D&D 5E Mike Mearls Happy Fun Hour, Nov 27 2018

[5ekyu]

Yes.

If that doesn't work for someone, literally any race with a wolf is the classic ranger pet.


They literally can just provide alternate class features for a subclass just as easily as for a class. This argument is nonsensical and objectively false.
either Mearls is wasting time entirely, or alternate class features are a possibility.

Further, they can literally accomplish the same benefits of this proposal by adding spells to the class spell list that boost a pet. Word it so that they will also work for familiars, and maybe summoned pets, but not for NPC companions, and go.

But giving the pet hit dice instead of xtimes ranger level HP is a simple change, as is making it have a turn and no multi-attack, and that is all that is needed to bring the subclass in line with other ranger subclasses, and can allow the same effective benefit of the proposed build-a-beast if combined with spells that boost the stats of a controlled beast.

I agree with the idea of adding spells that make the beast better.

Even allowing your reaction to apply to your pet - absorb elements for instance - is there a problem that makes shared spells a 15th level trait? It's the value of the spell that determin's its potency.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

He went over how they aren't mathematically better, even if he expects most people would take them over the original.

And I’m calling that a cop out. (The idea that they can’t be mathematically better is also a cop out, but a different one)

They are better. Mathematically or not, they are.

Letting the pet have a turn, and actually scale HP properly, fixes bad design in the phb.

If that that is too much of a change, then adding spells that accomplish the goal is simply better than the proposed “build-a-beast” idea.

 

[Yaarel]

The best mechanics for having a ‘pet’, is simply to play one as a player character. Take a mundane animal as-is, from the Players Handbook appendix, or create one according player and DM preferences, and simply add a player class to it, such as Fighter, Rogue, or a spellcaster class if the pet is more magical.

Normal character, normal rules, determine encounter level as appropriate.

It is easy to play two characters at the same time, especially if their concept is, they are a duo.

 

[Parmandur]

And I’m calling that a cop out. (The idea that they can’t be mathematically better is also a cop out, but a different one)

They are better. Mathematically or not, they are.

Letting the pet have a turn, and actually scale HP properly, fixes bad design in the phb.

If that that is too much of a change, then adding spells that accomplish the goal is simply better than the proposed “build-a-beast” idea.

Preferrable, yes: Mearls said he was ok with making something 80% of players would prefer since the current options were dissatisfactory. Doesn't mean they are "better" in concrete terms.

 

[Azzy]

What surprised me was reading that Britney Spears, hit me baby one more time, is 20 years old now.

And it was only 18 years after it was released that I found out that the lyrics were written by a non-native English speaker and the phrase "hit me" was meany to convey "contact me" (as in "hit me up").

 

[Azzy]

The thing is, D&D rangers haven’t been very much like Aragorn since... Well, ever, really,

To be fair, the OD&D incarnation of the ranger from Dragon magazine (which the 1e ranger was based on) was supposed to emulate Aragorn as closely as the game mechanics would allow.

but 2e is probably the most recent incarnation of the Ranger that could reasonably be compared to him.

I politely disagree. The 2e ranger was interesting, but I do't think it was more Aragorn-like at all—what with the dual wielding, not being able to wear heavy armor, and such.

The D&D Ranger, like many things in D&D at this point, is just a collection of tropes that don’t really resemble anything in other fantasy but themselves and other derivatives of themselves.

Pretty much.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

To be fair, the OD&D incarnation of the ranger from Dragon magazine (which the 1e ranger was based on) was supposed to emulate Aragorn as closely as the game mechanics would allow.

I politely disagree. The 2e ranger was interesting, but I do't think it was more Aragorn-like at all—what with the dual wielding, not being able to wear heavy armor, and such.

Pretty much.

I think a 5e Half-elf Ranger, with the fun hour Spellcasting replacement exploits, might come close, but a Battlemaster Fighter with the right feats and the Outlander background gets even closer.

4e almost got there, if you had the stats to do range and melee, and ignored twin strike in melee to use a longsword...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The best mechanics for having a ‘pet’, is simply to play one as a player character. Take a mundane animal as-is, from the Players Handbook appendix, or create one according player and DM preferences, and simply add a player class to it, such as Fighter, Rogue, or a spellcaster class if the pet is more magical.

Normal character, normal rules, determine encounter level as appropriate.

It is easy to play two characters at the same time, especially if their concept is, they are a duo.

That’s a lot of spotlight.

My wife plays a revised BM, without the Extra Attack replacement feature, and her spotlight time is fine. No more out of wack than a character wth a familiar. Playing two PCs is a huge jump from that.

 

[Azzy]

I think a 5e Half-elf Ranger, with the fun hour Spellcasting replacement exploits, might come close, but a Battlemaster Fighter with the right feats and the Outlander background gets even closer.

4e almost got there, if you had the stats to do range and melee, and ignored twin strike in melee to use a longsword...

Never played 4e, but it sounds like it.

 

[Baumi]

I still think it would be fine if the Trident did 1d8 damage when one handed. For one thing, it's a martial weapon, not a simple one. Secondly, even then the Javelin would still provide a preferable ranged option due to it's lower cost, longer range, and lesser weight. Heck, now they even have the Yklwa, another pointy simple weapon that out-performs the Trident in some fashion. If they absolutely had to, they could remove the versatile property from it (and put it on the war pick).

They really need to make a second pass at the weapon table, there is so much about it that is questionable.

That would not work. It would be balanced vs the Spear/Javelin, but suddenly overpowered compared to all other one-handed Martial Weapons.