well the reason the fighter is getting the scout is because the ranger has magic built inti its core. The fighter is becoming the ultimate dabbler class.
Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: The ranger, revised... overcompensation?
I have found the exact opposite to be true. As a player, if I suddenly said, "Hey! I wan't my Monk to be able to talk to animals and be friends with them at level 1! Can I add that ability?" I can guarantee the the default answer will be "No". Yet this is exactly what you are suggesting that players of Rangers do.
If you have a concept for a wilderness warrior that, inexplicably, doesn't have experience with animals of the wilderness, then you can easily ask to swap that ability out for another. Or just remove it, it really doesn't break the class, it just adds a ton of flavor.
OB1
Jedi Master
I was talking about from the DM side of things. Much easier for a DM to allow an extra than to take away something already there. I do agree it's easier for the PCs the other way around, but again, I'd say presenting PCs with difficult choices when picking archetypes is a great feature of 5e and moving this ability to Beast Conclave only furthers that goal and is thematically appropriate. Yes all rangers can speak with animals (if they take the spell), but only the Beast Conclave is so good at it that they don't have to expend additional resources to do so.
I think I see where you are going, but I still disagree.
If we start with the assumption that the ability is left were it is, then if a DM believes that the majority of Rangers should not have the ability then he would have to take it away to impose his concept on all of the other players.
Conversely, if we assume that the ability is only available to the Beast Conclave, then the DM would have to house-rule that all Rangers get the ability to impose that belief. Which is probably easier than taking it away, as you said.
The problem is that in both cases it is the DM deciding what a Ranger is or is not and then making a house rule to fit his ideology.
However I believe that the player should have more say over their character than the DM. The DM already has complete control over the setting, monsters and themes of the game. By leaving the ability to communicate with beasts as a core ability for all Rangers you give the player more power, and more control, over how his/her character takes shape.
All IMHO of course. YMMV. TTFN. Etc.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
But it forces anyone who wants to play a ranger that is experienced with dealing with animals to use the beast master, meaning they have to have a pet. The spell isn't the same thing. It's not experience in dealing with animals, it's a magical ability to use telepathy with animals, a few times a day. Thematically, those are wildly different.
Leaving it as a core feature allows for Hunters and Stalkers who can calm a beast more easily than a Fighter with Handle Animal could, which makes sense, but also allows the character to ignore the ability, because it's mostly a ribbon, unless you also take Animal Handling.
I do think BM rangers should get an extra benefit, perhaps just auto training in Handle Animal, and Advantage on checks with it to deal with animals of the same kind as your beast, or something.
But the basic, "Wait guys, I've dealt with this sort of thing before, let me try to calm her down." when the party encounters an angry bear, should be a basic part of the class, because it's a core concept of the Wilderness Guy, and it isn't necessarily a magic ability.
At most, I could see making it an optional ability, that can be eskewed in favor of a couple other options, one of which is more appropriate for an Urban Ranger.
OB1
Jedi Master
Ah, now I see. Just a difference of opinion. I don't see the ability to speak with beasts as core to the Ranger, and thus should be a player option by taking a spell or Beast Conclave (or even the Animal Handling skill at the lower end of the ability). Same way I don't see an expanded crit range as core to a Fighter or Second Story work as core to a Rogue. IMHO Rangers are good in nature but that doesn't mean every one of them can speak with animals.
Ah, now I see. Just a difference of opinion. I don't see the ability to speak with beasts as core to the Ranger, and thus should be a player option by taking a spell or Beast Conclave (or even the Animal Handling skill at the lower end of the ability). Same way I don't see an expanded crit range as core to a Fighter or Second Story work as core to a Rogue. IMHO Rangers are good in nature but that doesn't mean every one of them can speak with animals.
But the ability doesn't allow Rangers to speak with animals.
You can communicate simple ideas, like 'fetch' or 'let us pass' and figure out if they are hungry or injured, but you can't talk to them. And how you flavor that can be very different depending on your concept. If you aren't a touchy-feely hippy Ranger there are other ways communicating. You can just size up a bear, give him a cold, unflinching stare and cause the bear to back down. Maybe pick out from subtle clues that it is underfed and probably hungry. Nothing says you have to be Snow White singing to birds and making little shirts for mice.
Bacon Bits
Hero
It means that whenever we're talking about its proficiency bonus, use your proficiency bonus.
To hammer that in, it immediately then starts talking about its proficiency bonus, hoping that you would not already have forgotten the instruction you got 2 seconds ago
Which is exactly where you'd put an exception to the rule. It's easy to read it and say, "Wait, is that supposed to be an exception? I mean, I don't normally add a proficiency bonus to attack and damage." Meanwhile, saying, "Add your proficiency bonus [...]," is not ambiguous. It's more concrete phrasing.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
You feel the Ranger is particularly inclined toward horticulture, and liable to spend their hard earned loot acquiring such possessions? Makes sense.
Similar Threads
