Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pauper" data-source="post: 7114051" data-attributes="member: 17607">Depends who you ask -- the ranger introduced in the original Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook had no animal companion feature, nor any way to get one save for DM adjudiction with the 'follower' mechanic that the ranger used at high level (much as the fighter gained 'followers' that could be used to staff a kingdom, the ranger gained  followers like copper dragons or storm giants.The ranger with the single animal companion for most of his career didn't become a thing until 3rd Edition, and the ranger animal companion was basically his version of a wizard's familiar, even using similar advancement rules.The 4th Edition ranger didn't have an animal companion until the Beastmaster option came out in the Martial Power splatbook; the core ranger was purely an archer or two-weapon damage dealer.One could argue, as with a lot else about the ranger class, that the 'animal companion' aspect of the class came almost solely from Driz'zt Do'Urden -- a character who was impossible to actually build legally under core rules until D&D 5E. I don't consider anything about Driz'zt -- a character written for fiction, not actually for play -- to be part of the class identity of the ranger class.The revised ranger is an absolutely wonderful option for those who want to play a Swashbuckler rogue and splash one level of ranger to guarantee they always get Sneak Attack in the opening round of combat, since they can't also take Assassin to do that. The Hunter Conclave is mechanically identical to the core Hunter archetype in the PH, which suggests that there already wasn't much wrong with the core Ranger, but there's no reason to take it now when the Dark Stalker Conclave exists. If anything, the revised Ranger is example #1 as to why designing by opinion poll is ultimately not going to get you a better-designed game.--Pauper</blockquote>

Verification