Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Revised Ranger update
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7486900" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>Massive amount of replies, didn't expect to have +10 pages of new stuff to read through</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p> Until 7th level, this is essentially the True Strike Cantrip (use your action to get advantage on a later attack)</p><p> </p><p> How powerful you consider that cantrip will likely inform how powerful you see this ability. </p><p> </p><p> After 7th level this is a viable use of your bonus action, but you have to get through 7 levels of the class to use this tactic, and you cannot Hunter's Mark or Dual-wield on the turn you do this. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Or the enemy disengages and avoids both attacks, or they just focus on the ranger and ignore the wolf who is doing nothing in the combat</p><p> </p><p> And again, until 7th level this tactic takes your entire turn and action to pull off, because you are using your action to command the dodge. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Cutting off escape routes if the wolf can get to them or if there are single points of exit from the map. In a forest for example, the enemy can run in multiple different directions. Meanwile in a cave or a dungeon room, the wolf will need to get behind enemy lines to cut off retreat, possibly taking many Attacks of Opportunity or drawing attention as it gets in range of mages or archers who will want it to stay back. Defending the mage by being a body in the way can work, but if the enemy already charged through the rest of your party, it is probably willing to take the hit from the wolf too. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> The conception comes from the abilities. Until level 7 the beast cannot take any action other than attacking without it costing the ranger his entire turn. Until level 5 the beast cannot even attack without costing the Ranger his entire attack action. </p><p> </p><p> And, how do you think companions knock down foes, poison foes, and ect? Do they not need to make an attack action to do this? Are they not on the frontlines when they do so, since almost no beasts have a ranged attack? </p><p> </p><p> Hence, they are frontline combatants. They are on the front lines of the fight, making melee attacks. Otherwise, they stand in the back and look mildly threatening, which isn't exactly what I would call a "combat role"</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> I don't respond every day, and it takes some time for me to read through and reply to everything, sometimes I miss that I'm talking about a point someone else covered. More beasts have 2 than I thought, very few have 3 (panther does surprisingly, I didn't think they were that sturdy) but again, more than I thought. So, 1 to 3, with most having two. </p><p> </p><p> As for "how is it hard" I imagine if I went to some of my newer players, they would have no idea where a beasts HD are, because they wouldn't realize the dice calculation for the hp shows you the HD. Once you know that it is easy, but if you don't read monster statblocks often (which not a lot of players do) you might be stuck looking for something that says "Hit Dice" and you will never find it. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Great, Help the Ranger and the other fighters, so what does it do until level 7 when it can do that? Stand there and be threatening. Sure, tactically sound idea, boring as heck and very passive. </p><p> </p><p> And hit and run tactics are very hard to pull of without cunning actions or Mobile, since you'll proc OA's all over the place. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Fair enough. I know I've gotten snippy and sarcastic recently. </p><p> </p><p> But, I'm not sure I've been entirely dismissive of all your fixes. It just seems to me that taking a weak subclass and fixing it by demanding more resources from the player (invest feats, new spells, and fighting styles) breaks down as a solution when you turn around and compare it to another ranger who instead of going beastmaster went a different route and either still took the useful and powerful stuff you created, or simply got things that made them better, leaving the Beastmaster in the dust. </p><p> </p><p> Why not just rewrite the class to do the things we want, instead of demanding they pay further tribute in feats and spells? Especially since the point of those feats and spells is to rewrite the abilities that the class gives us and are causing the problems. </p><p> </p><p> Also, we've examined some of your suggestions. There are very few higher CR beasts to make an increase in CR worth it, as was discussed with the spell that could allow up to a CR 3 beast bond with the ranger. I'm not sure what your feat means by "heal them", so I can't comment on it. Taking hits for the beast would only work in melee, a powerful option, but one that would then limit the advantage of being two places at once and would rarely work for the Archer archetypes common to rangers, since they would rarely decide to be in the melee with the beast. I like the HD based on level, it keeps things simple and consistent with how Hit Dice work. I'd like it to just be a rule instead of a feat, but it is a good idea. </p><p> </p><p> So, I'm criticizing the ideas that I see as having problems, and wondering what your solutions are to those. How do you plan on allowing a ranger who focuses on archery to protect a beast like a wolf which is best in melee range? I'm not going to ignore that that is an issue with your proposed design just because it works in some circumstances, that would not be useful for either of us.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Yes we can find a reason, because the mechanics seem to be incredibly poor. </p><p> </p><p> And that's not good enough for you because we could try and fix anything in the game? Fine, but you know those people asking "is the ranger weak" they got responses that said "Yes it is, because of these reasons." Never once did I see someone reply "Yes it is weak because the internet said so" or "I heard it was weak, but I don't know why". </p><p> </p><p> And so maybe the individual player doesn't matter, maybe "PLAYERS" as a massive faceless group matters. But, in multiple of those posts, I saw threads of people talking about how they went to play the ranger as a brand new player, and within a few weeks or a few levels they went to their DM to ask about rerolling their character as something else. Not because they no longer liked the story of their class, or the themes of their class, but because the mechanics drove them away and they felt useless. That bothers me, that shows me that something needs to be done. And sure, I can play a Scout Rogue Outlander and be better than the ranger, I can play a Druid and be better than the Ranger (don't even need a melee class to go into melee as a druid, Shillelagh rocks) I can do a lot of things, except be satisfied with the PHB Ranger</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Great, has nothing to do with the point. Fixing a class shouldn't necessitate a reworking of the entire system from the ground up. That is a strawman if I've ever seen one. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> So the fact that there are so many fixes, that people are constantly working to fix the Ranger, doesn't strike you as a bit odd if there is nothing wrong with it? </p><p> </p><p> And, I'm not looking for external happiness, heck, I've said it repeatedly if WoTC had simply decided to say "Hey, fixing the Ranger is hard, and we aren't going to devote further resources at this time to that end" We'd be having an entirely different conversation. Because, they wouldn't be telling me that the problems I see are an illusion, a hoax crafted by internet trolls to fool people into thinking there exists a problem with this class. </p><p> </p><p> When people tell me that what I believe is a lie, that I'm actually wrong, and then can't back it up with evidence, I tend to get my hackles up a bit. They didn't need to give it a fourth pass (I must have missed 2 or 3, unless you are thinking 1 was during playtest) they just didn't need to say I'm a liar.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> I hope by almost zero you aren't including myself, who has responded to your fighting style and your feats (as vague as you've written them). Not sure when the third thing was. </p><p> </p><p> And, considering that despite the occasional drop in we've only had like half a dozen people responding in this thread consistently... I represent a rather larger percentage of the thread than "almost zero"</p><p> </p><p> Edit: And this gets discussed. See, reading through ten pages of catch up material and responding is hard. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Because they should have had greater combat abilities to begin with. </p><p> </p><p> Let us make a hypothetical class, this class has no weapon proficiencies, but also has no bonuses to unarmed attacks. We'll assume that the rest of the class is meh in utility abilities, but clearly the melee options are terrible, despite this class being called Hero for example.</p><p> </p><p> So someone suggests a feat that will give someone proficiency in all martial weapons. Is this a good fix for the class? After all, if you want more combat power it should come at a cost. </p><p> </p><p> However, that doesn't fly, because it was designed in a way that made it terrible, and people rightly point out that demanding a feat just to get weapons for their class which should clearly have weapons is a pointless cost. </p><p> </p><p> Feats and spells should provide more baseline options, not be a tax used to bring someone up to the baseline level. That shouldn't need to be explained again and again and again.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Like... because the wolf was the only one attacking it? Until level 5 your companion either does nothing, or is the one attacking the enemy. And if the Bugbear wants to live, it hits the thing hurting it, not the man standing there whistling. </p><p> </p><p> So does that count as something going "horribly wrong" or are we supposed to accept that for two full levels you combat companion (because if it was utility only we need to once again discuss how Find Familiar is superior in every sense) is supposed to not engage in combat except to stand next to you and look scary?</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Actually, just because the Basic rules are free doesn't mean people even know they exist. </p><p> </p><p> I certainly didn't tell my new players about it, because it is a poor version of the PHB and I always allow people to peruse my Player's Handbook so there is no need to tell them about the Basic Rules online. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> And, I think Yunru has a fair point I had not considered. There is a taboo on the players looking through the Monster Manual, but alternatively, all of the best companion choices are not in the Player's Handbook and are intstead in the Monster Manual. </p><p> </p><p> Yes, a proper DM should make those stats available to the player, but it would not be something a new player would see on their own.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Before level 5 or level 7, how does the Companion do this. </p><p> </p><p> Yes, [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] has talked a lot about the help action, but you are four levels deep into the subclass by that point. Is getting the equivalent of the True Strike Cantrip a valuable use of your time at levels 3 and 4? </p><p> </p><p> Sure, you could also have it stand somewhere and threaten opportunity attacks. But, either the enemy will be engaged with another PC (in which case the animal will be ignored as it is not contributing to the fight) or the animal will be 1v1 (in which case the enemy might kill the beast, use their action to disengage and move towards the backline, or simply take the relatively weak attack of the beast). This also puts the full tactical value of your beast on the DMs whims, because the DM gets to decide what the enemy does and you just have to hope it is what you were expecting.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Translate bold into "working as advertised" and you might see what we are saying about it being a tax.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> I'm liking the 3rd option the more I think about it. </p><p> </p><p> May end up fiddling around with it, but it adds more to the story that the ability to revive the beast has for the Beastmaster and gets that mystic bond I want pretty dead on.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> [MENTION=6779717]Eric V[/MENTION]</p><p> </p><p> If you don't want to look back through the thread, I believe Parmandur is talking about the expectation that the Beast master's companion is disposable and dies very often, only to be replaced by another disposable beast that will die very quickly.</p><p> </p><p> So you don't have a companion, you have a missile you send after your enemies (reference to a story where someone was told not to act like a missile in a fight by flying in head-first "because you don't reuse a missile") </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> And you designate control as "stand there and look threatening if they try and leave?" </p><p> </p><p> Beastmaster Ranger would then be designed as one of the worst controllers, who generally can shape the battlefield by affecting multiple enemies at a time. Not by threatening one enemy with some minor damage.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> That would be some odd errata. </p><p> </p><p> Right now you need to order the beast to move and order them to attack. </p><p> </p><p> Let us say you order the beast to attack the goblins, and it auto-attacks every goblin in range, but then you need to order it to move to the next goblin to continue following their previous order, but you don't need to order them to attack again. </p><p> </p><p> Sure, it works as long as the companion can keep attacking the same target for a while, but things strong enough to survive two or three turns of the beast attacking it can probably smear it with two or three attacks being returned. Unless we also buff Hp as has been being discussed.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 7486900, member: 6801228"] Massive amount of replies, didn't expect to have +10 pages of new stuff to read through Until 7th level, this is essentially the True Strike Cantrip (use your action to get advantage on a later attack) How powerful you consider that cantrip will likely inform how powerful you see this ability. After 7th level this is a viable use of your bonus action, but you have to get through 7 levels of the class to use this tactic, and you cannot Hunter's Mark or Dual-wield on the turn you do this. Or the enemy disengages and avoids both attacks, or they just focus on the ranger and ignore the wolf who is doing nothing in the combat And again, until 7th level this tactic takes your entire turn and action to pull off, because you are using your action to command the dodge. Cutting off escape routes if the wolf can get to them or if there are single points of exit from the map. In a forest for example, the enemy can run in multiple different directions. Meanwile in a cave or a dungeon room, the wolf will need to get behind enemy lines to cut off retreat, possibly taking many Attacks of Opportunity or drawing attention as it gets in range of mages or archers who will want it to stay back. Defending the mage by being a body in the way can work, but if the enemy already charged through the rest of your party, it is probably willing to take the hit from the wolf too. The conception comes from the abilities. Until level 7 the beast cannot take any action other than attacking without it costing the ranger his entire turn. Until level 5 the beast cannot even attack without costing the Ranger his entire attack action. And, how do you think companions knock down foes, poison foes, and ect? Do they not need to make an attack action to do this? Are they not on the frontlines when they do so, since almost no beasts have a ranged attack? Hence, they are frontline combatants. They are on the front lines of the fight, making melee attacks. Otherwise, they stand in the back and look mildly threatening, which isn't exactly what I would call a "combat role" I don't respond every day, and it takes some time for me to read through and reply to everything, sometimes I miss that I'm talking about a point someone else covered. More beasts have 2 than I thought, very few have 3 (panther does surprisingly, I didn't think they were that sturdy) but again, more than I thought. So, 1 to 3, with most having two. As for "how is it hard" I imagine if I went to some of my newer players, they would have no idea where a beasts HD are, because they wouldn't realize the dice calculation for the hp shows you the HD. Once you know that it is easy, but if you don't read monster statblocks often (which not a lot of players do) you might be stuck looking for something that says "Hit Dice" and you will never find it. Great, Help the Ranger and the other fighters, so what does it do until level 7 when it can do that? Stand there and be threatening. Sure, tactically sound idea, boring as heck and very passive. And hit and run tactics are very hard to pull of without cunning actions or Mobile, since you'll proc OA's all over the place. Fair enough. I know I've gotten snippy and sarcastic recently. But, I'm not sure I've been entirely dismissive of all your fixes. It just seems to me that taking a weak subclass and fixing it by demanding more resources from the player (invest feats, new spells, and fighting styles) breaks down as a solution when you turn around and compare it to another ranger who instead of going beastmaster went a different route and either still took the useful and powerful stuff you created, or simply got things that made them better, leaving the Beastmaster in the dust. Why not just rewrite the class to do the things we want, instead of demanding they pay further tribute in feats and spells? Especially since the point of those feats and spells is to rewrite the abilities that the class gives us and are causing the problems. Also, we've examined some of your suggestions. There are very few higher CR beasts to make an increase in CR worth it, as was discussed with the spell that could allow up to a CR 3 beast bond with the ranger. I'm not sure what your feat means by "heal them", so I can't comment on it. Taking hits for the beast would only work in melee, a powerful option, but one that would then limit the advantage of being two places at once and would rarely work for the Archer archetypes common to rangers, since they would rarely decide to be in the melee with the beast. I like the HD based on level, it keeps things simple and consistent with how Hit Dice work. I'd like it to just be a rule instead of a feat, but it is a good idea. So, I'm criticizing the ideas that I see as having problems, and wondering what your solutions are to those. How do you plan on allowing a ranger who focuses on archery to protect a beast like a wolf which is best in melee range? I'm not going to ignore that that is an issue with your proposed design just because it works in some circumstances, that would not be useful for either of us. Yes we can find a reason, because the mechanics seem to be incredibly poor. And that's not good enough for you because we could try and fix anything in the game? Fine, but you know those people asking "is the ranger weak" they got responses that said "Yes it is, because of these reasons." Never once did I see someone reply "Yes it is weak because the internet said so" or "I heard it was weak, but I don't know why". And so maybe the individual player doesn't matter, maybe "PLAYERS" as a massive faceless group matters. But, in multiple of those posts, I saw threads of people talking about how they went to play the ranger as a brand new player, and within a few weeks or a few levels they went to their DM to ask about rerolling their character as something else. Not because they no longer liked the story of their class, or the themes of their class, but because the mechanics drove them away and they felt useless. That bothers me, that shows me that something needs to be done. And sure, I can play a Scout Rogue Outlander and be better than the ranger, I can play a Druid and be better than the Ranger (don't even need a melee class to go into melee as a druid, Shillelagh rocks) I can do a lot of things, except be satisfied with the PHB Ranger Great, has nothing to do with the point. Fixing a class shouldn't necessitate a reworking of the entire system from the ground up. That is a strawman if I've ever seen one. So the fact that there are so many fixes, that people are constantly working to fix the Ranger, doesn't strike you as a bit odd if there is nothing wrong with it? And, I'm not looking for external happiness, heck, I've said it repeatedly if WoTC had simply decided to say "Hey, fixing the Ranger is hard, and we aren't going to devote further resources at this time to that end" We'd be having an entirely different conversation. Because, they wouldn't be telling me that the problems I see are an illusion, a hoax crafted by internet trolls to fool people into thinking there exists a problem with this class. When people tell me that what I believe is a lie, that I'm actually wrong, and then can't back it up with evidence, I tend to get my hackles up a bit. They didn't need to give it a fourth pass (I must have missed 2 or 3, unless you are thinking 1 was during playtest) they just didn't need to say I'm a liar. I hope by almost zero you aren't including myself, who has responded to your fighting style and your feats (as vague as you've written them). Not sure when the third thing was. And, considering that despite the occasional drop in we've only had like half a dozen people responding in this thread consistently... I represent a rather larger percentage of the thread than "almost zero" Edit: And this gets discussed. See, reading through ten pages of catch up material and responding is hard. Because they should have had greater combat abilities to begin with. Let us make a hypothetical class, this class has no weapon proficiencies, but also has no bonuses to unarmed attacks. We'll assume that the rest of the class is meh in utility abilities, but clearly the melee options are terrible, despite this class being called Hero for example. So someone suggests a feat that will give someone proficiency in all martial weapons. Is this a good fix for the class? After all, if you want more combat power it should come at a cost. However, that doesn't fly, because it was designed in a way that made it terrible, and people rightly point out that demanding a feat just to get weapons for their class which should clearly have weapons is a pointless cost. Feats and spells should provide more baseline options, not be a tax used to bring someone up to the baseline level. That shouldn't need to be explained again and again and again. Like... because the wolf was the only one attacking it? Until level 5 your companion either does nothing, or is the one attacking the enemy. And if the Bugbear wants to live, it hits the thing hurting it, not the man standing there whistling. So does that count as something going "horribly wrong" or are we supposed to accept that for two full levels you combat companion (because if it was utility only we need to once again discuss how Find Familiar is superior in every sense) is supposed to not engage in combat except to stand next to you and look scary? Actually, just because the Basic rules are free doesn't mean people even know they exist. I certainly didn't tell my new players about it, because it is a poor version of the PHB and I always allow people to peruse my Player's Handbook so there is no need to tell them about the Basic Rules online. And, I think Yunru has a fair point I had not considered. There is a taboo on the players looking through the Monster Manual, but alternatively, all of the best companion choices are not in the Player's Handbook and are intstead in the Monster Manual. Yes, a proper DM should make those stats available to the player, but it would not be something a new player would see on their own. Before level 5 or level 7, how does the Companion do this. Yes, [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] has talked a lot about the help action, but you are four levels deep into the subclass by that point. Is getting the equivalent of the True Strike Cantrip a valuable use of your time at levels 3 and 4? Sure, you could also have it stand somewhere and threaten opportunity attacks. But, either the enemy will be engaged with another PC (in which case the animal will be ignored as it is not contributing to the fight) or the animal will be 1v1 (in which case the enemy might kill the beast, use their action to disengage and move towards the backline, or simply take the relatively weak attack of the beast). This also puts the full tactical value of your beast on the DMs whims, because the DM gets to decide what the enemy does and you just have to hope it is what you were expecting. Translate bold into "working as advertised" and you might see what we are saying about it being a tax. I'm liking the 3rd option the more I think about it. May end up fiddling around with it, but it adds more to the story that the ability to revive the beast has for the Beastmaster and gets that mystic bond I want pretty dead on. [MENTION=6779717]Eric V[/MENTION] If you don't want to look back through the thread, I believe Parmandur is talking about the expectation that the Beast master's companion is disposable and dies very often, only to be replaced by another disposable beast that will die very quickly. So you don't have a companion, you have a missile you send after your enemies (reference to a story where someone was told not to act like a missile in a fight by flying in head-first "because you don't reuse a missile") And you designate control as "stand there and look threatening if they try and leave?" Beastmaster Ranger would then be designed as one of the worst controllers, who generally can shape the battlefield by affecting multiple enemies at a time. Not by threatening one enemy with some minor damage. That would be some odd errata. Right now you need to order the beast to move and order them to attack. Let us say you order the beast to attack the goblins, and it auto-attacks every goblin in range, but then you need to order it to move to the next goblin to continue following their previous order, but you don't need to order them to attack again. Sure, it works as long as the companion can keep attacking the same target for a while, but things strong enough to survive two or three turns of the beast attacking it can probably smear it with two or three attacks being returned. Unless we also buff Hp as has been being discussed. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Revised Ranger update
Top