Revised Ranger update

[CapnZapp]

snip logic

I hope you realize pulling numbers out of hats does your credibility no good.

 

[CapnZapp]

figurine of wondrous power

I'm sure you already realize this, but the greatest fix isn't the figurines' increased stats but something much more fundamental:

Expectations on survival.

Assuming the ebony panther (or whatever) returns to life each time the item is used, this alone fixes perhaps the greatest charge at the rules: the intense lack of survivability.

Some people here are so desperate to avoid having to admit WotC can do one wrong, they're constructing a narrative where people are retconned into not expecting their animal companions to survive combat, or not to enter combat at all.

It is despicable.

As for your house-rule, I don't think that is the solution I'd recommend WotC to make official. That does not mean it can't work or that I disapprove.

 

[CapnZapp]

As regards legacy, why noone cares to mention the obvious source of expectations is beyond me.

After all, World of Warcraft gave people not one but two classes with functional (nay, competitive) combat pet builds. (Warlocks and Hunters)

Obviously people expect D&D to offer at least one similar idea. (The PHB did try, but failed.)

 

[Jester David]

The two weapon fighting thing definitely comes through Driz'zt, because in 1E that was a Drow ability specifically.

It's an example of parallel design.
While making 2e, the game designers were looking for something else to add to the ranger to make it distinct, and someone mentioned two-weapon fighting. Which, at that point, had just been a drow thing. So they moved it to the ranger.
What they didn't do was look at the novel of a first time author that had just released to moderate sales and decided to base the entire class based on the abilities of the protagonist's sidekick.

It was a coincidence.

Don't forget, it took some time to realise that Drizzt was a success. Heck, Salvatore had planned to continue the adventures of the characters in a fourth book, but they made him wrap things up in a hasty epilogue at the end of The Halfling Gem. And there wasn't a comparable internet presence at the time for people to share the books and chat about their fandom.

 

[Mistwell]

Some people here are so desperate to avoid having to admit WotC can do one wrong, they're constructing a narrative where people are retconned into not expecting their animal companions to survive combat, or not to enter combat at all.

It is despicable.

Really, the people who disagree with you are "deserving hatred and contempt," which is what despicable means?

 

[Eric V]

Some people here are so desperate to avoid having to admit WotC can do one wrong, they're constructing a narrative where people are retconned into not expecting their animal companions to survive combat, or not to enter combat at all.

We've always been at war with Eurasia!

But seriously, while I wish it were otherwise in this case, it just seem that WotC's idea of "wrong" is very different. Rangers are being played, they seem popular (now...), and there's no money in addressing the concerns people have for the class.

This is "greatest hits" D&D; it's not risk-taking, it's not trying to be super-innovative...it's trying to be popular. As a business model, there's nothing wrong with that. Do they think they risk hurting the brand or ever-greenness of it by having multiple sources for the rules in different areas? Probably. After all, when you buy a board game, you expect to be able to play right out of the box, right? Not have to scour online for the other rules?

So even though the PHB Ranger is lacking, it's not lacking enough to make what they feel is a bad marketing decision...and the latter will always be more important than anything else as far as the game goes.

This isn't even the first time this has happened. The sorcerer has been seen to be lacking even moreso than the ranger, and when the UA Storm Sorcerer was released with bonus spells known, it was seen as a well-needed and appreciated fix. Didn't stick, though, since the PHB sorcerer didn't have bonus spells...so even though the fix made sense from a class balance perspective, the fix flew in the face of the evergreen product and so was removed.

They are making decisions so that the game lasts longer, and maximizes profit...some things are going to get lost in that priority scheme, is all.

In the meantime, since 5e is quite forgiving and really doesn't seem to care much about balance, I would use the UA Ranger as is. It's a bit overpowered, sure, but big whoop.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm sure you already realize this, but the greatest fix isn't the figurines' increased stats but something much more fundamental:

Expectations on survival.

Assuming the ebony panther (or whatever) returns to life each time the item is used, this alone fixes perhaps the greatest charge at the rules: the intense lack of survivability.

Some people here are so desperate to avoid having to admit WotC can do one wrong, they're constructing a narrative where people are retconned into not expecting their animal companions to survive combat, or not to enter combat at all.

It is despicable.

As for your house-rule, I don't think that is the solution I'd recommend WotC to make official. That does not mean it can't work or that I disapprove.

Well, they did make a mistake in their overall approach to the Beastmaster: they probably would have been better off cutting out animal companians as a class feature entirely. The survivability issues are a basic feature of the subclass design. The animal is a resource that provides, mathematically, an equivalent to the potential damage of the Hunter's subclass features. Being precious with the bag of HP and damage dice will result in suboptimal performance, but then the natural flavor approach many people are going to bring to the subclass (see Laura Bailey and her bear) will tend towards that precious approach.

 

[Laurefindel]

The more I think about it, the more I believe it’s an absence of well defined animal handling rules that is at the root of the issue.

Were those rules made clear in the first place, and the beastmaster a clearly better animal handler, people would have reacted much better IMHO. I wish the difference between an intelligent ally and an animal companion had been made clearer and more coherently throughout the whole ruleset.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well, there are 15 or so million people playing D&D. (Or was it 19 million.) Roughly 1.25 million people play every class.

But classes aren’t played equally. The top classes are slightly more played, and the bottom classes slightly less. Of those, the ranger is likely the #8 most played class.
So if the top 4 classes get played 50% more frequently and the bottom classes get played 50% less.... well, the ranger is still in the middle and sitting at upwards of a million players.

Less than 10% of players were unhappy with the ranger. Now, the majority of those are likely just playing other classes. But even if that number is reflected in ranger players, that’s still 900,000 ranger fans who are satisfied with their class.
Even if the number of ranger players is only half that number—a quarter even— that’s still tens of thousands. Hundreds really.

Great usage of deductive reasoning.

Now, how many people playing fighter, rogues, and clerics would like to play a ranger but don't because they think the ranger is too weak?

How many people play the ranger once, are dissatisfied, and never play it again.

How many people are "satisfied" with the ranger, but would really like it to be just a bit more powerful

Just because you can figure there are 900,000 people who might be happy with the ranger as is, doesn't mean there are 2 million people who aren't. If I'm supposed to bow to the weight of hundreds of thousands of satisfied fans, should they bow to the weight of a million dissatisfied fans?

Because, using your own numbers, if even .1% of the players who play other classes (13.75 million) are dissatisfied with the ranger, you are looking a 1.375 million people.

This isn't even the first time this has happened. The sorcerer has been seen to be lacking even moreso than the ranger, and when the UA Storm Sorcerer was released with bonus spells known, it was seen as a well-needed and appreciated fix. Didn't stick, though, since the PHB sorcerer didn't have bonus spells...so even though the fix made sense from a class balance perspective, the fix flew in the face of the evergreen product and so was removed.

Tangent, this still upsets me. The UA Storm Sorcerer got nerfed way too hard. /End Tangent

The more I think about it, the more I believe it’s an absence of well defined animal handling rules that is at the root of the issue.

Were those rules made clear in the first place, and the beastmaster a clearly better animal handler, people would have reacted much better IMHO. I wish the difference between an intelligent ally and an animal companion had been made clearer and more coherently throughout the whole ruleset.

I'm curious as to your reasoning. How could the Animal Handling rules have been made more clear and that helped the Beastmaster? Keeping in mind that Bard's and Rogues Expertise could mean they are far Superior with the Animal Handling skill if they desired to be.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm curious as to your reasoning. How could the Animal Handling rules have been made more clear and that helped the Beastmaster? Keeping in mind that Bard's and Rogues Expertise could mean they are far Superior with the Animal Handling skill if they desired to be.

For me, it's because the Bard and Rogue cannot convert animal followers into animal companions with 8 hours. It's the clarification on how to gather effective animal followers to replace animal companions that die that's lacking for the the existing companions that engage in combat (baring making them more effective or durable in combat).