D&D 5E The 'New' Ranger

[FrogReaver]

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.

Yes, it is possible a player may choose all fire spells as a caster. That doesn't mean the class has no way around fire resistance. It means the player didn't choose the options the class had to bypass it. The same goes for your necromancer. The class has those options but just because you don't choose them doesn't make it anywhere near an equivalent scenario.

I think most of us agree that the beast masters ranger needs a way to allow his beast to bypass resistance to non-magical weapons. The question is how to best allow that. Some say a spell. Some say a passive ability. Maybe we should combine the 2 ideas and give him a ritual spell that allows his beast to bypass resistance to non-magical damage for the day? It takes 10 minutes to cast?

 

[Gladius Legis]

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.

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?

I love how you parsed my statement into two separate items as if they weren't part of the same thought. I see you are not arguing in good faith.

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.

What's the point of this tautology?

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.

Because 5e has an established precedent for handling characters attacking without weapons still being able to bypass DR/magical. Making it a spell instead just adds more clutter. And makes it a spell tax. It's an inelegant solution when an elegant solution already exists.

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.

Again, you keep ignoring the part where I've mentioned the ranger's connection with the beast is magical. And what Hong Kong movies pray tell have "monks" or "martial artists" fighting literal ghosts?

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.

Now you're just getting into silly semantics. Also, most monsters that have DR/magical in the first place don't have weapons to disarm, or even might be too big to disarm, trip or grapple. Not nearly as reliable as a spellcaster's good ol' Forcecage.

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.

But you're not giving EVERYONE that key. You're giving one full class and one subclass that key right now, and maybe another one, too. That's not "everyone." Hyperbole makes your argument null and void.

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.

You're begging more questions. What makes an interesting game? What makes interesting class features? Why can't a means to passively overcome DR/magical be interesting? What if the Beast Ranger *gasp* needs that feature to actually BE interesting, or at least be played according to its inherently interesting concept?

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?

Because like the Moon Druid and the Monk, its main avenue of offense is not a weapon. Those two (sub)classes have abilities to overcome DR/magical as part of their package so their character concept actually works effectively in-game. If the Beast Ranger is going to work effectively, then it needs something similar.

If that's difficult to understand, then I can't help you.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Also, it's objectively not true that 100% of every other character can bypass magic DR.

Moon Druids and Monks (past a certain level) = bypass DR/magical

Any other class that uses weapons for ALL the attacks they make (e.g. Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, Rogues, Rangers minus Beast) = bypass DR/magical if they have a magic weapon

So, yes, they do all have a means, in some form or fashion, as I've said, to bypass DR/magical.

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....

Your necromancer couldn't cast Animate Dead? Or any other summon spell? Or couldn't buff one of your physical attackers in some way (e.g. Haste)?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yes, it is possible a player may choose all fire spells as a caster. That doesn't mean the class has no way around fire resistance. It means the player didn't choose the options the class had to bypass it. The same goes for your necromancer. The class has those options but just because you don't choose them doesn't make it anywhere near an equivalent scenario.

I think most of us agree that the beast masters ranger needs a way to allow his beast to bypass resistance to non-magical weapons. The question is how to best allow that. Some say a spell. Some say a passive ability. Maybe we should combine the 2 ideas and give him a ritual spell that allows his beast to bypass resistance to non-magical damage for the day? It takes 10 minutes to cast?

What do you mean, "anywhere near an equivalent scenario"? I was playing a necromancer. It's not unusual for a necromancer to choose necrotic spells (my back up were poison spells). You seem to be assuming that casters have all spells available to them all the time. You have to choose which spells you learn, and which ones you prepare. So unless I knew in advance all the enemies I would be facing (knowing one would be immune to both my necrotic and poison) and choose to learn a fire spell as opposed to one more fitting to my actual class, then I'm sorry, it very much IS relevant. The scenario you're describing seems very unlikely.

Moon Druids and Monks (past a certain level) = bypass DR/magical

Any other class that uses weapons for ALL the attacks they make (e.g. Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, Rogues, Rangers minus Beast) = bypass DR/magical if they have a magic weapon

So, yes, they do all have a means, in some form or fashion, as I've said, to bypass DR/magical.

You're assuming every class has access to magic weapons. That's hardly a given. And in fact in 5e, is not assured at all. Of all the PCs I've ran and seen run at our table, I'd say the average level before getting a magic weapon is around level 8 or 9. Some don't get one until the teens. Heck, my tempest cleric never got a single magic weapon for the entire Tiamat campaign, and i was level 15 when I finished that. I had some magic items, but none were weapons. I can't recall if the rogue had one or not. Maybe the dragonbone dagger or something like that, but it was not until higher levels.

Besides, you said: "...literally every other character is able to do 100% passively in some form or fashion." and that's simply not true because it makes assumptions that aren't 100% chance to occur. So that's an objectively incorrect claim. "literally every other character can bypass magic resistance passively" is not true. I would posit not even most of the time, depending on how your table plays.


Your necromancer couldn't cast Animate Dead?[/QUOTE]

You need dead bodies for that. And my previous skeletons got all smashed up by then. I suppose I could have waited for one of my allies to die and use his bones...

Instead I just used my familiar to use the help action, if you're curious.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

If the champion can get by having the wizard cast magic weapon on his sword, it seems like the ranger could blow some gp's on some custom head gear with attached daggers (in the fang position to the side of the mouth) for the wolf, and then con the wizard into casting magic weapon on the daggers. If it was good enough for Battle Cat in He-man, it should be good enough for the ranger too.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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

You perform a ritual to summon it and you perform a ritual to resurrect it. Those are distinct active abilities, not passive. And while they're not technically spells, they probably ought to be treated as such, because any game that has to make a distinction between "magic ritual" and "magic spell" is really straining its unnecessary complexity budget. The passive features of the animal companion are not magical. They are (a) skill proficiencies; (b) hit dice; (c) ASIs; (d) Favored Enemy; (e) Coordinated Attack; (f) Beast's Defense; (g) Storm of Claws and Fangs; and (h) Superior Beast's Defense. None of these features would be out of place on a totally mundane creature. If I wanted to write a beast-tamer barbarian subclass, I could give its animal these exact features and I doubt you'd bat an eye (except, y'know, at my plagiarism).

So yes, you can give the beast a magical passive ability and justify it because magic. It's magic, and it's a fictional game; you can do whatever you want with it. But a magical ability would be out of place in this collection of nonmagical features. If the animal companion already got features that let it shed light and levitate and speak in tongues, that would be a different story. Then the message being conveyed by the class features would be "you are turning this animal into a magical creature". The message being conveyed by these features, however, is "you have an animal buddy who does animal things". Throwing one explicitly magical ability into these features would be off-message.

And that is a good thing.

We've already had the conversation about ranger magic. Not interested.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I love how you parsed my statement into two separate items as if they weren't part of the same thought. I see you are not arguing in good faith.

Before accusing anyone of dishonesty, you should consider the meaning of the word "especially" and how it might reasonably be interpreted by others reading your argument. "Cake is delicious, especially when it's chocolate" != "Cake is delicious when it's chocolate".

What's the point of this tautology?

You assumed that I was arguing against monks and druids having this feature, and you have also repeatedly cited monks and druids as reason for rangers having this feature. I was succinctly rebutting both points. That I was simply stating the obvious (though not an actual tautology) only underscores the shakiness of your assumptions.

Because 5e has an established precedent for handling characters attacking without weapons still being able to bypass DR/magical. Making it a spell instead just adds more clutter. And makes it a spell tax. It's an inelegant solution when an elegant solution already exists.

That's like saying fireball is inelegant, cluttery, and a spell tax, and it'd be more elegant if sorcerers just got the ability to throw fire as a class feature. Doing the magic thing within the established mechanical framework for doing magic things is more elegant than doing the magic thing through an ad hoc entry in the class feature list.

And what Hong Kong movies pray tell have "monks" or "martial artists" fighting literal ghosts?

You kidding me? You can start with any of the gazillion adaptations of Journey to the West, go into movies like A Chinese Ghost Story where it's right in the name, take a detour through the entire subgenre of jiangshi films (admittedly more zombies than ghosts, but still requiring sacred magic to deal with), and even cross the Pacific for Hollywood's take with Big Trouble in Little China. So yeah, monks vs. restless spirits is a big-time trope.

On the other hand, when ranger-type characters encounter restless spirits in Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones, both of them have to acquire and use magic weapons to deal with the problem. Now, admittedly, Aragorn doesn't have an animal companion -- but Jon Snow does, and it's still the weapon rather than the wolf that's effective against the White Walkers.

Also, most monsters that have DR/magical in the first place don't have weapons to disarm, or even might be too big to disarm, trip or grapple. Not nearly as reliable as a spellcaster's good ol' Forcecage.

So you adapt the tactics to fit the particular challenge. That's the point. Forcecage has size limits too, for what it's worth: anything that can fit into the solid-sided version can also be tripped or grappled by a Medium creature, and the barred version of course comes with its own drawbacks. It's a spell that can be very strong or not so strong, depending on the circumstances, which is what makes it interesting. If it were strong unconditionally, it would be poor game design and a spell tax.

But you're not giving EVERYONE that key. You're giving one full class and one subclass that key right now, and maybe another one, too. That's not "everyone." Hyperbole makes your argument null and void.

Your argument is based on the assumption that everyone gets the key, if not always through a class feature. You call it "the same thing that literally every other character is able to do 100% passively in some form or fashion".

What makes an interesting game? What makes interesting class features?

Players making meaningful decisions.

Why can't a means to passively overcome DR/magical be interesting?

The word "passively" is a big warning sign right there.

What if the Beast Ranger *gasp* needs that feature to actually BE interesting, or at least be played according to its inherently interesting concept?

Then the mechanic that creates this necessity, nonmagical resistance, is bad for the game precisely because it creates this necessity and adds nothing positive to gameplay. You complain about spell tax, but what you're describing here is a feature tax, and you seem for some reason to be enthusiastically in favor of the situation. Fortunately for the game, nonmagical resistance does not create this necessity, and the beastmaster ranger, moon druid and monk would all still be interesting if they didn't get passive ways to overcome it. The monk might lose some conceptual capital because it can't realize the aforementioned monks vs. spirits trope as well as it could. But the druid would be fine, and the ranger is fine. Just like sorcerers are fine even though spell resistance is a thing. And barbarians are fine even though ranged attacks are a thing.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You perform a ritual to summon it and you perform a ritual to resurrect it. Those are distinct active abilities, not passive. And while they're not technically spells, they probably ought to be treated as such, because any game that has to make a distinction between "magic ritual" and "magic spell" is really straining its unnecessary complexity budget. The passive features of the animal companion are not magical. They are (a) skill proficiencies; (b) hit dice; (c) ASIs; (d) Favored Enemy; (e) Coordinated Attack; (f) Beast's Defense; (g) Storm of Claws and Fangs; and (h) Superior Beast's Defense. None of these features would be out of place on a totally mundane creature. If I wanted to write a beast-tamer barbarian subclass, I could give its animal these exact features and I doubt you'd bat an eye (except, y'know, at my plagiarism).

Sure. Because Barbarians are supernatural. Rage is magic.
I wouldn't bat an eye at the "plagiarism", though, because there is nothing wrong with making the two subclasses work the same. In fact, I am going to look into that, now, I think a beast master Barbarian makes perfect sense.

So yes, you can give the beast a magical passive ability and justify it because magic. It's magic, and it's a fictional game; you can do whatever you want with it. But a magical ability would be out of place in this collection of nonmagical features. If the animal companion already got features that let it shed light and levitate and speak in tongues, that would be a different story. Then the message being conveyed by the class features would be "you are turning this animal into a magical creature". The message being conveyed by these features, however, is "you have an animal buddy who does animal things". Throwing one explicitly magical ability into these features would be off-message.

Nah. Wouldn't be out of place at all. In fact, mythical abilities as it levels would be perfectly natural, and is allowed via feats.

We've already had the conversation about ranger magic. Not interested.

Then why continue to have it?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Sure. Because Barbarians are supernatural. Rage is magic.

No it's not. Not RAW anyway. Nor how most people play it I assume. I mean, you can play it however you want, but I'm pretty sure barbarians are not considered supernatural as a baseline (totem sure, but not the core class), and rage is based off of real life historical inspiration, not magic.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Sure. Because Barbarians are supernatural. Rage is magic.

No, they're not, and no, it isn't, but that's missing the point. If you think barbs are supernatural, substitute "beast-tamer fighter" or "beast-tamer rogue" instead.

Nah. Wouldn't be out of place at all. In fact, mythical abilities as it levels would be perfectly natural...

Then why doesn't it get any?

...and is allowed via feats.

Which are optional. I can take a feat to customize my own rogue character to be magical, but that doesn't make the rogue class magical or justify a magical rogue core feature.