Revised Ranger update

[CapnZapp]

So, I know this was forever ago in this thread, but I felt this need to respond to this. In my experience, this is completely false. Every beastmaster ranger I have ever seen has wanted to take a named pet, such as Umber the Wolf from my most recent Ranger, and keep them going throughout the entire game.

In fact, losing Umber would have been utterly devastating to her character. Threatening Umber with damage or death was a tool used by many an evil individual, sometimes to great success. And, this was using the Revised Ranger (she initially didn’t want to go revised, but after a session or two as a PHB Beastmaster she asked to go ahead and shift over) which meant we all knew Umber could be easily brought back to life.

Yes. Offering free resurrection only reveals you (the designer) hasn't understood the criticisms at all.

The proper response is to offer a robust pet that dies just as often as the other party members, which is to say, not often at all.

The proper response to THAT is to recognize this makes the Beastmaster more powerful than other subclasses, and say so clearly in a sidebar, making it a subclass that requires your DMs approval to play.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I agree that's how a lot of people play it and it makes sense that people would be drawn to that. My point was more about how I think the designers were thinking about it, and how the class is built in terms of what's most effective.

The rule for replacing your companion is, "If the beast dies, you can obtain a new companion by spending 8 hours magically bonding with a beast that isn’t hostile to you and that meets the requirements." The Ranger starts with Speak with Animals and Animal Friendship on their spell list as first level spells, and they get locate animals as a second level spell. You can also better track animals at first level. This set of abilities tells me the intent was for the animal companions to be more disposable. It was anticipated you'd use them, and locate more as the need arose, on a fairly regular basis. In fact I think the intent was you would have many animal friends along with you, and only one at a time would be designated your companion.

As you mention, it hasn't worked out that way very often in actual play. But I suspect it was what the designers thought would happen. And, if played that way, I think the class becomes more powerful. The companion was supposed to protect you, and their hit points are essentially added to yours as a sort of buffer or temporary hit points, and it's mobility was supposed to be sort of temporary mobility for your abilities.. Instead it's become you as the protector of your companion, which can sometimes be more of a burden than a boon.

If the companion were a summoned spirit animal that simply re-appeared after a long rest if it died, I bet it would play dramatically differently. Even though, in essence, it can already be almost played that way if you don't bond to the companion.

I see where you are coming from to a degree, but I don't think the spells were necessarily taken into account. Druid's and Bards have those same spells and there is little to know expectation that they will gather an army of animals to fight for them.

Also, thematically, it would be very weird. The Beastmaster would become one of the only classes to utilize cannon fodder, and I can't imagine the callousness behind that image being the idea behind the design. It reminds me more of a joke from something like KoDT where the player is tricking innocent animals into dying for them.

I think you are right they designed the class to be able to easily replace the animal companion, but I think that was more due to the amount of design space the companion took up and the likelihood of it dying as opposed to it being seen as the go to strategy to sacrifice them in battle.

 

[Mistwell]

I see where you are coming from to a degree, but I don't think the spells were necessarily taken into account. Druid's and Bards have those same spells and there is little to know expectation that they will gather an army of animals to fight for them.

Well they're not called Beastmaster with fluff text of, "The Beast Master archetype embodies a friendship between the civilized races and the beasts of the wild."

Also, thematically, it would be very weird. The Beastmaster would become one of the only classes to utilize cannon fodder

Necromancers, summoners, enchanters, these guys all use cannon fodder. This is more an alignment question, rather than a class question. If the task the Ranger is undertaking is with the goal of protecting a much greater harm to nature, I can see even good aligned Rangers sacrificing a few animal allies for the greater good as well. But, these are role playing considerations, and not really crunch rules considerations.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I see where you are coming from to a degree, but I don't think the spells were necessarily taken into account. Druid's and Bards have those same spells and there is little to know expectation that they will gather an army of animals to fight for them.

Also, thematically, it would be very weird. The Beastmaster would become one of the only classes to utilize cannon fodder, and I can't imagine the callousness behind that image being the idea behind the design. It reminds me more of a joke from something like KoDT where the player is tricking innocent animals into dying for them.

I think you are right they designed the class to be able to easily replace the animal companion, but I think that was more due to the amount of design space the companion took up and the likelihood of it dying as opposed to it being seen as the go to strategy to sacrifice them in battle.

Remember back in the day when Rangers could only be the Good alignments or Druids had to be Neutral? Not sending your animals to their deaths made sense. But now in 5E, where alignment means crap for most things, you can have that Chaotic Evil Beastmaster Ranger or Druid sending his army of animals to their meaningless deaths. I would never do that, and would not play with someone who would, but you know there are players out there like that.

 

[Mistwell]

Let me ask you this. If there were a Ranger cantrip which was something like this:

Beast Healing
Evocation Cantrip
Casting Time: Bonus Action
Range: 30'
Duration: Instantaneous
Effect: A living beast that has 0 hit points of your choice that you can see within range regains 1 hit point.

And a rules clarification which stated that a Beastmasters animal companion follows PC dying rules for death saving throws after they hit 0 hit points (which I think they already do?), would it change your perspective on how the Beastmaster Ranger is supposed to view their companion?

 

[CapnZapp]

Let me ask you this. If there were a Ranger cantrip which was something like this:

Beast Healing
Evocation Cantrip
Casting Time: Bonus Action
Range: 30'
Duration: Instantaneous
Effect: A living beast that has 0 hit points of your choice that you can see within range regains 1 hit point.

And a rules clarification which stated that a Beastmasters animal companion follows PC dying rules for death saving throws after they hit 0 hit points (which I think they already do?), would it change your perspective on how the Beastmaster Ranger is supposed to view their companion?

I have no direct feedback on the mechanics of this, but thank you for illustrating one way of how the devs could solve the issue in a SENSITIVE manner, listening to and respecting a significant part of those who like to play Ranger Beastmasters.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Let me ask you this. If there were a Ranger cantrip which was something like this:

Beast Healing
Evocation Cantrip
Casting Time: Bonus Action
Range: 30'
Duration: Instantaneous
Effect: A living beast that has 0 hit points of your choice that you can see within range regains 1 hit point.

And a rules clarification which stated that a Beastmasters animal companion follows PC dying rules for death saving throws after they hit 0 hit points (which I think they already do?), would it change your perspective on how the Beastmaster Ranger is supposed to view their companion?

No, because you already quoted the relevant flavor text

Well they're not called Beastmaster with fluff text of, "The Beast Master archetype embodies a friendship between the civilized races and the beasts of the wild."

Your animal companion is a friend, a companion. Your cantrip makes it easier to keep the companion alive, which if the point is to send them to the slaughter and then get a new one, wouldn't make any sense, because you wouldn't care enough to spend the bonus action to heal them back up.

Necromancers, summoners, enchanters, these guys all use cannon fodder.

Interestingly enough, most of these don't use living beings, or beings who are permanently killed if they fall in battle. They also don't travel with these beings generally, but use magic to bring them forth when it is time to use them. All of this leads to a very different feel. It's the same reason "conjure animals" is different than using your companion, they don't "die" they vanish, because the bodies are not real, just given form by the magic.

 

[Mistwell]

No, because you already quoted the relevant flavor text




Your animal companion is a friend, a companion. Your cantrip makes it easier to keep the companion alive, which if the point is to send them to the slaughter and then get a new one, wouldn't make any sense, because you wouldn't care enough to spend the bonus action to heal them back up.

You are conflating two disparate things I was commenting on. Different topics. The cantrip idea was an alternative to using many companions, not something I'd combine with that concept. It's the opposite, as you noted. So...did you have a thought on it?

Interestingly enough, most of these don't use living beings, or beings who are permanently killed if they fall in battle. They also don't travel with these beings generally, but use magic to bring them forth when it is time to use them. All of this leads to a very different feel. It's the same reason "conjure animals" is different than using your companion, they don't "die" they vanish, because the bodies are not real, just given form by the magic.

Enchanters would differ. Necromancers often kill the things they animate, so I am betting their animates would differ as well. Regardless, this is again down to tone and alignment, not rules questions. You don't seem to have a rules objection to what I wrote?

I do find it odd that people seem perfectly comfortable with the idea that a nation would recruit young humans to fight and die to protect that nation, replacing those who fall with new troops on a routine basis, but the idea that you'd do the same with animals is somehow not a fair concept for a fantasy game? The animal knows there will be risk of death, and routinely fighting in highly dangerous situations. Why is that so dissimilar to a General recruiting new toops and replacing them as their previous ones fall? Why is the concept of fungibility of animal companions so anathema to the Ranger concept?

 

[Nagol]

You are conflating two disparate things I was commenting on. Different topics. The cantrip idea was an alternative to using many companions, not something I'd combine with that concept. It's the opposite, as you noted. So...did you have a thought on it?






Enchanters would differ. Necromancers often kill the things they animate, so I am betting their animates would differ as well. Regardless, this is again down to tone and alignment, not rules questions. You don't seem to have a rules objection to what I wrote?

I do find it odd that people seem perfectly comfortable with the idea that a nation would recruit young humans to fight and die to protect that nation, replacing those who fall with new troops on a routine basis, but the idea that you'd do the same with animals is somehow not a fair concept for a fantasy game? The animal knows there will be risk of death, and routinely fighting in highly dangerous situations. Why is that so dissimilar to a General recruiting new toops and replacing them as their previous ones fall? Why is the concept of fungibility of animal companions so anathema to the Ranger concept?

Informed consent. The human can give it; the animal cannot -- unless you awaken every companion or do something similar with magic, I suppose..

 

[Pauln6]

One of my friends has dine some generic companion rules that grant a few extra hit dice, ability score increases (+1 at a time), a sub-type (e.g. guardian or scout) and some talents similar to Warlock invocations to add a bit of variety. Given the criticism of beast companions, you could probably layer the lot on top without overpowering them.