D&D (2024) What type of ranger would your prefer for 2024?

[Minigiant]

It was 2E. We've had over 30 years to get better at this. It's really not that hard, it's just not what WotC wants to do. This is 100% "won't" and 0% "can't".

It's like 50%/50% because almost no 3PP has done it either.

 

[Incenjucar]

It's like 50%/50% because almost no 3PP has done it either.

That's still a "won't" unless you mean the designers who lack the experience or math skills to tackle it or something.

I could do it but I already have a D&D class project backlog and a day job and it's weird to spend that much time fiddling with the math of a game I've never played and there are plenty of more qualified folks out there who could actually make a buck off it.

 

[Minigiant]

That's still a "won't" unless you mean the designers who lack the experience or math skills to tackle it or something.

I could do it but I already have a D&D class project backlog and a day job and it's weird to spend that much time fiddling with the math of a game I've never played and there are plenty of more qualified folks out there who could actually make a buck off it.

It's a "wont" because D&D and D&D-likes are always behind the times.

D&D style fantasy today has about 20 different iconic mechanical class fantasies.
Ranger, Druid, and Warlock alone are classes with 3 different class fantasies fighting for supremacy within them.

It takes a lot of investment, willpower,and personal desire to put 20 classes in your PHB.

 

[Incenjucar]

It's a "wont" because D&D and D&D-likes are always behind the times.

D&D style fantasy today has about 20 different iconic mechanical class fantasies.
Ranger, Druid, and Warlock alone are classes with 3 different class fantasies fighting for supremacy within them.

It takes a lot of investment, willpower,and personal desire to put 20 classes in your PHB.

Yep. It's a remarkably conservative corner of gaming. And WotC in particular is incredibly ROI-sensitive. If it isn't the largest possible payoff they can think of, they won't bother.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's not

The core Beastmaster was assumed.

People can't comment on assumptions.

My for picks would be
Feral Spirit (the classic Beastmaster)
Pack Master (the multi companion Beastmaster)
Beastmorph (the Beastmaster who can fuse with their companion)
Fey Speaker (the beastmaster with a fey animal spirit)

Like I said earlier, if WOTC wasn't on a NO MORE CLASSES kick, this class would already be made officially.

So, how is a Fey Spirit different than a Feral Spirit? And is the pack master also commanding spirits, since all the others are spirits?

Also, like how originally there was a non-magical version, that is gone now it seems.

 

[Emberashh]

It's a "wont" because D&D and D&D-likes are always behind the times.

D&D style fantasy today has about 20 different iconic mechanical class fantasies.
Ranger, Druid, and Warlock alone are classes with 3 different class fantasies fighting for supremacy within them.

It takes a lot of investment, willpower,and personal desire to put 20 classes in your PHB.

Tell me about it. My list thus far:

Barbarian; Beastheart, Honorbound, Wardbreaker, Pit Dog
Warrior; Knight, Arquera, Siege Master, Commander
Rogue; Duelist; Sea Dog; Assassin; Ravager
Sorcerer; Fire Caller, Stone Carver, Memetic, Luminary
Wizard; Runescar, Enthraller, Edificer, Augur
Warlock; Curse of the Mask, Curse of the Grimoire, Curse of the Staff, Curse of the Emissary
Necromancer; Path of Bones, Path of Flesh, Path of Spirits, Path of Blood
Conjurer; Harbinger of the Abyss, the Conduit, the Forgotten, of Dreams
Battlemage; School of the Dragon Clad, the Rune Fletcher, the Swear Blade, the War Glance.
Disciple; Disciple of the Palam, Ihsan, Natara, and Apostate
Mystic; Attunement of Space, Time, Mind, and Body
Bard; Tradition of the Skald, the Woadscribe, the Stringsworn, the Gamemaster.
Ranger; Shield of the Green Ward, the Renegade, the Vanguard, the Guile.
Druid; Wrath of the Blizzard, the Thunderbolt, the Dawn, Twilight
Beastmaster; Dragon Rider, Wolf Runner, Bear Keeper, Kraken Guard
Hedge Mage; One of the Rootbark, the Clawfang, the Saltwave, the Sandgravel
Paladin; Conviction of Grief, Cowardice, Mercy, and Law
Cleric; Conviction of Silence, Wrath, Courage, Justice,

And I also have the Pilgrim and Seraphite waiting in the wings but I haven't given much thought to them yet beyond the broad direction behind them as the Divine Mystic and Summoner respectively.

 

[palikhov]

I prefer spell-less ranger as base variant because:

• i can have 1/3 spellcaster ranger
• i can have 1/2 spellcaster ranger
• i can have full martial ranger

And i think that having different options will be good for ranger

 

[Chaosmancer]

But it does present the obvious solution.

Keeping things exactly like the designers have indicated they are keeping them? Yes, that is an obvious thing.

Its a pretty relevant observation to make when you're asserting a very limited scope of what a Beastmaster could be or do.

No, insulting someone ISN'T relevant, it just causes harsh feelings.

Then you should do better than "giant snake thats identical to a bear".

That is what Im talking about with you not being creative.

The Bear and the Snake aren't identical. The class and subclass are identical. Because obviously they would be, because you can't make a subclass for every animal in the book. You can't even make one for every type of beast. You'd be talking about dozens of subclasses, more than all the rest of the game COMBINED.

So you have to consolidate, and once you start consolidating... you need a REASON to break the pattern. This isn't a lack of creativity, it is looking at the material present, and extrapolating from what exists. Currently, all creatures that can fly and all creatures that can swim, and all creatures that walk on land or climb are all handled by a single subclass. If you want to argue that subclass can support an entire class and multiple subclasses, you need to present something beyond "well obviously you are stupid and uncreative if you don't see how this could work."

A Beastmaster may have a favorite beast as a lifelong companion, but it makes sense they can command or otherwise parley with others.

Beast, after all, isn't just a singular noun.



Are these people in the room with us right now?

(And thats without getting into my game and how theres an entire Taming system for just that purpose so any suitably skilled character can do the barebones basic animal companion)

I'm ignoring your game, because your game isn't One DnD or 5th Edition. Your game is rather irrelevant to the discussion. And... yes obviously? I mean, seriously, you want to make a beast master class then ignore the single most popular desire of the people that want that class? How the heck do you think that will go over?!

Like, I seriously struggle to see how you think this is a successful design, if you don't address the people who want Trinket, but not a burden.

That you need to ask just further shows what Ive been saying. You're not even trying.

That you keep insulting me instead of answering shows you have no idea why my point matters, which is not a good sign for this supposed design.

Orrrrrrr, you've got to do a Bear subclass in a way that makes sense in a high power, high fantasy context.

For instance off the top of my head, I could say one could take a Bear sub in a direction based on the ferocity a mother bear has for their cubs.

From there, I can also see the cubs being of use, with the Beastmaster basically keeping the whole family as their companions,

And you've failed to capture what people want from the subclass already. They don't want a family of bears, with the cute fuzzy baby bears fighting to the death alongside their mother.

They want ONE animal companion.

and even before we get into gameplay, thats already created a story a roleplayer can hook into. Keeping a Family of bears and raising the Cubs, only for those bears to eventually leave for one reason or another, leaving the most loyal cub left to start anew? Thats a great story in the making right there.

But then you get into the gameplay, and now Im seeing a bit of a hybrid. Use the Cubs for stealth and recon, but then use the Mother for their ferocity and power.

I envision cubs that could be nearly as stealthy as that wolf pack, but a Mama Bear that could go toe to toe with Dragons all day long. Grappling is an easy direction, and that gives you a variable playstle whether you're on the ground or going vertical, and knowing cubs, they could serve as more substantive Sidekick-like characters outside of the stealth elements, giving the class more versatility.

And thats just the Bears. The Beastmaster, through their connection to them, can start to take on characteristics of both, changing how they fight in similar ways.

None of this fits the fantasy people want. Heck, even if they WANT the bear family (which should be like the wolf pack subclass you want) you are in-building a story of the cubs LEAVING.

Like, you truly don't understand the people who want Beastmasters if you think THIS will appeal to them.

That your idea is to nerf the dragon rather than buff the Bear is sad.

And this is probably due to a backwards assertion that Beastmaster beasts be the literal statblocks, and not unique characters unto themselves.

Like, Drakewarden already showed us the way. That is how Beastmasters, especially in the 5e context, should be designed.

Its no wonder you can't fathom how this would work if you're already kneecapping the design space before you've even started.

If you are designing something, it should be balanced. Flight is a powerful ability, especially when paired with a ranged attack. A flyer with a ranged attack who does more damage and has better defenses than a land-based option is so laughably unbalanced as to be ludicrous. So, if I were to buff the bear... it would have to be tougher and deal more damage... which is exactly the same scenario as the dragon being weaker than the bear.

Unless you YOLO balance, that is just how it has to work. You can't just make one option many times better than the others.

I haven't ignored a single thing you said, unless you think not responding to every single word directly is the same thing as ignoring you.

So what was your answer to python strength versus venom bear?

Yes, the DND Community has issues with the Psionic as a class concept and WOTCs indecisive and non-comittal approach to game design doesn't help that.

That, however, has nothing to do with a relative handful of abilities a Beastmaster would have, most of which, mind you, don't necessarily need to track to any previous or current take on Psionics, as long as they aren't magic.

Going into a rant about WOTCs abortive attempts at Psionics is missing the forest for the trees in regards to delivering a Beastmaster whose connection to their Beast (and vice versa) is more than just that of a reskinned dog.

"most of which don't necessarily need to track to any previous or current take on Psionics, as long as they aren't magic."

So... you want to definetly include psionic abilities.... that don't need to conform to any existing idea of psionics, they just can't be magic... which most of psionics in DnD are magic....

Yeah, that's totally what people will think when you tell them the class will have psionic abilities, something that is completely unlike psionic abilities. Also, again, the whole "the DND Community has issues with the Psionic(s)" isn't just something you can ignore and blame on WoTC being bad at game design. It is a serious problem for any concept rooted in needing psionics, no matter how unlike psionics you make it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm not really into the whole Beast Master thing for TTRPG. I don't think its bad or anything, it just isn't my taste. I much prefer the Dunedain-flavor ranger, where you can sometimes get wild creatures to help you, but you yourself are the primary focus of the action/power.

Rangers should, like Bards and Rogues, gain more expertise and similar proficiencies as they level up. They should also be able to train themselves in bonus proficiencies every long rest, letting them shuffle their saves and skills, because the ranger's whole thing is "always be prepared." You can maybe just keep it to saves, not skills, letting the rogue remain the best skill monkey, and the ranger be the class that thematically uses its wisdom to protect itself from anything. So, you could also make it so that the ranger can add their Wisdom modifier to another save X times per long rest, etc etc. Lots of ways to skin this coat.

But this is a "secondary core" feature. The real thing the Ranger needs is diversity in its new core mechanic, Hunter's Mark. Casting Hunter's Mark should have different effects depending on the subclass. Casting Hunter's Mark with a 4th or 5th level spell slot should also let you add different riders to hunter's mark. This would give the Ranger a pretty unique, engaging, and thematically cohesive core feature, where they know how to "problem solve" their enemies.

Alternatively, if the Ranger had the Hunter class baked into the core, you could have had a robust system of variant actions and reactions the ranger can take on their turn. This works better with a spelless ranger, as it lets you make a martial character with a customizable "kit" of cool martial things it can do. Maybe you load up a # equal to your PB after a long rest, things like Whirlwind Attack or passives like Giant Slayer, etc. Then subclasses could have unique ones that you're always trained to do.

Maybe at level one, a theoretical Ranger could have a choice. You either have Spellcasting or you have the Enclave Secrets (your actions, reactions, bonus actions, and passive traits). This nu-Ranger lets you engage with the fantasay of your choice. Let it choose another save during a long rest and it can add its wisdom mod + pb to that save. Give the Ranger expertise once early on and again in the 6-10 range. This, IMO, is the optimal ranger, capable of satisfying both parties, and lets you fine-tune the ranger to fit YOUR exact vision of it.

Different versions of Hunter's Mark is a really cool idea.

 

[Minigiant]

So, how is a Fey Spirit different than a Feral Spirit? And is the pack master also commanding spirits, since all the others are spirits?

Also, like how originally there was a non-magical version, that is gone now it seems.

Okay here's how I'd describe it in basic terms .

The Base Beastmaster has a beast companion.

• HP: It has X HP were X is a factor of the Beastmaster's level. My personal method is forms, either as laid atop a low CR beast or form a generic stat block.
  • The Chaser has 1d10 HD and Heightened senses.
  • The Raptor has 1d6 HD and can fly
  • The Protector has 1d12 HD
  • The Racer has 128 HD and faster speed
  • The Stalker has 1d8 HD and can Sneak Attack and Hide
  • The Swimmer has 1d8 HD and swim speed
• The Beastmaster can order the Companion to make an single attack at level 1, 2 attacks at 5, 3 attacks at 11, 4 at 15, and 5 at 20.

(Nonmagical) The Feral Spirit's Companion has more HP, deals more damage, can flank, can Trip or Push with attacks
(Magical) The Fey Speaker 's Companion deals bonus Psychic damage, speaks Slyvan, can teleport, and can escape to the Feywild to hp when dropped to 0HP.
(Nonmagical) The Packmaster can get 2-5 beasts dividing their bonus HD and can order them to attack one target or multiple targets in an AOE.
(Magical) The Beastmorph can fuse with the companion usng it's HP as THP and their attacks. They can also hide the beast within themselve or vise versa.

The only mandatory magic would be the Channel Nature to heal and revive the beast.