D&D General Should ranger get a companion as its 'signature' feature?

[Frozen_Heart]

There is lots of debate going round about rangers identity and signature feature currently, with no one seeming to agree on what a ranger should actually be. Nature based half caster, beastmaster, dual wielder, marksman, tracker, exploration survivalist, or just fighter/rogue who has just taken nature and survival skills.

Likewise, no one seems particularly thrilled about hunters mark being the ranger's signature feature. A feature which adds a tiny bit of damage while blocking you from casting or using subclass abilities.

Now the latest sorcerer reveal has resulted in draconic sorcerer coming along and stealing the drakenwarden's lunch money in the pet department.

All this has left me wondering, should rangers thematic and mechanical identity have been based around an animal companion? Similar to WoW's Hunter class, a pet being the ranger exclusive identity would really solidify what it is within DnD, and carve out something which is truly its own. From there, different subclasses could have built on that with their own creature types and themes.

 

[Scott Christian]

On a personal level, I have always disliked the throw-away companion aspect of any class. If you told me they get a dog or wolf or lion or whatever, and it could die never to return, I would be all aboard. But I never enjoyed the "spirit animal" just to have an extra attack or give advantage or whatever.

I will say this also, my reason for disliking this is from both sides of the table. As a DM, it's just a distraction that throws wrenches into the exploration pillar of the game. As a player, I have never seen it roleplayed out. It is just a mechanical feature - nothing more. Where when the animal was real, I have seen many roleplaying decisions and events that revolve around a real animal.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

On a personal level, I have always disliked the throw-away companion aspect of any class. If you told me they get a dog or wolf or lion or whatever, and it could die never to return, I would be all aboard. But I never enjoyed the "spirit animal" just to have an extra attack or give advantage or whatever.

I will say this also, my reason for disliking this is from both sides of the table. As a DM, it's just a distraction that throws wrenches into the exploration pillar of the game. As a player, I have never seen it roleplayed out. It is just a mechanical feature - nothing more. Where when the animal was real, I have seen many roleplaying decisions and events that revolve around a real animal.

Yeah ngl I hate this push towards everything being a 'spirit' of some sort. I don't want a 'bestial spirit'. I want a pet wolf, which has a name and a backstory, and if it dies that actually means something.

 

[CreamCloud0]

no, i've never particularly cared about rangers having animal companions being that significant a part of them but more importantly i think it would eat up too much of their power budget and infringe on their already stretched ability to satisfyingly adapt to the vast number of sub-concepts ranger covers.

 

[Li Shenron]

All this has left me wondering, should rangers thematic and mechanical identity have been based around an animal companion?

No, I don't think any class should be based on a companion. It's almost always troublesome, so it's best to have at most an option but not a default for any class.

 

[Horwath]

Short answer?
No!

Long answer;
There are 2 subclasses for rangers to have pets. One is getting a reprint, for drakewarden we might wait a book or two to get it.

Or just make it a feat:

Animal companion:
Gain a medium size companion.
HP: 5 +5×your level
AC: 10+prof bonus
Attack: 2×prof bonus
Damage: d6+prof bonus or d4 for Air beast
Darkvision 60ft
abilities:
str 14, dex 14, con 14, int 6, wis 12, cha 8
saves: str, dex and con


movement:
Beast of the land
Speed: 40ft, climb 40ft

Beast of the air
Speed: 20ft, Fly 60ft

Beast of the Sea:
Speed: 30ft, Swim 30ft, waterbreathing

Beast of the Dark
Speed: 20ft, Burrow 10ft, 10ft blindsight


if it's too weak, slap a +1 ASI on it.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I personally dont care much for pet classes, but I admit this would be a nice niche for them.

I would make the pet a weapon. Litterally. Much like a sentient weapon. They have mental stats and personality trait, but cant be attacked or damaged, no more than you can attack or damage the paladin's sword.

Its a little game-y, yes, but it could work.

 

[Minigiant]

No. All ranges do not have animal companions.

The Rangers signature ability should be earth, social, and life science

Zoology botany geology meteorology sociology etc

A Ranger is a man who studies the earth to aid them in defending people from the wilderness and/or to protect nature.

 

[billd91]

Yeah ngl I hate this push towards everything being a 'spirit' of some sort. I don't want a 'bestial spirit'. I want a pet wolf, which has a name and a backstory, and if it dies that actually means something.

For my money, making the companion a spirit is about the only option that is really functional without distorting the rules to vastly improve the survivability of an actual animal pet that is otherwise grossly overpowered as characters level up. In 3.0, druids and rangers had to replace their companion as they leveled up or their 2HD initial animal companion (or even 2 1HD companions) was sure to be dead or useless as an actual power resource. In 3.5, they were retooled to be a single animal that improved well above their initial stats but still had to have a ton of ad hoc abilities added on (like evasion) to have a chance at surviving (to be fair, the same was true of paladin warhorses).
A more stable solution would be not thinking of it as a specific animal pet that's been befriended but as a nature spirit that's been befriended (or assigned as an aide by the forces of nature) and can take a variety of forms AND COMES BACK if its physical form is destroyed.

 

[TiQuinn]

There is lots of debate going round about rangers identity and signature feature currently, with no one seeming to agree on what a ranger should actually be. Nature based half caster, beastmaster, dual wielder, marksman, tracker, exploration survivalist, or just fighter/rogue who has just taken nature and survival skills.

Likewise, no one seems particularly thrilled about hunters mark being the ranger's signature feature. A feature which adds a tiny bit of damage while blocking you from casting or using subclass abilities.

Now the latest sorcerer reveal has resulted in draconic sorcerer coming along and stealing the drakenwarden's lunch money in the pet department.

All this has left me wondering, should rangers thematic and mechanical identity have been based around an animal companion? Similar to WoW's Hunter class, a pet being the ranger exclusive identity would really solidify what it is within DnD, and carve out something which is truly its own. From there, different subclasses could have built on that with their own creature types and themes.

Ranger has been one of my favorite classes in D&D for years, not necessarily because of mechanics but because of the vibe and aesthetic, and having an animal companion has never been a strong pull for me.