Revised Ranger update

[CapnZapp]

In your opinion of course.

In my games, the halfling beastmaster with a wolf pet worked perfectly fine and was probably one of the highest damaging characters, including the paladin. Note, we were using the revised beastmaster from the UA. Had zero problems with it. I'm again, frankly baffled why people are having such issues with it.

Is this an issue at higher levels? I'll admit, we only played to 8th level with that character, so, maybe I just didn't see the issues coming up. But, frankly, for the five levels that we had the beastmaster it was more than certainly holding its own.

First you put words in my mouth suggesting I'm wrong about the animal companion.

Then you admit you're not using the PHB version yourself.

Why write a reply to disagree if you're not even discussing what I'm discussing?

Obviously the Revised AC is better. It gets its own action. Which is my point.

 

[CapnZapp]

I don’t always agree with CapnZapp’s strong opinions, but I agree that dev admitting that characters who want a pet should buy a dog is an avowal of resignation and a slap in the face for those who were looking forward to an official alternative.

Thank you.

Apparently the success of 5E has made at least one dev think he doesn't need his most ardent fans no more...

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I thought it was generally agreed that the UA Revised Ranger was a little OP. It doesn't surprise me at all that the Revised Beastmaster was one of the highest DPR character in the group.

Overpowered compared to what? The original ranger? It would be hard not to, that was the worst class in the PHB.

I also think the UA ranger is fine (and even buffed it somewhat by adding cantrips and letting beneficial spells affect the animal companion as well). Individual ranger spells also needed to be boosted, as they were in general awful compared to paladin ones.

 

[Asgorath]

Adventurer’s League is irrelevant.

There are less than 2500 Wizards Play Network stores running AL in North America. Less than 0.5% if games are AL. And, of those, only a fraction will play rangers. And only a fraction of that fraction of those will want to play the ranger but not like it.
It’s an irrelevant number.

There are likely more people playing online via Rol20 and Fantasy Grounds. You’re better off asking “but what about the VTT?!?l” Because the tabletops suddenly have to worry about adding a new ranger to their systems, coding alternate class features, and somehow paying for that development time without charging for a second version of the ranger. Plus confusion from players over how their class might have been stealth updated.

VTT are ten times as relevant as Adventurer’s League.
(Literally. Roll20 alone has 36k games.)

Roll20 and AL are not mutually exclusive, though. I DM 2 separate games using AL rules via Roll20, we chose the AL rules for a variety of reasons including a somewhat-inconsistent roster from week to week and people wanted characters they could take to conventions etc. I'd be shocked if I was the only person doing this.

 

[TwoSix]

Thank you.

Apparently the success of 5E has made at least one dev think he doesn't need his most ardent fans no more...

Considering the massive growth of 5e, he'd hardly be wrong to think so.

Ideally, a pet class using actions to command the pet AND rules to allow a pet to act as an independent PC would both be in existence. There's a spectrum that runs from 3.5 Leadership -> PF summoner -> 5e ranger -> Pokemon trainer, and the rules should be able to hit a few different spots on the spectrum.

 

[Winterthorn]

As a DM I have had no problem in principle with pets, hirelings, pet classes, the NPC derived from Leadership feat of 3.5E, and so on. So what if a cless feature, spell, or clever roleplaying means one or two players have an extra character/critter to run? These extras are part of the PC's team, and in my experience the players who don't have one often pitch in advice for, or exploit tactically, the extra on hand for the benefit of the whole. Such extras also serve as vehicles for the DM's plot development and story tension. So IMHO Wotc flubbed on the Beastmaster which could have so much more than it is now. Let the beast fight freely for its master/friend. Release the beast!

I don't think a whole rewrite of the Ranger is necessary. Perhaps all it takes is a few choice errated words and an extra line or two in the reprint of Ranger, and its beastmeaster subclass, and that would be a fix to suffice most people's concerns? (The secret of good rules is concise and clever wording.)

 

[Remathilis]

I took the best ideas of the revised ranger and some of the ideas from the Xanathars subclasses and did my own update.

1. I gave favored enemy a combat element. I also broke up what options you can pick at what level.

2. Likewise, I gave rangers a combat edge in favored terrain.

3. I buffed the level 20 ability.

4. I have Hunter and beastmaster bonus spells known like the Xanathars subclasses.

5. I basically replaced the beastmaster with the revised, with a few mods to remove the extra attack Element.

If you want, check it out.View attachment Alt ranger stuff.docx

 

[Satyrn]

So IMHO Wotc flubbed on the Beastmaster which could have so much more than it is now. Let the beast fight freely for its master/friend. Release the beast!

I feel like they flubbed the beastmaster in a different way.

I'd rather they had made it more clear that any character can have a pet. It wouldn't need to be much. Just by providing a table in the equipment section that listed the prices for housecats, hunting dogs, fighting dogs and other common companion animals, it'd be clear enough that animals can be useful in whatever the table wants them to be.

Then the beastmasted could have features that improve the companion when it acts, rather than features that are seemingly required for the companion to act all.

 

[SkidAce]

Then the beastmasted could have features that improve the companion when it acts, rather than features that are seemingly required for the companion to act all.

This nails it.

 

[CapnZapp]

Well, not really.

Many people want an animal friend that dies as easily as a player character, which means to say not easily at all.

A pet that can't tank a few mobs and survive the odd Fireball can't be used for the intended purpose; which is to run into melee to free the master to shoot at range.

I agree the action doesn't need to be tightly controlled, but since petmasters want their pets to do the heavy lifting, it doesn't work without some levelling of the beast. A level 1 wolf's attack capacity is of course more than adequate at low level; but not later on.

Maybe the best model is to
1) allow the pets it's free will and action (this part is mandatory)
2) the Ranger can spend it's own action on either another (larger) wolf attack; or use its full action on itself (any rangery thing)

The pet still needs vastly higher survivability than regular wolves - NOT including autorezzing. At the very least a full soul link (is that the name?) that allows the Ranger to take up to 100% (merely 50% ain't enough) of the damage made to the pet.

That tweet is a punch in the face of anyone that thinks so.