Mike Mearls Discusses Possible Alternate Class Features for the Ranger on Happy Fun Hour 11/20

[Jester David]

Yes, I suppose it's in the interpretation of issuing a command and how long that command stays in effect. They removed the phrase that said it doesn't take an action unless you command it but they retained the definition of a command being required to attack.

Well, no.
You spend an action to command it to take an action. Not to beginning attacking or start targeting a creature. The language would be very different if that was the intent.

I'm not in favour of technical language overruling common sense. If a handler commands a trained animal to attack someone, it will continue to attack until commanded it to stop or until it is hurt and decides to retreat. Once commanded, the beast should follow that command until it can't any more. At that point it takes the Dodge action until issued a fresh command.

That's most games in general, because what's "common sense" is often up for debate. It doesn't make sense that a sword blow that would have killed someone at level 1 is a scratch at level 10. It doesn't make sense that heavy plate armour makes it easy for you to dodge bolts of acid. It doesn't make sense that you can survive a 100 foot fall. It doesn't make sense for a trio horsemen riding side-by-side to occupy thirty-feet.
So we generate a fiction to explain the disconnect between the rules and common sense.

I feel sorry for anyone whose DM can't see that is the most common sense interpretation. Like you say, the animal won't stay conscious for long so it's just a flavourful damage spike like paladins burning spell slots.
I have added house rules to beastmaster (the beast shares the effect of Hunter's Mark and the ranger gets the Revivify Beast class feature to burn a spell slot to cast a Revivify spell on a dead beast companion, and at level 7, I added advantage on the beast's saves if it fan see the ranger) but I would not consider my interpretation of the duration of a command to be a house rule. It's common sense. ;-p

You can argue that the rules are wrong. You can suggest fixes for the rules.
But something not "making sense" doesn't change the meaning of words. It doesn’t alter the rules.

 

[5ekyu]

There is also the question of the definition of 'absent'. If it is intended to be equivalent to incapacitated i.e. when the ranger is incapable of giving commands, it doesn't specify that.

But it's moot for me. We don't play in official games and I will certainly play beast companions as following commands until they can't or are too scared to do so.

My house rules establish the beast as like any other NPC, run by the GM unless the PC overrules with an action.

Keeps it consistent with other NPCs.

 

[Pauln6]

My house rules establish the beast as like any other NPC, run by the GM unless the PC overrules with an action.

Keeps it consistent with other NPCs.

Yes, this is essentially what I do. It makes sense but maintains some balance while being fairer when you compare to animal summoning where commanding summoned creatures isn't even an action.

 

[Li Shenron]

Ummm... no.
The text is pretty clear that it will defend you if you are "incapacitated or absent" and will take reactions. If you are capacitated and present, it only attacks if you command it.


That's fine if the DM house rules that. But that reading is still very much an addition to the rules.

The text says:

The beast obeys your commands as best as it can. It takes its turn on your initiative. On your turn, you can verbally command the beast where to move (no action required by you). You can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, or Help action. If you don’t issue a command, the beast takes the Dodge action. Once you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make one weapon attack yourself when you command the beast to take the Attack action.
If you are incapacitated or absent, the beast acts on its own, focusing on protecting you and itself. The beast never requires your command to use its reaction, such as when making an opportunity attack.​

That's pretty clear. IF you command it, it attacks. IF you do not, it Dodges. It never attacks without your command unless it is making an opportunity attack or you are unable to take actions. It doesn't counterattack. It doesn't keep attacking. It doesn't Help or assist. It Dodges. Period.

So either you make an attack or the beast does

Nope, as much as my interpretation is and has always been the same as yours, it is NOT clear, otherwise we wouldn't have plenty of people after 4 years who still claim the RAW allows otherwise i.e. to take a command action in round 1 and have the beast keep attacking.

If only they added "each turn" after "If you don't issue a command" then it would put an end to the discussion. Unfortunately the "on your turn" expression is too far at this point. This is the kind of ambiguity which can spell doom in a legal contract if you are not careful.

 

[Jester David]

Nope, as much as my interpretation is and has always been the same as yours, it is NOT clear, otherwise we wouldn't have plenty of people after 4 years who still claim the RAW allows otherwise i.e. to take a command action in round 1 and have the beast keep attacking.

If only they added "each turn" after "If you don't issue a command" then it would put an end to the discussion. Unfortunately the "on your turn" expression is too far at this point. This is the kind of ambiguity which can spell doom in a legal contract if you are not careful.

I think it has more to do with “wishful thinking” than the rule being unclear. People want so desperately for it to say one thing, that they’re ignoring the actual text, and inventing alternate meaning for “absent” rather than admit it just kinda doesn’t work and you need to house rule.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I agree that it swung too far.
But the PHB ranger needs something at first level. It has two features that require brainpower and have a choice, but are largely ribbons.


It’s less about making their damage better and making favoured enemy less, well, useless.


Beasts don’t boost damage. Their damage is largely the same as the ranger’s. It can attack or the ranger can.
It is useful for damage mitigation... for one hit. Maybe two.
While it can recover at low levels, without its own hit dice the companion is just a drain on party resources to restore its health.
At higher levels, the companion is going to be dead more often than alive, and the ranger is basically lacking the benefits of their subclass.

This is why I won't make a player use the phb ranger for a beast master. The pet doesn't actually add much to the character, in practical terms, and adds plenty of stress for the player. They'd be better off with a familiar!

I still suggest just dropping the PH ranger beast rules and replacing with the companion rules from the revised ranger. No other changes needed.

I agree. The revised beast itself is well balanced, and plays well. Combine it with Mike's proposed alternate Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer, and I'm set.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think it has more to do with “wishful thinking” than the rule being unclear. People want so desperately for it to say one thing, that they’re ignoring the actual text, and inventing alternate meaning for “absent” rather than admit it just kinda doesn’t work and you need to house rule.

This. It’s the same as the problem with Barkskin. The text is perfectly clear and unambiguous, but because people don’t like the way it works (usually because it doesn’t easily translate into the narrative in a way that makes sense), they read ambiguity into it.

 

[Retreater]

So, in the latest Happy Fun Hour, Mike Mearls discusses how the recent round of feedback suggests that people are more dissatisfied with the Ranger than they were early in the edition, so he brainstorms some alternate features to help people's experience of the Class without replacing the Class or invalidating the PHB:

We've been telling them this since the release of 5e. Then they did the survey and said they weren't going to change anything about the ranger and insulted us. Now they're wanting to change it again.

Mearls needs to get his stuff together.

 

[jgsugden]

My 5E adjustments to classes:

Ranger (and druid/nature cleric): A bonus to damage to favored enemies equal to an equivalent level barbarian's rage bonus. A 1st level spell for rangers, nature clerics, and druids that gives them an NPCanimal companion that scales with them.

Monk: They get a bonus ASI at 6th level. Patient Defense costs 1 Ki, but allows you to perform the dodge action as a bonus action for 1 round / monk level. Similarly, Step of the wind grants the ability to dash or disengage as a bonus also lasts for 1 round per monk level. There are also a few feats that grant ki points and a way to spend them, such as Eye of the Tiger which grants 2 Ki points and the ability to spend 2 ki points to cast Hunter's Mark at first level (or at 3rd level for 4 points).

Paladin: Smite is limited to once per turn. Divine Sense lasts for 1 minute and explicitly identifies the alignment of a detected being, as well as whether the being is offensive to your deity. For example, an Oath of the Ancients might detect a Fey that was not evil, but was destructive of nature and thus offensive to the Paladin's preserving deity as a fey offensive to his god.

Rogue: d8 sneak dice.

Sorcerer: Regain 1/4 your max sorcery points (rounded up) when you take a SR.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

We've been telling them this since the release of 5e. Then they did the survey and said they weren't going to change anything about the ranger and insulted us. Now they're wanting to change it again.

Mearls needs to get his stuff together.

How did they insult anyone?