D&D 5E The 'New' Ranger

[CapnZapp]

Animal Companions get proficiency to damage. This is incompatible with multiattack. I don't think they need proficiency to damage

I would think it's for a slightly different reason: if ACs got multiattack, the critters WITH multiattack would be the only ones you'd ever select.

 

[Xeviat]

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.

Either that or a "magic fangs" spell.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Xeviat]

I would think it's for a slightly different reason: if ACs got multiattack, the critters WITH multiattack would be the only ones you'd ever select.

It comes to the same conclusion. Without proficiency to damage, it would be fairly easy to balance multiattack. Yes, str/dex increases would favor multiattackers, but only by like 3 points once they cap out at Str/Dex 20.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jaelis]

Easy compromise is to think of magic fang a class ability. Ranger can "cast" it on their beast every morning and then don't worry about it.

 

[discosoc]

My understanding is that it's because "multiattack" is just a mechanic meant for action-economy balance when going against player groups. As a permanent ally, that action economy boost would be too much against monsters.

 

[Xeviat]

My understanding is that it's because "multiattack" is just a mechanic meant for action-economy balance when going against player groups. As a permanent ally, that action economy boost would be too much against monsters.

I think multiattack is just to make different animals different than each other. It also allows them to spread their attacks. In the grand scheme of things, after enough rounds, there's no difference between something that attacks 1d4+2 twice and something that attacks 2d6 once.

The companions should all be balanced around CR 1/4. Removing multiattack let them have some more beefy options in there. Two attacks wouldn't have significantly slowed down the game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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.

I see an enormous qualitative difference between "better than average" and "frickin' magic". Your better-than-the-average-bear can reasonably be expected to be stronger, but if it's somehow able to rip ghosts to pieces I've got to raise an eyebrow there. I don't see how magic fang is reinventing the wheel, when it's actually the older solution to this issue -- it is the wheel. And as a spell that is of strictly situational utility, it is the exact opposite of a spell tax. It is a meaningful decision whether the ranger takes magic fang because she anticipates fighting lots of resistant monsters, or takes something else because she thinks they're not going to be as common and/or that she can handle them some other way. Calling magic fang a spell tax is like calling blight a spell tax because it hoses plant creatures. Totally different situation from hunter's mark, which is the obvious best choice in pretty much all circumstances (and no, I don't like it either).

If characters can expect to be able to overcome resistance to nonmagic weapons passively, what's the point of even having that mechanic in the game? It's just wasted text in the monster statblock, canceled out by more wasted text in the class description. But if resistance requires casting a spell, or finding a magic weapon, or otherwise generating a solution proactively, then that's good gameplay. That's what we should be striving for.

 

[Gladius Legis]

I see an enormous qualitative difference between "better than average" and "frickin' magic". Your better-than-the-average-bear can reasonably be expected to be stronger, but if it's somehow able to rip ghosts to pieces I've got to raise an eyebrow there.

A "better-than-the-average-bear" is already ripping a lot of other big nasty monsters to pieces. I see absolutely no meaningful distinction there.

I don't see how magic fang is reinventing the wheel, when it's actually the older solution to this issue -- it is the wheel.

It's reinventing the wheel as relates strictly to 5e. Every other class that uses physical attacks has one way or another to bypass DR/magical permanently (i.e. finding a magic weapon, or being a Moon Druid or Monk). The Beast Conclave Ranger is currently getting screwed there, since it's the beast that's doing much of the attacking for said Ranger.

And it was a terrible solution in 3e.

And as a spell that is of strictly situational utility, it is the exact opposite of a spell tax. It is a meaningful decision whether the ranger takes magic fang because she anticipates fighting lots of resistant monsters

Resistant monsters are pretty common at higher CRs. Yes, it absolutely would be a spell tax.

Calling magic fang a spell tax is like calling blight a spell tax because it hoses plant creatures. Totally different situation from hunter's mark, which is the obvious best choice in pretty much all circumstances (and no, I don't like it either).

Comparing to Blight is patently ridiculous. Creatures with DR/magical are a much more broad category than specifically plant creatures. Moreover, without a means to bypass DR/magical, you're pretty much crippled in those fights, whereas there's plenty of ways to kill plant creatures without ever having to touch Blight.

No, it really is more like Hunter's Mark.

If characters can expect to be able to overcome resistance to nonmagic weapons passively, what's the point of even having that mechanic in the game? It's just wasted text in the monster statblock, canceled out by more wasted text in the class description. But if resistance requires casting a spell, or finding a magic weapon, or otherwise generating a solution proactively, then that's good gameplay. That's what we should be striving for.

You're objecting to literally ONE more subclass having the same ability as the Moon Druid or the Monk. A subclass which needs such an ability for the sake of game balance, because said subclass gets much of their offense through their pet rather than their weapon. That hardly amounts to "wasted text in the monster statblock." That's a slippery slope fallacy to the extreme.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

A "better-than-the-average-bear" is already ripping a lot of other big nasty monsters to pieces. I see absolutely no meaningful distinction there.

You are aware that ghosts are immaterial, right? I don't care how buff Yogi is, he can't sink his claws into something that physically isn't there.

It's reinventing the wheel as relates strictly to 5e. Every other class that uses physical attacks has one way or another to bypass DR/magical permanently (i.e. finding a magic weapon, or being a Moon Druid or Monk).

If finding a magic item counts, why does the ranger (or the monk or the druid) need a class feature? They can just find a magic item to do it.

And it was a terrible solution in 3e.

Why? I've already explained how it enhanced the game by making magic DR an obstacle that must be overcome proactively.

Resistant monsters are pretty common at higher CRs. Yes, it absolutely would be a spell tax.

While this was certainly true in earlier editions, it's much less so in 5E. The game was very deliberately designed to be magic-item-agnostic. When you can kill an ancient red dragon with an ordinary longsword straight out of the PHB, I simply don't buy the "magic is obligatory" argument.

And even when magic is obligatory, that's a bigger issue with the system. It creates precisely the problem we are both (from opposite ends) outlining: a rat-race where the monsters get a defense that the PCs are obligated to receive a counter to, with a net gameplay outcome of zero. That's why 5E is very deliberately designed to be magic-item-agnostic.

Comparing to Blight is patently ridiculous. Creatures with DR/magical are a much more broad category than specifically plant creatures. Moreover, without a means to bypass DR/magical, you're pretty much crippled in those fights, whereas there's plenty of ways to kill plant creatures without ever having to touch Blight.

What's wrong with being "pretty much crippled" in some fights? If every fight were exactly the same difficulty and could be solved with exactly the same approach, this would be a much less interesting game. Spellcasters are "pretty much crippled" against creatures with spell resistance, and they don't even get any spell in 5E to punch through it. If they did get such a spell, would that be a spell tax too? If so, then I guess it's good for the game that they don't -- and this seems also to be an argument against letting beastmasters even get magic fang, much less a permanent effect.

You're objecting to literally ONE more subclass having the same ability as the Moon Druid or the Monk. A subclass which needs such an ability for the sake of game balance, because said subclass gets much of their offense through their pet rather than their weapon. That hardly amounts to "wasted text in the monster statblock." That's a slippery slope fallacy to the extreme.

As I said, if you're invoking balance to justify this ability, then the balance is out of whack to begin with. Furthermore, if you're invoking balance to justify this ability, then you're not invoking in-universe logic or the realization of class concept. Characters should receive abilities because they are fun and exciting, not because they have to.

And I don't think you understand what I meant by wasted space. Look at what's happening in the abstract. Say that all or most monsters above level X have the "Lock" ability which stops them from being damaged except by stuff with the "Key" keyword. As a result, all PCs automatically receive the "Key" keyword at level X which lets them damage the monsters normally. What is this Lock/Key mechanic doing for the game? Nothing. It cancels itself out. Gameplay is exactly the same as it would have been if the mechanic didn't exist. It is wasted text.

You're trying to argue that weapon resistance works like this Lock/Key mechanic. I'm trying to argue that, fortunately for the game, it isn't. Some monsters have Locks, yes, but getting a Key is an interesting challenge rather than something you're just entitled to by virtue of system math, and if you don't have it, the Lock can usually be overcome another way anyway.

 

[FrogReaver]

[MENTION=6683613]TheCosmicKid[/MENTION]

You do realize that most of your above posts points are actually better arguments in favor of giving the beast a built in non-spell way of ignoring non-magical weapon resistance?