Revised Ranger update

[Chaosmancer]

Yes, but they aren't going to port over the Revised Beastmaster rules, or rewrite the PHB Beastmaster rules, because the data they've collected is telling them that most players don't see the PHB BeastMaster as having major problems. It's fine as it is written. What you want is a bonus. And that bonus, IMO, is fine to have a cost with it.

But your spells come with that same problem. WoTC isn't going to publish them because they've decided the Ranger doesn't need a fix (I really hope their process weeded out players who were playing the Hunter and the Revised Ranger, because if they decided they didn't need a fix because everyone was playing the Revised Ranger, that'd be kind of stupid) and your spells are straight up a fix to the Beastmaster subclass.



And I am still rather curious, what you personally find in the Revised Beastmaster Rules to be too powerful that you will not allow it at your table? I can imagine some answers to why you wouldn't want the Revised Base Class, but you could rather easily just move the Beastmaster rules in unless there is a particular point you find too powerful. Consider it a bit of Quid Pro Quo, as I've been going over your spells and I'm honestly interested in finding ways to tighten up the Revised Ranger since that is what I shall be using going forward.

2nd Level Ranger Spells
Revivify Beast - Action, Touch - You touch the body of a beast that has been dead for less than 1 minute and it returns to life with 1 HP. (revised to make clear that this does not work if the body of your companion doesn't exist)

4th level
Reincarnate Beast - 1 Hour Casting Time, Permanent - You focus on the spirit of a beast dead for not more than 30 days. The beast is reincarnated, appearing from nearby at the end of the 1 hour casting time. (No change. At higher levels, this spell becomes useful as you may not always have the chance to revivify your companion. If you want to make sure you can bring your companion back, you choose this)

No changes, so need to discuss them

1st Level Ranger Spells
Hunting Party - 8 Hours, Bonus Action, self - When you cast this spell, you gain an additional action that you can use only to command your Beast Companion, additionally, the beast gains Temporary Hit points equal to 5 times your proficiency bonus, these temporary hit points can be restored for the duration of the spell by petting the beast for 5 minutes. Finally, when your companion attacks a creature effected by your Hunter's Mark, it also gains the 1d6 damage on each attack against it.

I'd change "petting" to "caring for", because I just feel like that is more accurate and less chance of someone feeling condescended to (People can be finicky)

But yeah, those changes make this a relatively potent spell, renewable Temp HP (even a small amount) is pretty powerful and benefitting from Hunter's Mark feel right for a Ranger and their soul-bound companion.

2nd Level
Alter Beast - Action, Touch, 1 Hour - You touch a beast and it grows 1 size category, adds 1d4 damage to each of it's attacks and doubles it's speed. It's attacks are also now considered magical.

Some pretty hefty changes here. Not sure why we added the growth to the spell, but I'm torn between wondering why I would bother (being large for an hour might cut into stealth opportunities) and whether it would stack with Enlarge being cast by a friendly wizard (meet Fido, Huge Wolf). Other than that, damage, speed and making things magic are always relatively useful things to put out.

3rd Level Ranger Spells
Find Greater Companion - 1 Hour Casting time - You call out to the wild to find a new beast companion that be Large with a CR of up to 3. The beast must be native to the area that you are in and able to reach your location. If you are in your favored terrain, you pick the beast that appears, otherwise the DM chooses from what is appropriate for the area.

Static CR does mean that this is less confusing, majority of my comments from the first draft still apply. Though, at least now I'm aware a Ranger can retrain this spell after they use it to ditch their former companion for a newer prettier model.

4th Level Ranger Spells
Awakened Beast - 1 Hour Casting Time, Permanent Duration - You forge a permanent telepathic bond with your companion. As long as you are on the same plane of existence, you can communicate telepathically as well as see through each others eyes at will. The beast can also add 6 points to it's ability scores, either all to one or split between several. It also gains your save and skill proficiencies and gains the evasion ability. The awakening lasts until your companion is killed. If later brought back to life, the spell must be cast again.

I wonder if you removed the "add your proficiency to the beasts saves" from Alter Beast because you added Evasion here. Permanently gaining evasion and Dex Save Prof is pretty powerful. I do find it odd though. Here is a spell that a Ranger will learn, cast after learning it, then forget next level and never cast again (unless the companion dies which the Ranger will obviously try and prevent).

I can see just about any Beastmaster doing it, because there are so few downsides, but it almost feels tax like, because just about every 13th to 14th level Ranger is going to do the exact same thing.

5th Level Ranger Spells
Beast Mode - 1 Action, 1 minute, concentration - Your companion goes into a state of primal fury and gains 50 temporary hit points. For the duration of the spell, your beast attacks 3 times when in takes the attack action (or 2 multi-attacks), has advantage on those attacks, does an additional 10 damage on each hit, and can knock prone or shove an enemy back 10' on each successful hit with a DC equal to your spell save DC. Finally, it's speed is doubled and opportunity attacks have disadvantage against it. When the spell ends a wave of lethargy sweeps over your companion, causing it to lose it's next turn.

That two multi-attack thing makes me want to see if I can break this.

Only CR 3 beast is the Giant Scorpion. Stacking Awaken, Hunting Party, and Alter before we cast beast mode. We get this

Ranger Companion Giant Scorpion, Huge Beast

HP: 91+50tmp (max instead of 4xlv, and added Con) AC: 21 Spd 160 ft
Dex Save of +7 with evasion, Strength save of +12

Multi attack with 3 strikes, twice per round (Maxed Strength)

Claw x2 +13 1d8+1d4+21 and Grapple vs DC 15
Sting +13 1d10+1d4+21 DC 13 Con save vs 4d10 poison or half

So, six attacks all with advantage giving us 2d10+4d8+6d4+126, grapple, prone, and two saves versus 4d10 or half

Also, with opportunity attacks at Disadvantage, auto grappling by a huge creature, and a speed of 160 ft, the Scorpion could clearly run in, beat something senseless, and if it isn't dead drag it back to the party, breaking the enemy formation.

I find it a cool thing, but I wouldn't ever want a player to pull that off on multiple turns. That monster might be able to cause serious damage to a mid-level party. Spell is definitely worthwhile if you have a beast powerful enough to make the combat buffs better.

 

[Staffan]

I feel the same way. If the PHB Ranger was too weak, the RR swung the pendulum too far in the other direction.

I would have loved to see a middle of the road version.

I believe that's generally their attitude when playtesting stuff - err on the side of a high power level in order to have the playtesting be about the concepts offered rather than be tainted by dissatisfaction with weak abilities. In other words, they're more interested in "Is a combat-relevant Favored Enemy a good idea?" rather than "Is +2 damage the appropriate bonus for a Favored Enemy?"

 

[CapnZapp]

Not rocking the boat is the only thing they're interested in lately

 

[dave2008]

Not rocking the boat is the only thing they're interested in lately

I bet they are still interested in making money

 

[CapnZapp]

I bet they are still interested in making money

I'm not satisfied by that. And I find the continued attempts to define good rules as profitable rules to be tiresome to the bone.

Yes, 5E is successful. Does that mean it is perfect and that we should not keep asking for improvements and expansions?

Don't be absurd.

Back on topic: JCs new take is a slap in the face and we can only hope he is replaced. Our needs are not met by a complacent publisher that does nothing for risk of upsetting somebody.

 

[dave2008]

I'm not satisfied by that. And I find the continued attempts to define good rules as profitable rules to be tiresome to the bone.

I never did that, but maybe you are not claiming I did. That being said, I am satisfied. I don't want anything more from WotC. I prefer to make the rest myself, to fit my personal wants and desires.

Yes, 5E is successful. Does that mean it is perfect and that we should not keep asking for improvements and expansions?

No, but I don't expect them to listen until it has a dip in success. But keep trying - you never know!

Don't be absurd.

Not sure who this comment as directed at, but I was just being cheeky, not trying to set you off! I just got up this morning and noticed you were the last poster on several threads. I often check out your comments because I think they can be interesting and insightful. Your post just elicited a bit of jest, sorry to wade into an obviously heated discussion!

 

[OB1]

But your spells come with that same problem. WoTC isn't going to publish them because they've decided the Ranger doesn't need a fix (I really hope their process weeded out players who were playing the Hunter and the Revised Ranger, because if they decided they didn't need a fix because everyone was playing the Revised Ranger, that'd be kind of stupid) and your spells are straight up a fix to the Beastmaster subclass.

Yes, but adding spells is an established practice in 5e, where revising a class isn't. And, as you've pointed out, there is opportunity cost with it. You want a powerful companion? You have to pay for it with your limited selection of known spells and spell slots.

And I am still rather curious, what you personally find in the Revised Beastmaster Rules to be too powerful that you will not allow it at your table? I can imagine some answers to why you wouldn't want the Revised Base Class, but you could rather easily just move the Beastmaster rules in unless there is a particular point you find too powerful. Consider it a bit of Quid Pro Quo, as I've been going over your spells and I'm honestly interested in finding ways to tighten up the Revised Ranger since that is what I shall be using going forward.

First off, let me say that I don't think the UA Ranger is game breaking, I'm sure it works fine at most tables. My concern with allowing it (along with most UA material) is that it is unfair to the choices and compromises players have to make with published material, which always feels brutal. UA material always feels easy when choosing it.

It's been a long time since I looked over the individual features of the class, but I remember thinking that it would be better balanced if it had spell casting taken from it, or given a 1/3 caster spell progression. I'm looking for my pdf of the UA so that I can go over it again and answer you more directly.

Again though, my main reason for looking at spell solutions is that WotC has nixed the idea of doing a revised ranger, leaving new spells or a new subclass as the options for adding that style to the game. Who knows, perhaps like the Hexblade subclass for Warlocks, there is a way with the Ranger to subclass in a companion that is meant to be more involved in combat. Or maybe a combination of subclass and new spells.

I'd change "petting" to "caring for", because I just feel like that is more accurate and less chance of someone feeling condescended to (People can be finicky)

Good idea, I'll change it.

Some pretty hefty changes here. Not sure why we added the growth to the spell, but I'm torn between wondering why I would bother (being large for an hour might cut into stealth opportunities) and whether it would stack with Enlarge being cast by a friendly wizard (meet Fido, Huge Wolf). Other than that, damage, speed and making things magic are always relatively useful things to put out.

I almost made the enlarge portion optional, but decided that I liked the idea that to get the benefits you also get something that may or may not be beneficial, depending on the circumstance. But I should make it incompatible with Enlarge.

I wonder if you removed the "add your proficiency to the beasts saves" from Alter Beast because you added Evasion here. Permanently gaining evasion and Dex Save Prof is pretty powerful. I do find it odd though. Here is a spell that a Ranger will learn, cast after learning it, then forget next level and never cast again (unless the companion dies which the Ranger will obviously try and prevent).

I can see just about any Beastmaster doing it, because there are so few downsides, but it almost feels tax like, because just about every 13th to 14th level Ranger is going to do the exact same thing.

Thought about making this a 1 hour or 8 hour limit, but with the ABI increases that would be a lot of book keeping. Instead of the saves, I'm now leaning towards being able to choose either Evasion or Stone Skin.

As for the Tax, sure, a lot of Rangers will use once and then discard next level, but I can also see a Ranger who likes to constantly change her animal companion depending on the need of the day keeping this spell to use when she switches out the companion. You might want a wolf spider in the underdark, a jaguar in the forest and a hawk on a wide open plain.

I find it a cool thing, but I wouldn't ever want a player to pull that off on multiple turns. That monster might be able to cause serious damage to a mid-level party. Spell is definitely worthwhile if you have a beast powerful enough to make the combat buffs better.

Yeah, I really wanted the Beast Master's 5th level spell to feel like a beast. I'm sure this would be way too powerful a 5th level spell for WotC were it to be published, but not sure what I want to tone down. Actually, that's probably true of most of these spells. Like UA material, it's all overpowered from what would likely be published, but I think it's good to start big and then whittle down.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes, but adding spells is an established practice in 5e, where revising a class isn't. And, as you've pointed out, there is opportunity cost with it. You want a powerful companion? You have to pay for it with your limited selection of known spells and spell slots.



First off, let me say that I don't think the UA Ranger is game breaking, I'm sure it works fine at most tables. My concern with allowing it (along with most UA material) is that it is unfair to the choices and compromises players have to make with published material, which always feels brutal. UA material always feels easy when choosing it.

I think here is a rather large difference in our philosophies and outlooks on the game. First, while I enjoy players making choices, I've never enjoyed them making "brutal choices" it is part of my beef with Ranger and Sorcerer spellcasting. But bigger than that, I wonder what sort of brutal compromises you see clerics, fighters and rogues making when they choose their subclass.

I mean, most Cleric subclasses are nearly identical in set up and potential power, and I don't see anything "brutal" about choosing Life over Forge or vice versa. I'd never describe a Fighter choosing to play a Battlemaster, or a rogue with any of their subclasses. And after they choose their subclass, they can generally do what the subclass advertises. Very few don't have that, the Beastmaster being one while the Four Element Monk is another. But I don't see that as a good thing in the class design, because that constrained feeling of those tough choices don't lend themselves to actually enjoying the game.

 

[Remathilis]

Back on topic: JCs new take is a slap in the face and we can only hope he is replaced. Our needs are not met by a complacent publisher that does nothing for risk of upsetting somebody.

Ask 2010 WotC, reeling from 4e's low sales, how risking upsetting your fanbase looks.

Better yet, go in the PF2e playtest boards and ask Paizo how is it working for them.

 

[GlassJaw]

I'm not satisfied by that. And I find the continued attempts to define good rules as profitable rules to be tiresome to the bone.

Yes, 5E is successful. Does that mean it is perfect and that we should not keep asking for improvements and expansions?

Don't be absurd.

Back on topic: JCs new take is a slap in the face and we can only hope he is replaced. Our needs are not met by a complacent publisher that does nothing for risk of upsetting somebody.

I feel like I should be Zapp's PR agent. We are usually on the same page, but perhaps CZ comes on a bit strong.

I agree with you here Zapp, although I don't think JC needs to be replaced. I certainly took exception with how he handled the ranger question. I just posted in the "is character advancement dull" thread that his response was very contrary to the way WotC has handle material up to this point. They have asked for feedback every step of the way in 5E.

The response here was a bit condescending and akin to telling the players that were interested in the revision that they are "wrong". He could have easily said "we understand the concerns, and we will continue to listen to feedback, but based on the that feedback, it's currently not one of our top priorities," or something like that. It could have been handled in so many better ways. Just tow the company line: "We take your feedback very seriously and will do continue to do so. Perhaps we will have the bandwidth to continue the ranger revision in the future." Blah, blah, blah.

Instead he sounded like he was annoyed by the question. Like "how dare you question the classes in the PHB!" If that's the case, then he certainly shouldn't be interacting directly with the players.