D&D 5E Ranger

[UngeheuerLich]

Yeah the beastmaster is kinda lame.

But it does seem like a gnome or halfling ranger can get a pteranodon as a companion at 3rd level and constantly fly around, which is kinda cool for a few levels.

I sadly don´t have the PHB, so I can only make assumptions:

I think a beast has reactions at least, which helps a bit. And I´d like them to retaliate if no command is given... but i guess this is more my wish than anything.

The conjure animals seems to allow those animal to defend themselves, if no command is given. But what action is issuing that command?

 

[Branduil]

We have the fighter for that. Fighter (even just a Champion fighter) + Outlander with plenty of DEX so light armor is a good choice. The 5e fighter is really trying to cover the 4e Fighter, Ranger, and Warlord - 3 classes, 3 different roles, and a dozen or so builds, with, among them, around a thousand maneuver ('exploit'/power) choices - with two sub-classes, one of which is basically choiceless, the other one able to choose from 16 maneuvers. Obviously, it's having some trouble, but the Ranger is probably the one it comes closest to covering, in a basic, high-DPR-from-lots-of-arrows way.

Yeah, a Fighter with the right background is probably the best way to emulate a 4e Ranger right now. Maybe dip in a level of Ranger for some tracking abilities. It's never been easier to play a skilled Fighter, at least. A Half-Elf Fighter can start with 6 skill proficiencies.

 

[outsider]

We have the fighter for that. Fighter (even just a Champion fighter) + Outlander with plenty of DEX so light armor is a good choice. The 5e fighter is really trying to cover the 4e Fighter, Ranger, and Warlord - 3 classes, 3 different roles, and a dozen or so builds, with, among them, around a thousand maneuver ('exploit'/power) choices - with two sub-classes, one of which is basically choiceless, the other one able to choose from 16 maneuvers. Obviously, it's having some trouble, but the Ranger is probably the one it comes closest to covering, in a basic, high-DPR-from-lots-of-arrows way.

I actually kinda prefer Rogue+Outlander for this(though multiclassing some fighter levels in wouldn't hurt). Reliable Talent would apply to all of your outdoorsy/stealth/perception skills. Cunning Action makes you a very good hit and run combatant. A dip into fighter would improve your chosen fighting style quite a bit.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I actually kinda prefer Rogue+Outlander for this(though multiclassing some fighter levels in wouldn't hurt). Reliable Talent would apply to all of your outdoorsy/stealth/perception skills. Cunning Action makes you a very good hit and run combatant. A dip into fighter would improve your chosen fighting style quite a bit.

You do prettymuch have a choice between fighter toughness and rogue uberskill to go with your outlander background, yes. The post I was replying to emphasized combat function. Rogue Outlander would be more like a 3.5 Scout, though - definitely not a bad thing.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

If you want the Ranger's pet to act independently, a simple fix would be to restrict Rangers to a CR 1/8 pet at level 3 and not add the Ranger's proficiency bonus to attacks or damage. Let the Ranger have a CR 1/4 pet at level 7. Add the Ranger's proficiency bonus to attacks and damage at level 11 (maybe along with allowing CR 1/2?).

See, here's the problem.

I'm a 3rd level wizard with Handle Animal proficiency and a mastiff that I've raised since a puppy. If I get attacked, that mastiff is going to jump in there and fight for me without me having to take any actions at all (and I wouldn't even need Handle Animal).

Or I'm a 7th level bard with Handle Animal proficiency (for kicks) and a warhorse. I can dismount the horse at the beginning of battle, command him to attack, and then do my own thing for the rest of the battle and expect the horse to fight at least until things start to look bad for him.

So, is your DM going to tell me I can't do that? ('Cause I ain't playin' with him if he does!)

So given that, is the Beastmaster Ranger actually getting anything worth having if his companions lose the ability to act autonomously? And is what they get worth the blow to verisimilitude of massive proportions?

 

[Zelc]

So given that, is the Beastmaster Ranger actually getting anything worth having if his companions lose the ability to act autonomously? And is what they get worth the blow to verisimilitude of massive proportions?

I get that, that's why I gave you a solution. Restrict the beast companion to a 1/8 CR companion at level 3 without proficiency to attack and damage and a 1/4 CR companion at level 11 with proficiency to attack and damage. Let the Ranger control the beast companion for free.

If I were DMing, I'd put a lot more restrictions on a non-beast companion pet. They might not decide to follow you into a dungeon and might run off in combat unless you took actions to keep it there.

 

[Paraxis]

See, here's the problem.

I'm a 3rd level wizard with Handle Animal proficiency and a mastiff that I've raised since a puppy. If I get attacked, that mastiff is going to jump in there and fight for me without me having to take any actions at all (and I wouldn't even need Handle Animal).

Or I'm a 7th level bard with Handle Animal proficiency (for kicks) and a warhorse. I can dismount the horse at the beginning of battle, command him to attack, and then do my own thing for the rest of the battle and expect the horse to fight at least until things start to look bad for him.

So, is your DM going to tell me I can't do that? ('Cause I ain't playin' with him if he does!)

So given that, is the Beastmaster Ranger actually getting anything worth having if his companions lose the ability to act autonomously? And is what they get worth the blow to verisimilitude of massive proportions?

I wouldn't let you do any of that.

The horse and dog would run away as soon as they get hurt or threatened.

It is a game not a simulation. Having extra actions in any form is game breaking, I don't even let my players hire men at arms and things, they are the star of the show not some extras.

 

[gyor]

Actually if one choses a Giant Badger as thier companion, the attacks go up, because it inhereintly has multiattack.

Its makes both a bite and a claw attack with each attack action, so by level 11 it gets 4 attacks plus you get 1 attack for 5 attacks, take that fighter!

 

[Chriscdoa]

Actually if one choses a Giant Badger as thier companion, the attacks go up, because it inhereintly has multiattack.

Its makes both a bite and a claw attack with each attack action, so by level 11 it gets 4 attacks plus you get 1 attack for 5 attacks, take that fighter!

i just noticed that last night...seems to make other animals redundant

 

[Juriel]

4e balanced pets/summons in a similar manner, IIRC, to preserve the action economy. All this was in response to the numerous problems with pets/summoned creatures had in 3e.

Which would make sense, if every caster summon spell didn't give them free actions. You can have a dozen skeleton archers by raising Undead, that is 12 free attacks every turn by expending a few slots... Who remain a valid threat, thanks to bounded accuracy.

I can see how a full animal companion (no actions to activate) will make the class OP, but now how to make the companion good without major changes.

It actually wouldn't be OP, because they have such piddly HP.

It is true that the Fighters have an increased damage output in comparison. But my scouting abilities has allowed the group to get the jump on opponents, effectively decreasing the damage intake. If that doesn't play into your math then you should consider it.

How about one just plays a Fighter with Stealth? Boom done.