Revised Ranger update

[Jester David]

In case people are wondering this is the same forum that has 10 threads on 'how to abuse Ceremony' and the 2 biggest threads right now are about whether or not D&D is a roleplaying game and developing house rules for making women have lower stats.

Certainly not a group that is representative of the D&D player base.

Which forum is that?

 

[ad_hoc]

Which forum is that?

GitP

 

[Mistwell]

But yeah, animal companion is only slightly less fragile than a familiar. 20 HP at level 5? A wizard's Firebolt can do that in one shot! Your standard foe with a weapon at that level does it with one shot every time they hit their average or above.

A standard wizard has 22 hit points at that level

In 1e they had 12 hit points at that level.

 

[Mistwell]

To emphasis, I just checked with the DMG. 20 hit points is the upper bound of a CR 2 monster's average damage per round.
Must be fun for the guy who choose a Panther as their animal companion:
"I send my animal companion to attack the Giant Boar while I engage at range."
"You and your companion damage the Giant Boar, it looks quite wounded. It retreats a bit, before charging at your Panther, goring it. Your Panther takes [rolls 4d6 + 3] 21 damage, and dies."

And that was the first encounter of the day.
You effectively have no subclass now, and have to hope that there's another Panther nearby.
And that was against a single CR 2 opponent... while at level 5.

We've had a beastmaster ranger in our party since the book was released. His companion has never died, and he uses it in combat sometimes. Many people in this thread report they've never had an issue with them dying too often. So at what point does white room theorizing give way to actual experience?

I agree the beastmaster could use a boost (and I proposed some). I don't agree the companions actually die as often as people who have literally never played them or seen them played keep speculating will happen.

 

[Jester David]

I get the feeling Jester may produce Hollywood movies. As the Nostalgia Critic often puts it "Well the chart says..."

Elementary school librarian actually.

The thing is, I’m not so egotistical as to believe I am a “typical” D&D player. That I’m the norm.
It’s important to remember the Pareto Principal. I this instance, 80% of sales come from 20% of the audience. Or, in terms of tables, one person per table is the person who buys most books for everyone else.

This means most D&D players engage with the game by playing. They don’t even buy the books (maybe not even the PHB). They don’t follow the news, they don’t visit the websites, they don’t listen to the podcast, and they certainly don’t visit forums.
We represent a portion of the “twenty percent”. A percentage of a percentage.

Catering to the small vocal minority of forumites doesn’t help the majority of fans. It’s just pandering to us.

 

[ClaytonCross]

@Jester David
"Why not just make more subclasses? It takes largely the same amount of design time and playtesting time, only the net result is more total options."

I actually agree that an alternate pet ranger sub-class might be better than a revised ranger.

The idea of making subclass "Pack Leader" that makes the companion job specific with multiple companions instead of higher health, that you could resurrect in ritual after every fight would be away to go... bit brutal imagery wise watching your pack die one at time every fight but a different feel for the similar job.

Another subclass alternate, "Great Beast Acolyte" for those who want to have the build I wrote before but also want the companion to be the primary source of damage, being that its more powerful than your ranger it makes since that your actually serving the animal not the other way around, but you play as you paying tribute to the Great Beast it fights "for you" in thanks for your humble service... kind of like having a cat as a pet, you pay the bills so that you can gain honer of living in its house and feeding it in a timely manor.


The only class feature, I really feel is missing that the revised has is the extra damage verses favored enemies. I always though this symbolic, I know how to fight and hurt them because I have dedicated my life to being good at killing them was part of what made Rangers unique an cool in 3.5 and +2 damage lvls 1-4, +4 lvls 5-8, +6 lvls 9-12, +8 lvls 13-16, +10 lvls 17-20 was not broken and required you to stick to ranger levels. If this was added in "Stalker" subclass that would be cool. Alternately, you could half those bonuses and make them apply to hit and damage instead. I like that better because it means your favored enemies with Higher AC still need to fear you because you know how to hurt them while easier favored enemies with lower AC (that you would normally hit anyway) don't become trivial because your additional damage has gotten out of hand. This would really bring back the two-weapon fighting style rangers and its still very fun and interesting for archers and single weapon fighting with green flame blade for example because the hit bonus means they all do more damage against their favored enemies.

I was a hunter of aberrations and dragons in 3.5 and it was always awesome when you had a moment for the ranger to say, "step as side, you can have the others but this mind flayer is mine!" Mean it and your party be like "Dude its all yours, go make us some calamari"... I might have sucked for the last 3 sessions but when those enemies came out it was awesome to be the right man for the job as a ranger. … So, far the most useful thing I have seen from rangers is scouting a quick path and food in the some places. Usually, the party knows more about nature and enemies even with the rangers advantage rolls, and in combat they are just another additive ranged damage. Its not as cool as when you run into a horde of zombies and the cleric steps up … "Gentlemen... if you would step aside I will clear our path of these unnatural ...things" because destroy undead does play gentle with low CR undead. I really feel, this is the biggest lose to the 5e ranger. It is very much to me the same as if they had taken turn undead/destroy undead from clerics.

 

[Umbran]

You'd make a poor game designer if that's your best shot. Don't quit your day job is all I'm saying.

All told, over the course of this thread you have been pretty darned rude to people. That's quite enough.

CapnZapp will be taking a break, folks. Carry on without.

 

[Yunru]

A standard wizard has 22 hit points at that level

In 1e they had 12 hit points at that level.

A standard level 5 Wizard with 0 Constitution modifier has both A- ranged options and thus isn't expected to go into combat, B- the abilities to raise their Constitution score for more Hit Points, and C- Hit dice to heal with once they're stabilised.

1e's irrelevant, we're not playing 1e.

I don't agree the companions actually die as often as people who have literally never played them or seen them played keep speculating will happen.

Odd that, because I did play a Beastmaster and exactly that happened, except it was against a Bandit Chief and a crit was involved. I lost 5 companions in 5 combats before round 3. Then I stopped playing a Beastmaster.

Elementary school librarian actually.

The thing is, I’m not so egotistical as to believe I am a “typical” D&D player. That I’m the norm.
It’s important to remember the Pareto Principal. I this instance, 80% of sales come from 20% of the audience. Or, in terms of tables, one person per table is the person who buys most books for everyone else.

This means most D&D players engage with the game by playing. They don’t even buy the books (maybe not even the PHB). They don’t follow the news, they don’t visit the websites, they don’t listen to the podcast, and they certainly don’t visit forums.
We represent a portion of the “twenty percent”. A percentage of a percentage.

Catering to the small vocal minority of forumites doesn’t help the majority of fans. It’s just pandering to us.

On the contrary then, if only 20% is making them money, ignoring the 80% that don't care should be the profitable choice. So we're back to being a percentage, vs. a percentage of a percentage.

 

[OB1]

Odd that, because I did play a Beastmaster and exactly that happened, except it was against a Bandit Chief and a crit was involved. I lost 5 companions in 5 combats before round 3. Then I stopped playing a Beastmaster.

Sounds like you were using your companion as a DPR boost every round. That style will lead to companion death as certainly as putting a wizard into melee every round, especially at lower levels. Did you try changing your play style before you stopped playing the Beastmaster?

On the contrary then, if only 20% is making them money, ignoring the 80% that don't care should be the profitable choice. So we're back to being a percentage, vs. a percentage of a percentage.

Absolutely not, because without the 80%, there is no one for the 20% to play the game with and the hobby dies a slow death. That was the major pivot that 5e realized, they were focused on the wrong group of players for the previous 15 years.

It reminds me of what happened with apples in the early 2000s. The 20% of people who shopped for apples were picking them based on how red they were, so farmers did everything they could to make the apples more red so they would be more likely to be picked in the store. Meanwhile, they were becoming mushy and tasteless, so the people they were being bought for left them to rot in the fruit bowl, eventually leading the buyers to stop buying. All of that went until one apple brand that wasn't very red but crispy and delicious came along and stole the market.

 

[Mistwell]

A standard level 5 Wizard with 0 Constitution modifier has both A- ranged options and thus isn't expected to go into combat, B- the abilities to raise their Constitution score for more Hit Points, and C- Hit dice to heal with once they're stabilised.

1e's irrelevant, we're not playing 1e.

Animal companions of beastmaster rangers have hit dice. It's right in the text.

Some of the better companions also have things like fly-by attack like the Pteranodon, which while not "ranged" is effectively like being ranged attackers.

Odd that, because I did play a Beastmaster and exactly that happened, except it was against a Bandit Chief and a crit was involved. I lost 5 companions in 5 combats before round 3. Then I stopped playing a Beastmaster.

I am sorry for assuming you had not, and that you lost so many companions. We have not had the same experience so obviously different tables differ on that topic. Though again, anyone with a d6 hit die and not a high Constitution may well have the same issues. The game is dangerous for those who fight.