Revised Ranger update

[OB1]

Of course I want more power for the companion...it dies far too easily!! Why would that be a problematic motivation to ask for a rule change?? "A better companion for some character concept I have in my head" (which, apparently, is all right as a motivation) necessarily includes greater survivability for the companion.

Which is what new spells or feats would do at the cost of a bit of power elsewhere. Why is that not a fair trade off? The UA Ranger is popular because it is straight up power creep.

But I’ve offered a set of feats and spells that will increase the survivability and combat effectiveness of your companion at the cost of being able to do other Ranger spell related things or of an ASI or other feat. And I’m hearing, no, that’s not okay, I want my concept and what the other Rangers already have.

That’s an increase in power level.

These spells and feats aren’t taxes, they are trade offs. And if having your animal companion be a DPR boosting meat shield is what you want out of it, you should have to pay for that with other class features.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Heck, he isn't even a Ranger, he's never cast Hunter's Mark, Spike Growth, Goodberry or any other Ranger Spell.

He's a Fighter with a onyx figurine of wondrous power.

I doubt he's popular with the current crowd of new players playing Rangers anyway.

Well, the popular beastmaster of the moment has never cast a ranger spell either. Though that may be because he knows nothing.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Which is what new spells or feats would do at the cost of a bit of power elsewhere. Why is that not a fair trade off? The UA Ranger is popular because it is straight up power creep.

But I’ve offered a set of feats and spells that will increase the survivability and combat effectiveness of your companion at the cost of being able to do other Ranger spell related things or of an ASI or other feat. And I’m hearing, no, that’s not okay, I want my concept and what the other Rangers already have.

That’s an increase in power level.

These spells and feats aren’t taxes, they are trade offs. And if having your animal companion be a DPR boosting meat shield is what you want out of it, you should have to pay for that with other class features.

There's some truth to what you say, but also some truth to what [MENTION=6779717]Eric V[/MENTION] says. Some things l may merit trading off for, like how many hit points the companion has. But other elements of the companion, like being able to act independently, are pretty essential on a conceptual level, and requiring a spell or feat for it would indeed constitute a tax (and be kind of bizarre). Fixing that kind of stuff may be "power creep", but it's only creeping the class' power to the point where it should have been in the first place.

 

[Eric V]

Right and Conan may have influenced the archetype, but he isn't a Barbarian Ranger. What's your point?
People looked at Dritz and said "that's what I want to do!" so they took that into account when making a class that let them do that. They failed.

They should have been told to play a fighter with a figurine of wondrous power.

 

[Eric V]

There's some truth to what you say, but also some truth to what [MENTION=6779717]Eric V[/MENTION] says. Some things l may merit trading off for, like how many hit points the companion has. But other elements of the companion, like being able to act independently, are pretty essential on a conceptual level, and requiring a spell or feat for it would indeed constitute a tax (and be kind of bizarre). Fixing that kind of stuff may be "power creep", but it's only creeping the class' power to the point where it should have been in the first place.

It's not power creep if it brings it up to par with the other subclasses.

 

[Hussar]

You could of just asked. Revised Ranger Beastmaster hit dice. (And I think you mean under-stating?)

Umm, pardon me if I'm wrong here, but, doesn't that just mean that you should play the Revised Ranger Beastmaster? Doesn't that resolve the issues of hit dice and survivability?

So... again... isn't this problem already fixed? Why continue to bitch about the PHB ranger when the solution is already available? Or is there some issue with the revised beast master that I'm missing?

 

[Parmandur]

Right and Conan may have influenced the archetype, but he isn't a Barbarian Ranger. What's your point?
People looked at Dritz and said "that's what I want to do!" so they took that into account when making a class that let them do that. They failed.

When Perkins used Driz'zt in AI, he wrote him up as a Champion Fighter. The relationship of Driz'zt to the Ranger class is very loose.

 

[Parmandur]

They should have been told to play a fighter with a figurine of wondrous power.

If you want to literally play Driz'zt, then yes, that is the way to go.

 

[Parmandur]

It's not power creep if it brings it up to par with the other subclasses.

Power wise, there is no problem: the Beastmaster can contribute just fine if played to type. Unfortunately, the type WotC is not what many people wanted.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, I'll cop to maybe missing stuff from earlier posts, but, is the issue on the table right now pet survivability? Is that right?

So, here are three solutions:

1. Give pets max HP.

2. Give pets Resistance to all forms of damage. The bonding of the ranger and the pet makes the pet more durable.

3. The pet and the ranger share a single pool of HP. Yes, that means that a Beast Master ranger gets a bunch more HP, but, he's also twice as vulnerable to attacks. Keeps the pet alive and done.

What more do we really need?