekick. Playing a kid ranger or weaker ranger who has the beast do all the offense anddefense wheras the human handles talking and skills.

A pure utility companion. A ranger with a weasel or bird companion. The ranger does all the fighting. The small beast is just the target of permanent beast bond and speak with animals like Dar the Beastmaster.

Since Tasha's isn't out yet. Thereis the ranger with a swarm of animals.

Basically in 4e terms, there is the defender beast, striker beast, controller beast, utility beast and mixed beast fantasies before you get to obscure ones.

There really should have been at least 5 beastmaster subclasses once Tasha's is released. We have 2.

No. Beast of the XYZ can do that job, with one subclass.
now, that subclass should have things that the current one doesn’t, but that doesn’t mean the above is any less true.

 

[Dr Magister]

If you are a level 15 Ranger, then regardless of whether you have a badger, wolf or bear companion, it ought to fight exactly the same. If you have an eagle or bat then maybe it works just a little different to compensate for the fact that it can fly giving you more non-combat use.

Is this not exactly what they've done with the variant class ability that will be in Tasha's? Assuming it's more or less the same as the UA that is.

Land Beast (reskin to taste) and Air Beast (reskin to taste). So whether it's a badger or a bear, it will have the same stats, or a magpie or an eagle.