D&D 5E The 'New' Ranger

[TheCosmicKid]

[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?

You're gonna have to spell out your reasoning a bit more for me there.

 

[Gladius Legis]

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.

Whatever, if my bear is ripping apart a freaking dragon, then it shouldn't be any more of a stretch for it to rip apart something incorporeal. Especially as I've already cast the flavor as the ranger having a nature-based magical connection with his pet.

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.

Red herring. If you want to argue that moon druids and monks shouldn't have a feature that bypasses DR/magical, then go right ahead in some other thread, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

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

No, it adds a meaningless obstacle to accomplish the same thing that literally every other character is able to do 100% passively in some form or fashion.

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.

Irrelevant. Certain characters are deliberately designed to be able to break DR/magical without having to find a magical weapon. Again, Moon Druid and Monk. And why are they designed that way? Because they are less likely (or not likely) to use weapons at all and thus need some sort of mechanic to let them break DR/magical. The Beast Conclave Ranger is looking to be in the exact same mold, with the beast being a large part of the Ranger's offense.

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?

It's clear you don't know much about spellcasters in 5e if you think they're stopped by spell resistance. They'll just use plenty of other spells where it's completely irrelevant. Like Wall of Force, Forcecage, Reverse Gravity, any spell with an attack roll as opposed to a save, and the list goes on.

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.

A character that primarily relies on physical attacks to do their damage just doesn't have those options. A character who doesn't even use weapons (or only occasionally does) is even worse off if they can't bypass DR/magical.

As I said, if you're invoking balance to justify this ability, then the balance is out of whack to begin with.

This makes no sense, but OK.

Furthermore, if you're invoking balance to justify this ability, then you're not invoking in-universe logic or the realization of class concept.

But you haven't shown me why giving the Beast a DR/magical bypass ability runs counter to either in-universe logic or class concept.

Characters should receive abilities because they are fun and exciting, not because they have to.

Says who?

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.

And certain characters, again, one full class and one subclass (and if the beast Ranger gets edited properly, a second subclass) have those keys already. Everyone else has to work for it. Fortunately, those same everyone elses have other abilities to make up for the fact that they have to actually earn their keys. Classes and subclasses have different abilities. Moon Druids, Monks, and hopefully Beast Rangers get to bypass DR/magical without finding a magic weapon or casting a spell to do it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The pet is magic. Or rather, the RNger is magic, and extends that magic to their pet.

Why does it matter, thematically, if that is modeled by a class feature rather than a spell? The same thing is happening.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Whatever, if my bear is ripping apart a freaking dragon, then it shouldn't be any more of a stretch for it to rip apart something incorporeal.

Then why do incorporeal things even have resistance in the first place? If it makes just as much sense for a bear to rip a ghost apart as a dragon, doesn't it also make just as much sense for man with a mundane sword to chop a ghost apart as a dragon? Of course not. Dragons are meat. Ghosts are not. The ghost's resistance exists to represent this dichotomy. You don't win any points by literally saying "whatever" to the physical distinction between matter and nonmatter.

Especially as I've already cast the flavor as the ranger having a nature-based magical connection with his pet.

If I cast the flavor of the sorcerer as a fire channeler, does that justify an argument that all sorcerers should get fireball automatically, and having to select it constitutes an unconscionable spell tax? Or does it just mean I've cast the flavor of the sorcerer too narrowly?

Red herring. If you want to argue that moon druids and monks shouldn't have a feature that bypasses DR/magical, then go right ahead in some other thread, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I don't want to argue that at all. As you say later in your post, classes and subclasses have different abilities. For the ranger not to have this ability is no reason for them not to have it. And conversely, for them to have this ability is no reason for the ranger to have it.

No, it adds a meaningless obstacle to accomplish the same thing that literally every other character is able to do 100% passively in some form or fashion.

Why is having to cast a spell a "meaningless obstacle" but having to find a magic weapon not? I see both as quite meaningful obstacles.

Irrelevant. Certain characters are deliberately designed to be able to break DR/magical without having to find a magical weapon. Again, Moon Druid and Monk. And why are they designed that way? Because they are less likely (or not likely) to use weapons at all and thus need some sort of mechanic to let them break DR/magical.

Maybe in part, but they're also designed that way because it carries thematic water for these holy men and women to be imbued with sacred magic in their very touch. Anyone who's watched enough Hong Kong movies expects a monk to be able to punch ghosts and otherwise interact with them in a way most people can't. For a grizzled woodsman -- and not even the woodsman himself, but his furry sidekick? That's much more of a stretch.

It's clear you don't know much about spellcasters in 5e if you think they're stopped by spell resistance. They'll just use plenty of other spells where it's completely irrelevant. Like Wall of Force, Forcecage, Reverse Gravity, any spell with an attack roll as opposed to a save, and the list goes on. A character that primarily relies on physical attacks to do their damage just doesn't have those options. A character who doesn't even use weapons (or only occasionally does) is even worse off if they can't bypass DR/magical.

I didn't say they were stopped by spell resistance. I used your words: "pretty much crippled". Resistance to nonmagic weapons doesn't stop physical attackers either. What both traits do is force the characters to change their tactics. This is healthy for the game. You said it yourself: the caster has to use different spells. And by the same token, the physical attacker might try disarming, tripping, or grappling. So don't try to tell me the physical attacker doesn't have options.

This makes no sense, but OK.

I'll try one more time to explain it before giving up. If I install a lock on my door, but then give everyone in town a key to that lock for free, then I should have just not installed the lock in the first place. It would have exactly the same effect for much less trouble.

Says who?

Seriously? You're gonna challenge me on the principle that class features should be interesting? Okay. Says... everybody who wants an interesting game, I guess.

And certain characters, again, one full class and one subclass (and if the beast Ranger gets edited properly, a second subclass) have those keys already. Everyone else has to work for it. Fortunately, those same everyone elses have other abilities to make up for the fact that they have to actually earn their keys. Classes and subclasses have different abilities. Moon Druids, Monks, and hopefully Beast Rangers get to bypass DR/magical without finding a magic weapon or casting a spell to do it.

Other than inserting some hopeful language about the beastmaster, it's like you're making my argument for me. Why should the beastmaster be one of the classes that gets a free key rather than one of the classes that has to work for it? Why can't it be one of the everyone elses that have other abilities to make up for the fact that it has to actually earn its key -- keeping in mind that you're actually proposing removing one of those abilities in order to give it this ability?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

The pet is magic. Or rather, the RNger is magic, and extends that magic to their pet.

Why does it matter, thematically, if that is modeled by a class feature rather than a spell? The same thing is happening.

Because every other magical ability the ranger has is expressed through a spell. If, as you say, the ranger is extending their magic to their pet, let them actually do that. Consciously, as an action. Not just as a handwave of a passive ability.

 

[FrogReaver]

Because every other magical ability the ranger has is expressed through a spell. If, as you say, the ranger is extending their magic to their pet, let them actually do that. Consciously, as an action. Not just as a handwave of a passive ability.

Why though?

Why must it be done that way and only that way?

 

[Cyber-Dave]

Why though?

Why must it be done that way and only that way?

Because internal consistency is good for the game.

I have been playtesting the UA revised ranger fairly religiously. My findings are that the ranger's damage, after level 5, is a little too high unless you are fighting creatures that have magic resistance, in which case the ranger's damage is a little too low. Our group has removed the proficiency bonus from the pet's damage. This has put my damage range against normal creatures in the normal range. We also gave my ranger a 2nd level spell that works exactly like "Magic Weapon" but which can, instead, be applied to my pet. That fixed the other side of the problem. Using a spell to bypass magic resistance has kept the class's design internally cohesive. I have also found it fun having to keep the tactical implications of a concentration spell in mind when fighting creatures with mundane weapon resistance or immunity. My 2 cents...

 

[CydKnight]

Why though?

Why must it be done that way and only that way?

It doesn't. If your the DM I don't suppose you have to do anything in a way that you don't like.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Because every other magical ability the ranger has is expressed through a spell. If, as you say, the ranger is extending their magic to their pet, let them actually do that. Consciously, as an action. Not just as a handwave of a passive ability.

The Ranger's connection with the companion is already passively magical in ways that require no casting of a distinct spell.

And that is a good thing.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Rather than repeat item by item, I'll just say I agree with Cosmickid. Also, it's objectively not true that 100% of every other character can bypass magic DR. It's also untrue that casters won't be "significantly crippled". It all depends on the situation. For example, a while ago I played a necromancer, and was totally crippled when we ended up fighting a helmed horror. Immune to force, necrotic, and poison? Well, there goes all of my combat spells....

So it absolutely can happen. And does happen. So if you want a pet to automatically have magic resistance bypass, knock yourself out. No one is stopping you. But I don't think it should be baseline because it eliminates one more thing that players have to plan for, and for me, the game just becomes too vanilla if you keep taking away challenges.