Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Another New Ranger Variant

*Deleted by user*

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The thing is

The paladin's steed is a CR 1/2 warhorse, CR 1/8 pony, CR 1/4 elk, CR 1/8 mastiff, or CR 18 camel that never gets stronger. It wipes on less than damage and can't hit the broad side of a barn byy the time you can willing to resummon it when not on downtime. It's effect HP is ~15* the number of 2nd or higher spell slots you are willing to burn on it. And every slot you do use to resummon is is one less divine smite.

Find Steed Warhorse
Acts: Has own actions
HP: 19 +19*slots used to resummon it
Speed: 60'
AC: 11 OR barding
Attack rolls: +4
Damage: 11
Duration: Permanent
Other: Trampling Charge, Can be used as a mount for medium or smaller characters.


Beastmaster Mastiff
Acts: Uses master's actions
HP: 5 OR Ranger level *4 (44 at level 11)
AC: 12 + Ranger's Proficiency (16 at level 11) OR barding
Speed: 40'
Attack rolls: +3 + Ranger's Proficiency (7 at level 11)
Damage: 4 + Ranger's Proficiency (8 at level 11)
Duraction: Permanent
Other: keen hearing and smell. can be used as a mount for small characters.


Neoranger's spirit bear
Acts: Has own actions
HP: 34 OR Half the Ranger level (~52 at level 11)
AC: 11
Speed: 40', Climb 30'
Attack rolls: +5 + Ranger's wisdom (~+7 at level 11)
Damage: 8 + 11
Duration: 1 minute
Other: keen smell.

If you average the AC/Hp, level 11 beast companion is about a CR 4 creature defensively and hits 50% of the time of a CR 11 creature for 8 damage for attack. The spirit beast is a high end CR 1 creature and the found steed is a CR 1/2 creature or worse. As for a necormancer, almost everything undead over CR 2 will keep getting saving throws and eventually breaks free. And the bound planar is very expensive. It's not an equal game and the tradeoffs are there.

A free willed beastmaster beast might not look too bad. But allowing the ranger to get Weapon/Weapon/Beast instead of WeaponBeastBeast each turn can get bad fast. It becomes a virtual free attack each turn without giving up your 2 sharpshooter bow shots or relying on positioning or targeting like the hunter does. It could easily catch a DM off gaurd.

1.) When you write the stats down for the warhorse vs. mastiff, the warhorse still looks pretty good. Furthermore, the most obvious and popular interpretation of the Find Steed text is that the mount is an independent creature which acts as an intelligent mount--and under that interpretation you can take Mounted Combatant to keep him alive, so his hit points don't matter and he's basically a free attack at +4 (or +6 if you picked a draft horse instead of a warhorse) for 11 points of damage, 22 on a trample. If the mastiff were free-willed it would be clearly albeit slightly better than the warhorse when it does not trample; but with it eating a bonus action every turn, the warhorse is still arguably better.

2.) Look closer at the Necromancer's Command Undead. Here are some things that do not break free: Wights, Vampire Spawns, Mummies, Mummy Lords. I'm not sure about Ghasts and Wraiths but I think Ghasts at least have only Int 11 so they don't break free. All of those are better than the Beastmaster's beast (e.g. Wights can create and permanently command a dozen zombies) and the Necromancer can even create his own Wights, Ghasts and Mummies with up to +20 HP and +6 damage on every attack, so he's not even dependent on finding an undead somewhere.

3.) For those who want to improve the beastmaster, here are some potential things you could change:

i.) Allow the ranger to bind any beast of CR = half his ranger level or less. The fact that the Beastmaster RAW cannot have a grizzly bear companion makes me sad because it seems so iconic.

ii.) Give beasts the same action economy as animated skeletons: bonus action to give a new command. This makes perfect sense from an RP perspective: "Sic 'em, boy!" The possibility still exists for the beast to act independently but the player wouldn't control what it does.

iii.) Allow the beast to act independently (under the player's control) but without the proficiency bonus to attacks/damage/etc. unless the ranger is actively directing it via the action economy.

Select any one of the three for your game. None of these "fixes" are primarily motivated by game balance concerns because I think I'm pretty okay with the beastmaster's game balance (and part of me thinks a Beastmaster King Cobra would be awesome to play with, for a while). They all boost the beastmaster's power as a side effect, but not in a way which I personally find problematic. (E.g. I'm perfectly okay with the thought of a 16th level Beastmaster who spends his bonus action commanding his pet Triceratops to attack at +5 to AC/Attacks/Damage.) If I had a player who wanted to play a beastmaster I'd offer him his pick of the three.

 

[El Mahdi]

I took the language directly from an existing 5e rule. Welcome to 5e. Glad you could be bothered to read the PHB.

Which rule?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Which rule?

The Heavy Armor Master feat.

 

[El Mahdi]

The Heavy Armor Master feat.

Ahhh...and Yuck!!!

I've mostly ignored the Feats because frankly, I think they almost universally suck.

Reintroducing 3E DR? Yet another reason for me to not use the PHB Feats. That feat is incredibly clunky; and it's not the only one.

 

[El Mahdi]

How I'd do it to fit in all the rangers...

Not bad. That's a pretty decent start.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Ahhh...and Yuck!!!

I've mostly ignored the Feats because frankly, they almost universally suck.

Reintroducing 3E DR? Yet another reason for me to not use the PHB Feats. That feat is incredibly clunky; and it's not the only one.

It's not the only place 5E uses damage thresholds. Check out the DMG's rules for damage thresholds on structures.

 

[Minigiant]

1.) When you write the stats down for the warhorse vs. mastiff, the warhorse still looks pretty good. Furthermore, the most obvious and popular interpretation of the Find Steed text is that the mount is an independent creature which acts as an intelligent mount--and under that interpretation you can take Mounted Combatant to keep him alive, so his hit points don't matter and he's basically a free attack at +4 (or +6 if you picked a draft horse instead of a warhorse) for 11 points of damage, 22 on a trample. If the mastiff were free-willed it would be clearly albeit slightly better than the warhorse when it does not trample; but with it eating a bonus action every turn, the warhorse is still arguably better.

Well a halfling or gnome can ride the mastif as well so they can do it too and don't die to AOE. Sentinel feat helps somewhat with nonmount beasts. Plus the ranger has access to spells to boost the beast like beast bond, barkskin, stone skin, longstrider, and hunter's mark.

But the mastiff gets a trip on their attack as well it's weak but would proc often with a free willed mastiff. The mastiff hits 50% more that the warhorse at 11. A freewill mastiff outright outclasses the warhorse and the gap only closes if you take a feat and and never get off it.

2.) Look closer at the Necromancer's Command Undead. Here are some things that do not break free: Wights, Vampire Spawns, Mummies, Mummy Lords. I'm not sure about Ghasts and Wraiths but I think Ghasts at least have only Int 11 so they don't break free. All of those are better than the Beastmaster's beast (e.g. Wights can create and permanently command a dozen zombies) and the Necromancer can even create his own Wights, Ghasts and Mummies with up to +20 HP and +6 damage on every attack, so he's not even dependent on finding an undead somewhere.

Whoops a few wights recently. I have a low opinion of them. Necro's captureable undead are very strong though. That feature is wonky. Straight wonky.

Well by the time you get them though, the ranger is one level off him and his pet sharing a cheap stoneskin or proct from energy.

3.) For those who want to improve the beastmaster, here are some potential things you could change:

i.) Allow the ranger to bind any beast of CR = half his ranger level or less. The fact that the Beastmaster RAW cannot have a grizzly bear companion makes me sad because it seems so iconic.

ii.) Give beasts the same action economy as animated skeletons: bonus action to give a new command. This makes perfect sense from an RP perspective: "Sic 'em, boy!" The possibility still exists for the beast to act independently but the player wouldn't control what it does.

iii.) Allow the beast to act independently (under the player's control) but without the proficiency bonus to attacks/damage/etc. unless the ranger is actively directing it via the action economy.

Select any one of the three for your game. None of these "fixes" are primarily motivated by game balance concerns because I think I'm pretty okay with the beastmaster's game balance (and part of me thinks a Beastmaster King Cobra would be awesome to play with, for a while). They all boost the beastmaster's power as a side effect, but not in a way which I personally find problematic. (E.g. I'm perfectly okay with the thought of a 16th level Beastmaster who spends his bonus action commanding his pet Triceratops to attack at +5 to AC/Attacks/Damage.) If I had a player who wanted to play a beastmaster I'd offer him his pick of the three.

I already do ii sorta. The beast doesn't get a turn but it doesn't stop it last command except for Attack.

But my game has more ranger spells.
Animal Growth.
Magic Fang.
Silver Claws
Fang Blade
Cat's Grace

That's the beastmaster's problem. My 3rd edition animal companion was glowing with spell buffs.

 

[Umbran]

Glad you could be bothered to read the PHB.

The Rules. You remember them? Keep it civil. Simple enough language.

Do you think this was a polite, civil approach to addressing your disagreement? Would you appreciate it if others spoke to you in a similar way?

(These are all rhetorical questions. I think the point is made. Please be polite and respectful, even if you disagree.)

 

[occam]

Correct the Action on the special Ambuscade turn can't be Cast a Spell, but you can cast a spell as a bonus action on it, move, and attack. If multiclassed with fighter they could use action surge to gain another action, and with that action use the Cast a Spell action.

Yeah, maybe. When I first read the rule I interpreted it as meaning one could only take an action on the special turn, not a bonus action or a move, and that action was limited to Attack or Hide. After reviewing it I realize I read into it what made sense to me, and I would definitely rule it that way, since a full turn is too much as your examples demonstrate. I feel like that might've been the intent, but if it was it needs to be made crystal-clear.

 

[pemerton]

I don't know about 1st edition, but in 2nd edition, paladins weren't tied to any particular religion.

<snip>

It's the difference between being a holy warrior, like a Knight Templar, vs. being a warrior of a particular religion. Paladins are defined by their virtue and their ideals, not their religion. The PHB2 lists "Roland and the twelve peers of Charlemagne", Sir Galahad, and Sir Lancelot as iconic paladins. All of them are pious and virtuous; none of them is particularly religious in a sectarian way.

I don't really feel the force of the contrast between "being a holy warrior, like a Knight Templar", and "being a warrior of a particular religion". Knights Templar are (or were) warriors of a particular religion - they were Catholic Christians living under a rule authored by St Bernard and modelled very closely on that of the Cistercians. Their principal purpose was to wage war on Muslims. St Bernard writes of the "new knight" that

He is truly a fearless knight and secure on every side, for his soul is protected by the armor of faith just as his body is protected by armor of steel. He is thus doubly armed and need fear neither demons nor men. Not that he fears death--no, he desires it. Why should he fear to live or fear to die when for him to live is Christ, and to die is gain? Gladly and faithfully he stands for Christ, but he would prefer to be dissolved and to be with Christ, by far the better thing.

Go forth confidently then, you knights, and repel the foes of the cross of Christ with a stalwart heart. Know that neither death nor life can separate you from the love of God which is in Jesus Christ, and in every peril repeat, "Whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's." What a glory to return in victory from such a battle! How blessed to die there as a martyr! Rejoice, brave athlete, if you live and conquer in the Lord; but glory and exult even more if you die and join your Lord. Life indeed is a fruitful thing and victory is glorious, but a holy death is more important than either. If they are blessed who die in the Lord, how much more are they who die for the Lord!​

The idea that the peers of Charlemagne, or the knights of the Round Table, are not distinctively sectarian is also puzzling to me. The Song of Roland has Charlemagne and the peers fighting Muslims in Spain. The Arthurian stories are likewise infused with Catholic Christianity.

A non-Christian paladin like Saladin (or an atheist like Sanya!) would be held to the same ideals as Sir Lancelot, and it doesn't matter if a fatwa says he should make wives of his captives by force--he will Do The Right Thing anyway and protect them like his own daughters.

Paladinhood is about strength of character, and virtue, not about what church you go to.

I think there are two things going on here, though they are interconnected.

They are (i) must all paladins be of the same religion, and (ii) can adherents of differing religions nevertheless demonstrate the same virtues? The answer to (ii) in real life seems to me to continue to be a matter of contention in human affairs, and addressing it would violate board rules. I only note the fact of contention to make the point that it should be no surprise if D&D has also had difficulties addressing this question.

In 1st ed AD&D, the PHB draws no very strong distinction between religion and alignment. For instance, in Appendix IV (p 120) we are told that the Outer Planes are "the source of alignment (religious/philosophical/ethical ideals)" as well as the home of the deities. The DMG, written later than the PHB, notes (p 23) that "alignment does not necessarily dictate religious persuasion, although many religious beliefs will dictate alignment". This is a stronger distinction than that drawn in the PHB, but it is not that strong.

The upshot is that 1st ed AD&D is ambivalent on whether or not there can be multiple LG religions, to any of which (or none of which) a paladin might adhere, but the general implication is that the common Lawful-Goodness of these religions is far more important to their character than possibly different names for divine beings, beliefs about holy days, etc.

There is certainly no real scope, though, in 1st ed AD&D, for the idea that two characters might both be LG paladins and also be engaged in religious war against one another - so the attempt to group both the Templars and Saladin as paladins will not work within the published 1st ed AD&D framework. (An excellent article explaining how this might be done, by dropping the alignment system, was published in Dragon 101: "For King and Country".)