Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 6664434" data-attributes="member: 6787503">Well, it was just this...It's just not true, which is what I pointed out in my post. Maybe you didn't actually read it? They also had the possibility of attracting a hippogriff or a pegasus as a mount.I brought this up to point out that from close to the beginning (not sure about the Dragon magazine Ranger) some Rangers, not all by any means but some, did have what we'd call animal companions. I don't think ignoring that moves the discussion forward.It was far more likely, however, for a Ranger to attract followers of a more mundane sort, and since 5E generally doesn't grant followers as a class feature (the Paladin's warhorse being the notable exception) I think we can agree that the "pet" should not be the default choice, and is not central to making the Ranger what it is, so we can probably cross it off the list.I don't mind it being a subclass, however, due to how it interacts with what I think is central to the Ranger, which is his identity as a loner. The Ranger is solitary by default, and even when he is with a party, something should set him apart. There is the rest of the party, and then there is the Ranger, the outsider. Think Batman with the Superfriends. He doesn't really need the Superfriends, and he definitely isn't going to ask Superman for help. He is self sufficient and, in fact, he has his own super-group, Batman and Robin, if he ever did need to work with backup. That's what the Ranger's companion is, the distraction, the decoy he sends into harm's way and may have to end up rescuing. By default, however, Batman works alone. So it is with the Ranger.</blockquote>

Verification