Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7484214" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Yeah, I get that. I guess for me personally, I kind of would have liked them to admit it is an official variant of the class. I don't need it in print, but JC saying "There is one Ranger, the one in the Player's Handbook" really puts a damper on things if I'm ever talking to a guy who wants to play a ranger, but refuses to play "unofficial" material. I actually just ran into a player like that. Not in a game I'm running, but one I'm playing. They are completely against all UA and Homebrew options, and doesn't want another player to use the Revised Ranger. Not my call or my problem (I'm not the GM and I don't even know if the Ranger wants to use the Revised Version, it just came up in table talk) but stuff like that just makes things more complicated than they need to be. A few points. Biggest one, in terms of RAW, how does this work for the Beast's Action Economy. Are we saying this is similar to Haste or Action Surge in that the beast is given an action to use, because I didn't assume you could do both. This could also allow the beast to Dodge and Attack on the same turn, which is relatively nice, even though the Ranger is forgotten by that point, having to use their action and bonus action. (Something I had not realized, Beastmasters can only give up an attack if they want the beast to attack, if the beast is helping, dodging, ect, they need to give up their full action until they hit level 7) Secondly, an adjacent beast ally? That is awfully harsh, since it means a beastmaster will be in melee scrums even as an archer if they want to use this. If you want to limit it so the Ranger and the beast need to be near each other, at least make it 30 ft so the archer has a chance to stay out of melee. Third, just thought of this since you have double-dipping for the attack action, how does this interact with the level 11 ability Bestial Fury? If the Ranger gives up an attack and their bonus action does the Beast get 4 attacks? It isn't a bad offensive buff, I will admit, and the Ranger acting as body shield for the Beast if they are adjacent and attacked (does nothing against spell saves, since those aren't attacks) is nice defensively too. You just need a beast that can deal enough damage and have a high enough AC. Okay, the game does have spells that assume animals will be nearby and utilized occasionally. That does not mean the game assumes they will be involved in combat, nor that they will stick around. I've seen more people use Speak With Animals to try and pump alley dogs and Guardsmen's Horses for information than I have ever seen them convince a badger to go on an adventure with them. Also, of the animals you listed for sale every single one is a beast of burden, except maybe the mastiff but they are also listed with a carrying capacity (BTW, how did I never notice Elephants for sale in the PHB?). Your fighting style is by necessity a combat buff, and I can't imagine any sane ranger giving up their bonus action for a mule's +2 to hit 1d4+2 attack. It exists as an option, but it isn't relevant if no one would do it. Those spells are situational uses at best, utilizing the animals you find during an adventure, but for your fighting style to be useful before a Ranger get's their companion, or after their companion dies and before they get a new one, that there are viable, combat ready beasts on the battlefield. And you have to actually try to even get beasts on the battlefield period, let alone ones that would be worth giving up your bonus action to make attack while you are standing next to them. This isn't a question of "can you convince a wild bear to follow the party and fight for you" or "can you buy horses and get them to fight for you" it is a question of "Will these beasts be common enough and combat capable enough for it to be worth this fighting style." And I don't think the sparrows the druid occasionally uses to send messages or the old plow horse you borrowed from Farmer Johnson to carry the McGuffin really count towards that.  I don't think the game is moving closer to "Dog Fighting the Class" whether or not you want to play an evil ranger. I think my biggest gripe with it is the idea that it was the intended goal of the design, because... man does that worry me. It just goes completely against the cultures I've seen at the various tables in my area, which means there is a massive cultural disconnect somewhere.. It just breaks my enjoyment of the game I suppose, to imagine someone throwing animals to their deaths against massive monsters. "This manticore is tougher than I thought, I'll open cage #3 and send the badger in next, he'll probably survive a round or two while I patch up that bear I caught." It just sickens me, and I can't imagine a player at my table even attempting something like that. And yeah, double standard for the Beastmaster, who takes in a single beast instead of a menagerie, but perceptions and tastes aren't always rational and one bothers me far more than the other.</blockquote>

Verification