D&D 5E The 'New' Ranger

[Balfore]

So the new Ranger has a comment block that talks about 'no multiattack'.

I'm wondering why this makes any difference when a summoned creature from other sources still gets its multiattack.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

So the new Ranger has a comment block that talks about 'no multiattack'.

I'm wondering why this makes any difference when a summoned creature from other sources still gets its multiattack.

Can you clarify your point of confusion? If you're talking about the UA Ranger here (https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/UA_RevisedRanger.pdf), I assume you're referring to this text:

Why No Multiattack?Multiattack is a useful design tool that keeps monsters simple for the DM. It provides a boost in offense, but that boost is meant to make a beast threatening for one battle—a notion that doesn’t mesh well with a beast intended to fight with the party, rather than against it. Project Multiattack across an entire adventure, and an animal companion runs the risk of outclassing the fighters and barbarians in the party. So in story terms, your animal companion has traded in some of its ferocity (in the form of Multiattack) for better awareness and the ability to fight more effectively in concert with you.

The long and the short of it is that the designers didn't want to stack multiattack on top of +proficiency to-hit and damage. It's purely gamist reasoning, not something that's supposed to make in-world sense. If you don't like it, well, there's a reason that UA material isn't considered ready for prime time yet...

 

[Quickleaf]

So the new Ranger has a comment block that talks about 'no multiattack'.

I'm wondering why this makes any difference when a summoned creature from other sources still gets its multiattack.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Conjuration spells like conjure woodland beings require concentration. An animal companion does not. That's a key difference.

 

[Xeviat]

Animal Companions get proficiency to damage. This is incompatible with multiattack. I don't think they need proficiency to damage; Hunter Colossus Slayer doesn't scale directly (it scales a bit with number of attacks), and they get ASIs to boost damage otherwise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[the Jester]

Because an animal companion isn't a summoned creature in the same way that other summoned creatures are. You don't have to burn a spell slot, you don't have to concentrate to maintain it, it doesn't take an action to summon it.

 

[Gladius Legis]

I don't think they need proficiency to damage;

Agree, but they DO need to have their attacks count as magical for overcoming damage resistance/immunity. That would be more than a fair trade in Revision 2 of the Beast Conclave, I think.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Agree, but they DO need to have their attacks count as magical for overcoming damage resistance/immunity.

Why? Has the animal mastered the ancient and subtle discipline of the ki strike in between learning to sit and fetch?

 

[Gladius Legis]

Why? Has the animal mastered the ancient and subtle discipline of the ki strike in between learning to sit and fetch?

I'm thinking more along the lines of how the Moon Druid gets it for Wild Shape. Deeper magical connection with nature and all that.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I'm thinking more along the lines of how the Moon Druid gets it for Wild Shape. Deeper magical connection with nature and all that.

A druid is a sanctified holy figure, very like a monk. An animal companion is just an animal companion. Any magical effect comes from the ranger. So reintroducing the magic fang spell is a much better conceptual approach here. And it's better gameplay, too -- it keeps resistance meaningful without being completely punishing.

 

[Gladius Legis]

A druid is a sanctified holy figure, very like a monk. An animal companion is just an animal companion. Any magical effect comes from the ranger. So reintroducing the magic fang spell is a much better conceptual approach here. And it's better gameplay, too -- it keeps resistance meaningful without being completely punishing.

I disagree. I don't see how overcoming magical resistance/immunity should be any less a part of the animal companion than the fact it gets the Ranger's proficiency bonus on saves/attack rolls/etc. to make it better than an average member of its species. A "magic fang" spell would just be reinventing the wheel for no reason. Not to mention that it would be a spell tax for the Ranger, a concept I'd very much like to avoid entirely if at all possible. Hunter's Mark being one is bad enough as is.